Integrated delivery - DivX and Stage6
Online Video hosting and Video on Demand websites have become the mediascape hallmark of the decade. Lauded on a range of levels from a 'democratization' of content delivery away from centralized broadcasters, to a paradigm shift in aesthetic expectations, and even as the medium to kill and replace TV.
Of course the centre piece (by popularity if nothing else) is YouTube attracting some 60% of online video viewers. But whilst the menagerie of YouTube alternatives for the moment duke it out over the remaining 40% there is a compelling argument to suggest that YouTube's days are numbered. Maintaining their massive market dominance is hard enough but what is also taking place is the inevitable aesthetic shift in viewer expectations.
YouTube cultivated a very particular visual aesthetic built off the lo-fi punk culture of mobile phone cameras and a DIY ethos. YouTube's great success was the invocation of pixelation and poor quality as assets rather than drawbacks. The YouTube 'look' quickly became the embodiment of 'truth' and 'actuality'. Even advertising started using the YouTube paradigm as an aesthetic choice for traditional TV broadcast.
Your comments on H.264 were also interesting, but I'm not sure that I fully understand the technological limitations. While there is DivX support in a few cameras, there is a lot more H.264 support for digital camcorders. Wouldn't the encoding process take even more power then the decoding process and if so, why would they be able to get camcorders to support encoding, but have problems with a cell phone or video iPod playing back the content?
Posted by Davis Freeberg on December 13, 2007 at 04:45 AM EST #
Its a bit more complicated to talk about h.264/AVC in regard to end-delivery in the same context as AVCHD used in some contemporary video camcorders made by Sony and Panasonic. Whilst they do share the same base codec (h.264/mpeg4 part 10) they are wildly different in bit rate and stream structure. An AVCHD camera records video in AVC at HD frame size, in a transport stream wrapper at 19 megabits per second. When we talk about delivery of HD AVC on BluRay for example we're in the realm of 6-10mbps in a program stream and if its small frame on i-pod we're down to much less than 1mbps.
DivX is not designed as a codec/format for Acquisition of an image such as AVC can be used for (except in the case of some still video cameras and ultra portable devices such as Archos PMP) Its designed for delivery of a final project.
Encoding AVC is actually no where near as problematic as decoding because, whilst AVC encoding is much, much slower and intensive than DivX, you dont have to watch it in real-time as it processes. When you watch it needs to be encoded very quickly to be watchable on the fly. Thus AVC for playback needs to use comparatively low bitrates as hi bitrate AVC is almost impossible to playback smoothly. As anyone who has tried editing AVCHD video in their software editing systems has discovered, real-time performance drops to almost unusable on anything but very fast systems and even then you can forget about real-time effects.
Ipods and cell phones have no problem with AVC because the encoding is done at a low bitrate that those devices can handle.
the advantage of DivX is even at very hi bitrates the files are very efficient to decode and playback. In simple terms you can have a higher bitrate and higher quality DivX file playback easier and more efficiently than an AVC one. The trade off however will be that the DivX file will be bigger in size. But most of the time not by all that much and in many modern contexts file size isnt so much the problem as efficiency of the decode. We see this same element in On2 codec FLV which is why it and not AVC is the most common codec for web-video streaming. Its plays much smoother, much easier, requires less complex and intensive decoding. DivX is much the same.
AVC/h.264 has a very broad industry suppourt as a format designed to be future proofed; its also got international standing as an open format. This is obviously very attractive to major product developers who might shy away from DivX because of its much smaller proprietary nature. Thats certainly understandable from a strategic corporate perspective.
It can be argued that Moore's Law of ever faster computers will ultimately negate the current problem of decode inefficiency of AVC. But right now the only real issue with DivX is that of two files the same in quality the DivX will be bigger than the AVC and this problem of file size is one that is largely not an issue for most uses. DivX can reduce a feature DVD movie to fit on less than a CD and maintain much the same quality. So whilst AVC waits for computers to get faster to get past some of its encode/decode sluggishness, DivX is viable immediately with super efficiency and its slightly larger file size is just not really a issue in todays technology.
I'm not at alls suggesting that AVC is bad or worse but simply that it has inherent drawbucks that balance its benefits. What DivX offers is a very good alternative for Mobile device, SD and HD delivery.
But more importantly than all this, what i like about DivX right now goes beyond just the codec, its the broad integrated approach they've taken - Codec, Player, Encoder, Certified Devices, Authoring software and online VOD system. Its a very well thought out end-to-end solution. And in this regard is somewhat unique.
Thats of course until Adobe brings its Adobe Media Player fully online and then they will have a very complete package: a great delivery format (FLV) built on two great codecs (AVC and On2) delivered in a comprehensive media player application (AMP) and tightly integrated with all Adobe's creative software tools (PremPro, AE, Encore, Flash, Pshop)
Mike
Posted by Mike Jones on December 13, 2007 at 10:09 AM EST #
Filmmakers are leaving in droves because of the wide-spread deletions. It's a shame that a great codec is being squandered by terrible management.
Posted by Edgar Stevens on December 13, 2007 at 10:20 AM EST #
Posted by Mike Jones on December 13, 2007 at 10:24 AM EST #
Posted by Davis Freeberg on December 20, 2007 at 04:06 AM EST #
You are absolutly deadright about the 'Experience' of DivX and the ecosystem it has being of prime importance, in many ways more important than the compression itself - something i think other developers forget sometimes.
i definitely think thats the strength of DivX right now is its attempt at an end-to-end system from encoding, to playing, to delivery , to hosting.
Hope you stop by digitalbasin again soon.
mike
Posted by Mike Jones on December 20, 2007 at 09:39 AM EST #