Why don't we post h.264 m4v movies yet?

[rycoman]

Is there a benefit to uploading movies in the mkv format? I have been converting my mkv movies to h.264 m4v using Handbrake and the quality is nearly no different and the size is half to 60% of the original mkv file. I think that it's time for this to become a new standard, when an increasing number of us are using Roku or Apple products to watch our videos on, plus it would cut upload and download time.

Your thoughts?

[DngrMs]

mkv and m4v are just containers, m4v is Apple proprietary and mkv is open, m4v supports DRM extensions that are unnecessary for free distribution.

If your m4v file is smaller than your mkv file then it has likely been encoded differently. File size is not a determinator of quality.

[shipwreck]

Matroska (MKV) is not just free, it's an excellent container (indeed) that is actually superior to the proprietary, DRM infested crap you seem to prefer.

When you 'convert' those MKVs using Handbrake, you re-encode the audio and video streams that are inside the MKV container. The overhead of the container itself is negligible, there is hardly a difference between MKV, M4V or similar containers in this respect. You 'gain' space by reducing the bitrate of the original audio and video streams. Depending on the original codec used in those MKV files, this reduction in size can be done with negligible quality loss indeed (there is always a quality loss when lossy compression algorithms are involved btw.). However, if those MKV files are already compressed with a modern, efficient codec like h.264, for example, re-encoding the material and reducing the bitrate by 40% will most definitely result in visible quality loss.

[res0r9lm]

m4v is a crap container. Matroska has better audio and subs.

[mjmacky]

m4v is a crap container. Matroska has better audio and subs.

The more accurate way to say it is that the mkv container has wider support for varying audio codecs and embedded subtitles.