Exploring Matroska: A Container For All Formats
November 8th, 2008 Filed Under Home Entertainment, Home Video, Music and Audio
In 2003, when I first got serious about digital video, I started seeing some very knowledgeable people making references to an open source container (AV file format) called Matroska. At that time Matroska was very much in its infancy and much of the discussion revolved around the idea of emulating the the programming and menus found on DVDs. At least that was the focus of the comments I read. At the time I was just starting to understand DVD technology and didn’t see any need for it.
Saying I was wrong would be an understatement. What I didn’t undesrtand then, which has become clear to me since, is that a format like Matroska represents a future for home video where consumers have the latitude to get the features they want. Until that happens we’re stuck with whatever movie studio heads and CEOs of electronics manufacturers see as the biggest money maker.
Why We Need An Open Source Alternative
To understand what’s so revolutionary about Matroska you need to start by looking at the mainstream alternatives. You may already be familiar with some of them, including Microsoft’s AVI (Audio Video Interleave) which is used primarily for MPEG-4 formats like DixX and XviD and the miniDV digital camcorder format. You’ve almost certainly been exposed to the MPEG-2 PS format with uses ranging from VCD and SVCD to DVD and the typical MPEG (.MPEG or .MPG) computer files. Then there’s the MPEG-2 TS format used for digital television and Blu-ray and the newer MP4 container designed for MPEG-4 video and audio.
So what’s wrong with these formats? Actually nothing. The problem isn’t that they don’t do what they were designed to do. It’s that they’re not well suited for formats and applications. For example, any of the MPEG formats, MPEG-2 PS (Program Stream), MPEG-2 TS (Transport Stream), or MP4 are designed with specific types of audio in mind. Although they also include the concept of ‘foreign streams,’ which are non-MPEG formats like Dolby Digital and DTS audio.
Matroska, on the other hand, is completely format agnostic. That means you can play any audio or video format from a Matroska file as long as you have the necessary decoder. To see this in action you need only look at the current trend in TV captures. DTV streams typically include MPEG-2 video and AC3 (Dolby Digital) audio. Due to the amount of hard drive space taken by the video it’s common to see it transcoded to a more efficient standard like AVC. Since Dolby Digital audio is already highly compressed many people feel the small efficiency gain from transcoding to another format like MP3 isn’t worth the quality loss.
Once the video is transcoded there’s one last issue to deal with. What container should it be put in? You could use the MPEG-2 TS container it was broadcast in but that doesn’t make a lot of sense. The same features that make transport streams good for DTV, robust error correction and the ability to store multiple channels in one signal, mean additional overhead that’s unnecessary and undesirable if file size is a consideration.
Looking at the other available alternatives, and considering AVC is an MPEG-4 standard, it makes sense to put the finished product in a MP4 file. Now we run into big problems. In theory this should work fine because AC3 audio can be used as a foreign stream. In reality there are two issues. Since the standard audio format for MP4 files is the MPEG-4 standard of AAC it’s difficult to find software that supports Dolby Digital in MP4. If you happen to overcome that problem you’ll find that equally few media players will be able to read it. In fact you’ll be hard pressed to find software that can even extract AC3 audio from a MP4 file.
Matroska To The Rescue
Enter Matroska. Since there is no official audio or video format specified for Matroska, AVC video with AC3 audio works just as well as any other combination. And if you do some searching on the internet you’ll find that this is exactly what many people are doing. After several years of development Matroska has come into its own, but not because it does something new or revolutionary. On the contrary, it’s because it does something obvious that the “experts” charged with developing new technology have overlooked.
For all its success Matroska still has one major hurdle to clear. While it’s gaining widespread support in the computer world, the same can’t be said for consumer electronics. If you happen to use a media center computer or HTPC this isn’t a problem. But if you’re among the majority of the population who uses a DVD player instead you’re out of luck. As is often the case in the world of home entertainment, support for what consumers prefer has taken a back seat to supporting what content producers think is best.
If you want to see Matroska succeed the most important thing is to use it. The more people do that, the closer we get to making it a mainstream format. If you haven’t already, I recommend taking a look at Matroska. You can find basic instructions for creating Matroska files in my guide on the subject. For help playing MKV or MKA files take a look at my guides on Haali Media Splitter and ffdshow.
DTV converters elude consumers
August 12th, 2008 Filed Under Home Entertainment, Home Video
If you live in the US hopefully you’re already aware of the impending DTV transition next year. That’s when almost all the analog (broadcast) television signals in the country will be turned off. After February 17, 2009 you’ll need an ATSC tuner to receive over the air broadcasts. If you don’t happen to have a relatively new TV that will mean using a converter box.
Fortunately the government has given out millions of vouchers that will cover most of the cost for a converter box. Unfortunately for many of the people who are planning to use one of these vouchers they’re going to have a hard time actually finding a converter. In fact if you’re planning to go to Walmart, Target, or Kmart to buy yours plan on checking regularly and buying one quickly before they fly off the shelves.
That’s because there appears to be some supply problems that are stopping most retailers from even knowing when they’ll get more in. When they do come in they fly off the shelves within a day or two. Unfortunately that covers all the local possibilities for a lot of Americans.
The good news is there are options available if you know where to look. Your best option at this point is Best Buy. Besides being one of only two national retailers I was able to find that has them in stock most of the time, they’re also the only one I found that sells converters with S-video capability. They also have a DTV Hotline and Order Center where you can order a converter if they don’t have a store close to you. You can reach them at 1-877-229-3889.
Although they don’t sell S-video equipped boxes, Circuit City and Radio Shack are also pretty good options for buying converters. Like Best Buy, Circuit City has them in stock most of the time. Radio Shack is less consistent, but does allow you to order them in-store when they don’t have them on hand.
The real lesson here isn’t about the retailers, or even manufacturers. The bottom line is the FCC’s voucher plan was poorly thought out, and like most parts of the DTV transition hasn’t had any real oversight to find out how it’s working. The voucher value of $40 is too low to cover manufacturing, distribution, and retailer costs. As a result there’s little or no profit in them and therefore little incentive for anyone involved to make them a priority.
Despite his objections, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin has dropped the ball, and we’ve reached the point where it may not be possible to pick it up again in time to avoid a big mess next February. Then again he probably doesn’t care that much. After all he’s probably on his way out after the next President is elected.
Making up the future one guess at a time
August 4th, 2008 Filed Under Home Entertainment, Home Video, Movie Business, Other Commentary
Yesterday I was involved in a discussion of Sony’s misleading claims about Blu-ray’s performance last year. Someone mistakenly thought I was arguing against their claim of Blu-ray dominance by the year 2012. Even though my actual point was about how a company official distorted the actual Blu-ray revenue numbers from 2007, that doesn’t mean I agree with the prediction for 2012.
Actually I’ve seen so many analyst predictions that I tend to simply tune them out. Obviously not everyone ignores them though, so let’s address that issue as well. A good analyst can be an invaluable tool for running your business. Not because they can tell you what will happen in the future, but because they can explain what happened in the past.
The fact is no one can predict the future. It seems like an obvious thing to say, but clearly there are people everywhere who think it’s possible. How else do you explain the way so-called expert opinions about what’s going to happen in the coming months and years get treated like the gospel truth.
Rather than looking at the obvious reasons why no one can tell if Blu-ray will ever become the dominant home video format, let’s look at things from a less hypothetical point of view. What we’re going to consider is the expert analysis of the format war between HD DVD and Blu-ray. Specifically we’ll look at a major development all the experts got wrong.
In 2007 the focus was on winning the format war. It was something of an industry assumption that the only thing standing in the way of an HD disc revolution was the confusion caused by having two formats. And what was the rationale for this conclusion? Simply that DVD appeared to be a flop early on.
That’s right. Since DVD looked like a flop for a couple of years and so did Blu-ray that must mean Blu-ray will enjoy the same success as DVD. That’s not just short sighted. It’s laughable. Consumer electronics history is filled with technologies that appeared to be flops in the beginning - and were. Perhaps the closest parallel to Blu-ray was Super VHS.
S-VHS offered superior image and sound to standard VHS videotape. The VCRs cost more, but also offered improved playback of standard VHS tapes. Of course to get the full benefits you’d need a fairly new TV that many people couldn’t afford, and the media was more expensive. And of course the similarity to standard VHS made it confusing to consumers. It remained a niche product until the demise of VHS at the hands of DVD.
Fast forward to the beginning of this year. After a good year of constant promotions, subsidized disc manufacturing, and generally unsustainable expenditures from Sony to promote Blu-ray it finally defeated HD DVD. And yet sales tanked shortly afterward. Movies have slowly continued to gain in popularity, but aside from the PS3 there isn’t a single Blu-ray player that could be deemed a success by any measure.
Like S-VHS it confuses consumers, many of whom are very happy with what they’re getting from the DVD technology they still regard as new and cutting edge. The vastly improved picture can’t be appreciated on the older TVs many people have, and there’s no move among consumer electronics companies to attain market saturation by introducing real budget models. It also features improved audio that requires equipment most people don’t have and won’t be buying.
On top of all that the world economy has taken a huge hit in 2008, something else analysts couldn’t really predict (although to be honest they had to see it coming some time). Despite a likely increase in home video sales as people stay home en masse, it will be difficult to sell new players to people struggling to pay their bills.
Now does that mean that Blu-ray will suffer the same fate as S-VHS? Absolutely not. When I say no one can predict the future I include myself. Blu-ray is clearly better supported and has more marketing power behind it than S-VHS ever did. But the fact remains its at least as valid a comparison as DVD.
The way things have played out this year makes perfect sense in hindsight, but wasn’t predicted accurately by anyone. With that in mind are you willing to believe the same people who didn’t predict where we are now when they pull more future figures out of their nether regions?
Lies, damned lies, statistics, and Sony
August 2nd, 2008 Filed Under Home Entertainment, Home Video, Movie Business, Other Commentary
Despite all the marketing hype coming from companies like Sony and Disney, Blu-ray’s backers have yet to come up with a good case for the format’s success. Between the inevitable problems with its Mighty Morphin DRM, increased competition from game consoles, and the rise of internet-based video distribution the chances of Blu-ray succeeding don’t seem to be improving. Still, Sony continues to be optimistic - at least in public.
Sony Pictures Home Entertainment’s Tim Meade is claiming Blu-ray will account for 25% of “global sales value of BD movie discs as a percentage of all types” at the end of this year, and in 2011 more BDs (Blu-ray Discs) will be sold than DVDs. Sounds impressive doesn’t it? Until you look closer at what he’s actually saying anyway.
I can’t figure out exactly what he means by “global sales value of BD movie discs as a percentage of all types.” He said that last year it was 9%, which means he can’t be referring to annual revenue. In the US, where Blu-ray had its strongest performance in 2007, Blu-ray and HD DVD combined were outsold more than 50:1 by DVD. I haven’t been able to find any global figures, but they would have to be even lower.
Looking closer it seems that he’s not even talking about an entire year for either figure, but rather some other unspecified amount of time. That would make some sense considering both figures would probably include Christmas and post-Christmas sales when you’d expect new (and expensive) technology to do particularly well.
You could also argue it doesn’t matter what period of time he was referring to. Once you start cherry picking your figures you’re as much as admitting the big picture doesn’t back up your conclusions.
