file format for storing video files (wmv or h.264)

[the_shyguy]

Hi,

I have a bunch of video files that i am storing and want to know out of the following at 640x480, which would be better in terms of file size but still maintaining high quality:

wmv, codec wmv2

mp4(h.264), codec avc1

i realize wmv will be larger file size but is it worth sticking to wmv for the video quality?

[yoda313]

wmv doesn't necessarily mean larger size. It all depends on the bitrate you use.

For maximum portability I would suggest mp4. There is nothing wrong with wmv but it is not as widely accepted on other hardware like gaming consoles or portable mp3 players that support video. However it depends on which mp4 profile you use. There are quite a few variants out there.

I would still suggest storing the source files so you can reconvert in the future should the need arise. Either burn to dvd/bluray as data or transfer to a portable harddrive. Then you can always go to something else later.

Wmv is good for pc use or can be played on an xbox 360. Mp4 can be played on an xbox 360 but requires a specific profile to work. PS3 does mp4 but again requires a specific profile to operate properly.

Edit - what I"m trying to get at is that your final format depends on your required use. If it is just for pc playback than any format really will work. If you want to use it on another piece of hardware or portable player than you will need to adhere to that platforms specific requirements.

[the_shyguy]

okay... 2 more questions:

- which format is likely to last longer ie. not become outdated or superseded?

- i have some additional files provided by a friend that i am incorporating into a movie strip and they provided me with a wmv and mp4 of each... how do i find out which is better quality? the wmv of all of the files is much larger in file size than its mp4 copy...

[the_shyguy]

bump

[redwudz]

Of the two you mentioned, neither will probably be around that much in their present form in the far future. WMV has changed quite a few times and H.264 is still being developed. JMO. MPEG-2 in it's present form will probably outlast them both. A high bitrate MPEG-2 is another choice.

Personally, I wouldn't use any of them for long term archiving. All those codecs mentioned are lossy formats. If you instead use a codec that keeps most of your quality, you can re-encode the files when a better or newer codec comes along in the future. If you have lots of space for storage, maybe HuffyUV or a similar lossless codec would be a better choice for long term storage.

I'm sure you will get differing opinions on all of this.

And please wait a few days before bumping your own topic.

[edDV]

If you think Microsoft will still be around and still supporting old formats then cast your fate with Microsoft.

If you think experimental h.264 formats will be supported by MPeg LA without royalty or legal action, then cast your fate with the lawyers.

[creamyhorror]

If you think Microsoft will still be around and still supporting old formats then cast your fate with Microsoft.

If you think experimental h.264 formats will be supported by MPeg LA without royalty or legal action, then cast your fate with the lawyers.

Isn't this a bit exaggerated? H.264 has been around a good while, and in all likelihood the OP is just doing personal backup, so the MPEG-LA will hardly bother him. H.264 decoders and tools (paid or free) aren't going to go away anytime soon.

[edDV]

If you think Microsoft will still be around and still supporting old formats then cast your fate with Microsoft.

If you think experimental h.264 formats will be supported by MPeg LA without royalty or legal action, then cast your fate with the lawyers.

Isn't this a bit exaggerated? H.264 has been around a good while, and in all likelihood the OP is just doing personal backup, so the MPEG-LA will hardly bother him. H.264 decoders and tools (paid or free) aren't going to go away anytime soon.

It was intended to be exaggerated but after the standard is final, MPeg LA will want royalties from any popular software. They won't be happy with any free software. So far Microsoft hasn't charged end users for wmv ... but they might.

In the USA, any attempt to bypass blocked or encrypted streams is in itself illegal. The Hollywood interests control most of one party and the others are in fear.

So find a standard that is public domain.

[sum_guy]

I remember when quicktime was going to replace avi, then wmv was going to replace quicktime and avi, then, divx was going to kill them all, then h264 and flv was going to kill them all, then mkv was going to kill them all, then mpeg was going to be obsolete, then hd dv was going to dominate and all codecs would be obsolete, then nothing happened and they are all still around (which is why there are massive codec packs out there).

Flip a coin, consult the magic 8 ball, see a psychic, ask Bill Gates, ask Bill Gates psychic, check with Steve Jobs, check with Steve Jobs endocrynologist...

Personally, I would archive to a lossless codec (ie. HuffyUV? pick your favorite) then burn to data dvd or bd disk, or go straight to mpeg on a dvd or bd disk, or buy a massive amount of flash memory sticks of great size and store.

The question is almost like why is the universe expanding, codecs change, formats change, playback devices change, theories of whats best change, the technology changes. Eventually, I'll have a chip implanted with a massive (the size of a small coin) ssd drive hooked up to a pacemaker that runs my artificial heart which doubles as my wireless connection for my 3d artificial vision and blue tooth hologram headset for my artificial commute to work when I've been replaced by robots with artificial intelligence.

This is all tongue in cheek I mean no offense, hopefully you can find the medium that works for you, I still haven't, but it's fun trying them all.

[the_shyguy]

cool cheers... but what about the second question:

- i have some additional files provided by a friend that i am incorporating into a movie strip and they provided me with a wmv and mp4 of each... how do i find out which is better quality? the wmv of all of the files is much larger in file size than its mp4 copy...

[edDV]

cool cheers... but what about the second question:

- i have some additional files provided by a friend that i am incorporating into a movie strip and they provided me with a wmv and mp4 of each... how do i find out which is better quality? the wmv of all of the files is much larger in file size than its mp4 copy...

Mp4 is a container not a video format. What is the codec used? If you want us to guess, go with bit rate (file size).

[jagabo]

i have some additional files provided by a friend that i am incorporating into a movie strip and they provided me with a wmv and mp4 of each... how do i find out which is better quality?

Watch them. That's the only way.

[yoda313]

Use gspot or avicodec to determine the exact bitrate of both files. All things being equal (which is almost never the case in these circumstances) the higher bitrate file should generally be "better" in terms of visual quality. Of course there are many factors involved. Least of which is what method was used to encode and whether or not both were from the original source.

[the_shyguy]

well here is most of what gspot picked up...

video 1:
MP4
431mb
tool - mp4creator 1.5.0.1
codec - avc1
name - H.264/MPEG-4 AVC
bitrate - 2285kbps
frame quality - 0.248
frames - 44,909
length 24:58

video 2:
WMV
862mb
tool - ???
codec - WMV2
name - WMP v8
bitrate - 5565kbps
length 38:05

they both look fairly similar to me on my computer...

[edDV]

So it is h.264 in a MP4 container. Next question.

[edDV]

they both look fairly similar to me on my computer...

But the wmv has approx double the bit rate.

[creamyhorror]

I wonder why the lengths are significantly different.

[edDV]

I wonder why the lengths are significantly different.

I didn't notice that.

[the_shyguy]

yeah i accidentally used different videos... but the difference will be basically the same as they are still from that batch of videos...

so are we saying the wmv is of much better quality?

[creamyhorror]

Only if its bitrate, for the same video, is significantly higher than the H.264 one.

[jagabo]

You cannot compare the quality of two videos by looking at the bitrate unless you know exactly how exactly how the videos were produced. Look at the videos from this post:

https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/295672-A-problem-for-video-experts?p=1811057&viewfu...=1#post1811057

Look at the bitrates before you view the videos. Which do you think will look better? Then watch the videos. Now which looks better? The only way to compare the quality is to look at the two videos. Watch them full screen at normal playback speed. Open them with an editor and step through frame by frame.

You can't even trust what programs tell you about the bitrate. GSpot will actually examine every frame of a AVI or MPG file and report the true average bitrate. But some programs only show the bitrate reported in the header of the file. That information may not be correct. Some look at the size and running time of the video and simply report the bitrate as size/running time.

[the_shyguy]

out of interest here is the comparison of 2 of the same videos from gspot:

WMV:
656mb
File Type: ASF (.WMA/.WMV)
codec: WMV2
Sys Bitrate: 4998 kb/s
Vid:Windows Media Video V8
length: 25:31.313
kbps: 4869
pic: 720 x 480
sar: 1.500 (3:2)

H.264 (MP4):
219mb
mp42: MP4 v2 [ISO 14496-14]
- isom: MP4 Base Media v1 [IS0 14496-12:2003]
Recommended Display Size: 640 x 368
codec: avc1
kbps: 1140
pic: 640 x 368
sar: 1.739 (40:23)

also according to gspot there is 6 seconds difference in the length of the video...?

i can see a small amount of difference in the quality... but it also makes it hard to compare as they are in different resolutions... why would that be? how do you know which is the original size?

[jagabo]

You can't say for sure what the original frame size was unless you know where the videos came from. If they were from a commercial DVD the original frame dimensions were 720x480 (NTSC) or 720x576 (PAL). If they were rips from a Blu-ray disc the original frame size was 1920x1080. If they were VCD rips they were 352x240 (NTSC) or 352x288 (PAL).

[the_shyguy]

well looking at both... the widescreen version (mp4) looks more natural as far as the image... whereas the 4:3 (wmv) looks a little stretched vertically... but nothing to ruin viewing pleasure...

and form the rest of the information is there anything to determine the quality difference... undeniably???

some of these vids i also download and have the choice between the 2 formats... which is the other reason for determining which to go for as the h.264/mp4 is much smaller in file size...

[edDV]

well looking at both... the widescreen version (mp4) looks more natural as far as the image... whereas the 4:3 (wmv) looks a little stretched vertically... but nothing to ruin viewing pleasure...

and form the rest of the information is there anything to determine the quality difference... undeniably???

some of these vids i also download and have the choice between the 2 formats... which is the other reason for determining which to go for as the h.264/mp4 is much smaller in file size...

720x480 in 3:2 aspect (stretched vertically) is the way wide 16:9 DVD is recorded on disc. With proper flags or manual aspect setting, the player will stretch the video horizontally into ~852x480 16:9.

Your 640x368 is approximately 16x9 square pixel but much lower resolution.

As Jagabo said above, actual quality depends more on the way the source was encoded but if the source was the same, the resolution and bit rate advantages favor the wmv.