MPEG4 and variants, why .avi

[Faustus]

Why do we do this? DIVX, XVID, Actual MPEG4. Its all based on mpeg4 so why does everyone (including me) not hessitate to name them AVIs?


google reveals more info...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVI

Continued use despite obsolescence

AVI is considered by many to be an outdated container format. There is significant overhead when used with popular MPEG-4 codecs (XviD and DivX, for example), increasing file size more than necessary. The container has no native support for those codecs' modern features like B-Frames; to circumvent this problem, cumbersome hacks are used, causing incompatibilities in some players. Hacks are also used to implement subtitles. The highly efficient H.264 codecs add even more compression tricks to the mix, and thus are even more ill-suited to the format, particularly Main and High Profile.

Despite its limitations and the availability of more modern container formats (see MKV and MP4), AVI remains popular among file-sharing communities. This is probably due to it still being treated as a first class citizen in Windows Media Player, the main front-end for DirectShow. The tendency has been to install codec packs like ffdshow to augment DirectShow, using AVI as a common-ground, lowest-common-denominator format. Ironically, while the codec/container incompatibilities mentioned in the above paragraph have undermined AVI's near-ubiquity, the obscurity and tech-savviness of those involved in the file-sharing groups has rendered this irrelevant.

In June 2005, DivX, Inc. has released its own container format called DivX Media Format (.divx extension) to succeed the AVI + DivX combo. However, this format is basically an enhanced AVI format (based on the same RIFF structure) and so far, has gained no perceivable traction in file-sharing communities, where DivX codec is popular.

[mats.hogberg]

Because the AVI container is (compared to other a/v containers) universally supported in both hardware and software players?

/Mats

[celtic_druid]

Exactly. At the time, mp4 wasn't a possiblity and even ogm didn't exist so people used avi. Fast forward and there are plenty of tools for mp4 and mkv. But very little mp4 support (some Nero Digital certified SAP's and the iPod (PSP doesn't cound since it requires modified atoms)) and essentially no mkv support.

Guess you could basically blame DXN. DivX 5.x had non spec compliant mp4 output, which was a start. They could have pushed in that direction, but they didn't.

Hopefully we can avoid the same situation with AVC/H.264. Still some people who insist on storing it in an avi container though.

[Faustus]

It would just seem like more and more stuff is supporting MP4. Wouldn't now be the time to switch?


I'm not obsessed with it or anything but I had long wondered why we still use AVI and upon looking it up found a lot of people saying the same thing.