[FFmpeg-devel] [Ffmpeg-devel] [PATCH] FAQ entry for videojoining

Michel Bardiaux mbardiaux
Wed Jun 6 14:26:01 CEST 2007

M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> Michel Bardiaux wrote:
>> Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>>> Hi
>>>>> at ffmpeg-user.
>>>> And if you know the rationale for MPEG4 *not* being good for
>>>> concatenation, please add that too in that patch!
>>> MPEG4-ES is fine for concatenation
>> Is that -vcodec mpeg4 -format m4v in ffmpegese?
> Something like that.
>>> MPEG4-ES in MPEG-PS is also fine
>> -vcodec mpeg4 -format mpeg, right?
> If memory serves, yes.

Which a question:

What about changing the 'name' field of AVInputFormat & bros. to a list 
of char*, so that we can have both aliases "m4v" and "mpeg4-es".

>> Whatever is used for digital-TV in MPEG4 should also work, no? What is it?
> Nobody uses MPEG4 part 2 for digital TV.  If they did, they'd be using
> MPEG2 TS though.  And yes, it works fine to cat such files.

If mpeg4-es (video only), mpeg4-es in mpeg-ps, and mpeg4-es in mpeg2-ts 
are usable for concatenation, I wonder why Michael did not propose them 
when reviewing the patch?

> When MPEG2 isn't good enough, broadcasters generally use H.264.  MPEG4
> never caught on for primarily two reasons: it's not significantly better
> than MPEG2 at broadcast quality, and the licensing terms are insane (per
> minute of content royalty fees and such).
Sanity check: when one talks of MPEG4 here, one means "MPEG4 Part 2"; 
while one never talks of "MPEG4 part 10", only of H.264.

But when one reads all the pages found by Googling for "mpeg4 dtt", ie 
about the use of MPEG4 in Digital Terrestrial Television in France and 
UK, all mentions of MPEG4 there means "Part 10" (H.264), not "Part 2" 
(roughly, DIVX). Correct?

And is H.264 usable for concatenation? In which container(s)?

Michel Bardiaux
R&D Director
T +32 [0] 2 790 29 41
F +32 [0] 2 790 29 02
E mailto:mbardiaux at mediaxim.be

Mediaxim NV/SA
Vorstlaan 191 Boulevard du Souverain
Brussel 1160 Bruxelles

More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list