720p/1080p playback

[zot]

OK, since I'm already logged in to see the above URL (free-codecs.com/download/codec_tweak_tool.htm) I'll just keep going ...

I've got to wonder why the functionality of something like Codec Tweak Tool was not built into the operating system (even as a Tweak-UI type add-on) as dealing with codecs --like software drivers-- has always been a bit dodgy.

One of my biggest complaints is finding only HD-quality releases (which don't work well -if at all- on old computers) so I'm wondering what the best solution would be to get something less processor-hungry. Maybe a comparison chart of codecs resource efficiency? Or is there anything that will "down-convert" (without re-encoding) a HD video to make it watchable on weak hardware?

[mjmacky]

One of my biggest complaints is finding only HD-quality releases (which don't work well -if at all- on old computers) so I'm wondering what the best solution would be to get something less processor-hungry. Maybe a comparison chart of codecs resource efficiency? Or is there anything that will "down-convert" (without re-encoding) a HD video to make it watchable on weak hardware?

There is a difference between old hardware and weak hardware though. For instance I can play HD videos on both my phone (1 GHz Hummingbird) and on my 1 GHz dual core laptop (AMD C-50). Hardware decoding makes all this possible.

About your question on whether there is something you can do to the file to make it playable with lesser resources WITHOUT transcoding, and the short answer would be no. Now that I've crushed all your hopes, let me present a recommendation that would oppose that no. If the file is an MKV, you can try muxing the audio and video stream into an MP4 container and see if that helps. I'm assuming that you also have an older graphics adapter which wouldn't support hardware acceleration anyway.

EDIT: The tools you would need for that are MP4Box and possibly MKVextract. I don't use these tools on their own, they are implemented into MeGUI and Mediacoder, and would take a little while getting familiar with to perform these specific tasks.

[zot]

Also the fact that virtually all high-end video cards in the pre-HD era were optimized for 3-D video games rather than 2-D video movies.

What I was thinking of was a software video player (or tweak) that would, for instance, skip every other frame, or skip every other pixel. Essentially the video equivalent of a printer's "draft mode". At least in concept, something like that should not be very hard to program.

[mjmacky]

What I was thinking of was a software video player (or tweak) that would, for instance, skip every other frame, or skip every other pixel. Essentially the video equivalent of a printer's "draft mode". At least in concept, something like that should not be very hard to program.

Conceptually that would be sort of difficult given the nature of how the codec works. With almost all the frames being differentially coded with respect to other frames, that's where the work is. Figuring out which frames to properly skip would seem to add more work in the chain rather than reducing it. Given that most frames in the types of video we're talking about are comprised of B-frames (they rely on information from both earlier and later frames), you couldn't really start eliminating frames. So what I'm saying is that the video would have to be encoded in a way where there's information in the bitstream aiding in that decision process (so that reference frames still get processed). Since they are not encoded in a way to tell the player which frames are safe to skip, any frame and/or pixel elimination would start leading to deprecated playback even if it did work without crashing, to which I ask, what's the point of grabbing an HD x264 video when there are XVID alternatives?

When it comes down to each encode, playback performance depends on a number of things. The more optimized or efficient the encode, the more processing required to decode it. Videos with CABAC, and large number of reference frames and consecutive b-frames in addition to being a large resolution will require some processing power. If instead, the video was encoded at higher bitrates, using CAVLC instead of CABAC, < 4 Ref frames, < 4 consecutive b-frames, it would be much easier to playback on lower systems and you can still get all that visual quality you're probably seeking.

None of this might be of any help to you, but then again I'm not exactly sure if you're looking for any help. Actually, I think I've forgotten your question completely. Why would an encoding option be completely out of the picture for you?

[zot]

what's the point of grabbing an HD x264 video when there are XVID alternatives?

For many titles there are no xvid (or low-resolution x264 MP4) alternatives, so anyone using old hardware is simply S.O.L. -- and sadly this trend keeps getting worse.

Music releases are similar. I prefer MP3 to FLAC, but often only FLAC is available. (but in this case I can easily live with it)

Why would an encoding option be completely out of the picture for you?

Hardware that strains and stumbles processing HD video is going to be a poor choice for re-encoding as well -- which anyway, takes time to complete even on fast PCs. Another point is that it can be hard to [initially] tell the difference between a 1080p and a fake when they both play exactly the same on old hardware.

It's this "HD is God" mindset that baffles me more than anything else. I can understand the importance of high resolution when dealing with movies that are primarily visual in nature and use high-detail special effects. But 1080 resolution is a practically worthless "enhancement" on a lot of shows like news programs, radio shows, and interviews that can be watched in low resolution "thumbnail" windows just as well. But maybe some viewers insist on being able to count the pores on a person's face -- I don't know.

I'm just glad that YouTube and other video sites has low-res versions of all videos.

[mjmacky]

For many titles there are no xvid (or low-resolution x264 MP4) alternatives, so anyone using old hardware is simply S.O.L. -- and sadly this trend keeps getting worse.

Music releases are similar. I prefer MP3 to FLAC, but often only FLAC is available. (but in this case I can easily live with it)

Why would an encoding option be completely out of the picture for you?

Hardware that strains and stumbles processing HD video is going to be a poor choice for re-encoding as well -- which anyway, takes time to complete even on fast PCs. Another point is that it can be hard to [initially] tell the difference between a 1080p and a fake when they both play exactly the same on old hardware.

It's this "HD is God" mindset that baffles me more than anything else. I can understand the importance of high resolution when dealing with movies that are primarily visual in nature and use high-detail special effects. But 1080 resolution is a practically worthless "enhancement" on a lot of shows like news programs, radio shows, and interviews that can be watched in low resolution "thumbnail" windows just as well. But maybe some viewers insist on being able to count the pores on a person's face -- I don't know.

I'm just glad that YouTube and other video sites has low-res versions of all videos.

Sure it might take a little while on a low end machine, but encoding at standard resolution with some settings optimized for speedy encoding won't take an eternity either. I'm more baffled by this lack of content in XVID you speak of. I know that standard x264 has yet to come around, but I've only found that if no other version is available, there is at least an XVID. I wouldn't mind seeing it die off, but only if it's replaced with x264 SD.

1080p is also pretty pointless if your display is under 55". I have no observable complaints of 720p, so I tend to stick with that exclusively. I get annoyed if 1080p is the only transparent copy available.

[zot]

I'm more baffled by this lack of content in XVID you speak of. I know that standard x264 has yet to come around, but I've only found that if no other version is available, there is at least an XVID.

I would agree that divx/xvid has been by far the most common release format, especially among Scene groups, but I could also provide a long list of titles that were (at least at the time) only available in the much-larger DVD or x264 format. Many are old movies released by non-scene hobbyists.

To name just one example, try looking up NZBs for the 1962 film "How the West Was Won" - starting with the oldest (1200 day) retention. Notice how it took several years before someone finally posted the first XVID copy of that film.

Or try the 1985 film Emerald Forest. The title has an unwatchable mega-pixelated 1-CD divx release, and a DVD-R release. So basically no (decent) divx/xvid to be found.

[mjmacky]

I would agree that divx/xvid has been by far the most common release format, especially among Scene groups, but I could also provide a long list of titles that were (at least at the time) only available in the much-larger DVD or x264 format. Many are old movies released by non-scene hobbyists.

To name just one example, try looking up NZBs for the 1962 film "How the West Was Won" - starting with the oldest (1200 day) retention. Notice how it took several years before someone finally posted the first XVID copy of that film.

Or try the 1985 film Emerald Forest. The title has an unwatchable mega-pixelated 1-CD divx release, and a DVD-R release. So basically no (decent) divx/xvid to be found.

Older titles, I could see that. I'm not really wanting to ask another obvious question, but what's wrong with the DVD-R?

[zot]

Older titles, I could see that.

How about current TV shows as well? Or non-Hollywood films? Sometimes I find that the only copy posted is a 720 x264, and occasionally even a lone 1080 release. Many categories of content that were not available in DIVX - not just "older titles"

I'm not really wanting to ask another obvious question, but what's wrong with the DVD-R?

Download speed. Streaming ability. Drive space. Also the fact that many set-top DVD players now support common "pirate" video file formats.

[zot]

I hope I answered all your questions, mjmacky - I was starting to wonder if they would end.