| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
DoCoMo abandons Microsoft video format in favour of open standard for 3G service | |
|
||
| Time: 06:58 EST/11:58 GMT | News Source: CW360° | Posted By: Bill Roach | ||
|
NTT DoCoMo is switching from a Microsoft video format to an open industry standard for its video-on-demand service offered over its third-generation cellular network. The company is dropping the use of ASF (Advanced Streaming Format) on its I-motion service in favour of MP4, a wrapper format for MPEG4 video and audio and text, because of the cost of licensing fees levied for use of the system by Microsoft, according to an NTT DoCoMo spokeswoman. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 26 through 50 of 242 Prev | Last | Next |
The time now is
9:55:04 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #26 By 7746 (213.93.165.232) at 12/19/2002 2:55:26 PM |
|
Guys. NTT DoCoMo is a mobile phone provider.
The more data is send, the more money it cost. Either by charging data transfered or the longer time that is needed for sending. Economics! |
| #27 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 12/19/2002 4:44:53 PM |
|
Okay, parker, you just proved my point: you do not understand the architectur of mpeg-4. Why you don't get it, I don't know: but here it is, plain and simple: I can record an audio file in AAC format and using an mpeg-4 encoder save it as an .mp4; I can create an H.264 using an mpeg-4 encode and save it as an .mp4; I can make a 3GPP file using an mpeg-4 encoder, and save it as an .mp4. All of these files ARE mpeg-4 files. DO you get it yet? All of these files will play through an mpeg-4 decoder, they will have an mp4 extension, but they could be many different types of file. Do you get it yet? mpeg-4 is not just mpeg-4. mpeg-4 is the Quicktime wrapper format allowing mpeg-4 to be many, many types of file formats. Do you get it yet?
And for good measure, one more time, do you get it yet? This has nothing to do with mpeg-2, or mp3, or mpeg-7, or mpeg-10... This has to do with the technology added to the mpeg standard by Apple to enable the format to be a wrapper for many file types. Do you get it yet? |
| #28 By 116 (129.116.86.41) at 12/19/2002 4:57:06 PM |
|
Soda there are no high end HD titles available (1080i). However all games except very few are 480p (something the PS2 can't do or Gamecube - I consider 480p to be a HD format). A few games do 720p (another HD format). Almost none do 1080i except for Dragons Lair which to my knowledge is the only title out so far for that.
Sorry for not being more clear. Its hard to remember that everyone doesn't know the different flavors of HD. Peace, RA This post was edited by RedAvenger on Thursday, December 19, 2002 at 16:57. |
| #29 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 12/19/2002 6:24:21 PM |
|
Red,
"Digital broadcasts in 480-i or 480-p are classified as "SDTV" (Standard Definition). SDTV has a sharper, crisper picture than NTSC-analog TV. It is superior to analog because the transmitted signal is digital. SDTV can be either (480i) or (480p) but is more often 480p. On smaller (direct-view) TV sets, 480p is noticeably better than the analog 480-i, but on the much larger, "projection" sets, SDTV can not compare to High-Definition-Television's 720p, or 1080i formats." i.e. "a few games" are HDTV. I know my flavors of HDTV. Peace Out. |
| #30 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 12/19/2002 7:13:13 PM |
|
No, parker, you are the dumb ass. mpeg-4 works the same way as QT does. Didn't you read any of the stories I linked to? I'm getting VERY, VERY tired of repeating myself. There is no need to confuse the two... QT will have a larger set of files, but mpeg-4 will also have many files in its wrapper, dumbass.
Here are quotes: "Last month, the section of the Moving Picture Experts Group responsible for the digital-audio portion of the sprawling MPEG-4 digital-media standard said it was recommending an addition to its existing audio guidelines." "3GPP is built on the MPEG-4 standard for the delivery of digital audio and video to PCs, set-top boxes and wireless devices. " "Among groups anticipating the codec's completion is the Moving Pictures Experts Group, an ISO/IEC working group responsible for the MPEG-4 audio-visual standard." MPEG-4, MPEG-4, MPEG-4!!!! MOOORRRROOON!! Not Quicktime. Learn to read, or comprehend, or something because I could have a better, more intelligent conversations with a pubic hair. |
| #31 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 12/19/2002 7:35:02 PM |
|
How's this for you dumbass, with relevent portions bolded, from http://www.m4if.org/resources/Overview.pdf:
"MPEG-4 Version 1 was approved by MPEG in December 1998; version 2 was frozen in December 1999. After these two major versions, more tools were added in subsequent amendments that could be qualified as versions, even though they are harder to recognize as such. Recognizing the versions is not too important, however; it is more important to distinguish Profiles. Existing tools and profiles from any version are never replaced in subsequent versions; technology is always added to MPEG-4 in the form of new profiles. Figure 3 below depicts the relationship between the versions. Version 2 is a backward compatible extension of Version 1, and version 3 is a backward compatible extension of Version 2 – and so on. The versions of all major parts of the MPEG-4 Standard (Systems, Audio, Video, DMIF) were synchronized; after that, the different parts took their own paths. The Systems layer of Version later versions is backward compatible with all earlier versions. In the area of Systems, Audio and Visual, new versions add Profiles, do not change existing ones. In fact, it is very important to note that existing systems will always remain compliant, because Profiles will never be changed in retrospect, and neither will the Systems Syntax, at least not in a backward-incompatible way." The freezing that you are talking about is for device makers, maufacturers of DSPs, etc... It is a huge advantage... This means that camera makers, satellite providers and makers, etc... have understood the basic underlying objects for three years. This does not mean that new format profiles are not being added on virtually a daily basis, dumbass. |
| #32 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 12/19/2002 7:41:09 PM |
|
Also, check out page 15, section 4 "Extensions Underway"---most of these have been approved now... and page 16, section 5 "Profiles in MPEG-4" to see how "Profiles" are the underlying objects used to represent different file formats (or what they call "extensions") to the core of mpeg-4.
Got it yet? |
| #33 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 12/19/2002 8:29:48 PM |
|
dumbass, you don't get it: what mpeg-4 introduced (besides improvements to compression and quality) was the ability to wrap numerous formats into it. This is what QT is, and why I say they work the same way.
For some reason, you have ignored the last fifteen posts I have made so I'll presume you are a deaf, dumb, and blind moron. "I don't care that 3GPP is going to use a 3 year old spec to base itself on, it has nothing to do with updating the MPEG-4 codec/standard." 3GPP isn't based on an old spec--it's a new spec ADDED to what you are considering an old spec--when in fact, it was the baseline objects (profiles) that were locked in 98. This does not prevent the addition of adding new profiles and extensions (file formats). It has everything to do with UPDATING mpeg, fool. Can't you read this article and the CNET article about 3GPP being ADDED to mpeg. What the hell, don't you understand? (Maybe I should be asking what you DO understand.) Can't you read? "3GPP is specification telling mobile phones how to deal with MPEG-4." No, it's not. It's a transport specification for mobile media. It has been ADDED to mpeg-4. "It is not an alteration of the MPEG-4 standard you twit!!!" Yes, and no. It doesn't alter mpeg-4 exactly, but it does ADD to it, dumbass. "And if the MPEG group alters the audio specs, that means that current MPEG-4 players will ignore that standard until they are updated." And this is a simple update. "None of your bull alters the fact that MPEG-4 is old technology compared to WM9." No, mpeg is an extensible format--WM9 is the one which is locked and will have to wait for updates. Hell, I still don't understand why WMP treats video, audio, and other formats the same, but there are two different file formats--that is sooo 90s. Parker, you do not understand the media format... That's sad, because it should have been obvious a long time ago now. I have no hope that you'll ever understand. |
| #34 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 12/19/2002 8:34:52 PM |
|
Seriously, man, I have faith in humn intelligence, so what is making you stupid as a rock? What about this one example do you not understand:
"4.1.1 New Video codec: "MPEG-4 Advanced Video Coding" Work is ongoing on MPEG-4 part 10, ’Advanced Video Coding’, This codec is being developed jointly with ITU-T, in the so-called Joint Video Team (JVT). The JVT unites the standard world’s video coding experts in a single group. The work currently underway is based on earlier work in ITU-T on ’H.26L’. H.26L and MPEG-4 part 10 will be the same. (H.26L will be renamed when it is done. The final name may be H.264, but that is not yet sure). MPEG-4 AVC/H.26L is slated to be ready by the end of 2002." There are other extensions also on the way. It is a wrapper format... thanks to the technology provided by Apple (from QuickTime). [I know I shouldn't have mentioned those last bits because it'll confuse you again, but this is the way it is--come on, challenge your brain to comprehend.] |
| #35 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 12/19/2002 8:41:29 PM |
|
No, dumbass, read what I posted above. Versioning is "not too important." This is still mpeg-4. It is not a new format. Yes, it is a new codec ADDed to the format. There are a number of codecs to MPEG-4. They will know how to encode and decode because the underlying objects used are already there. This is the mpeg advantage, dumbass.
H.264 is being ADDED, dumbass. It's not superceding it, the decision has been made.. so it doesn't matter if people use ASP (Advanced Simple Profile) or H.264.... MPEG-4 will include BOTH; they are just different PROFILES. Why can't you understand? I could probably teach a plant to walk before you get this point. Also, I note that you glossed over the portion in the EETimes story that says that H.264 kills WM9. How come? I'm going out for the night... I'll toast one on you since you've built up my thirst, moron. Cheers. This post was edited by sodajerk on Thursday, December 19, 2002 at 20:46. |
| #36 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 12/19/2002 8:45:21 PM |
|
Hell, I love how you point out that we're on part 10... DOn't you get what that's saying? Part 1 and 2 are the underlying parts. You said part 2 was locked in 98. Do you see where this is heading? Each other part is an extension of functionality. So if that's the case... come on, buddy, I hear those gears a-turning.... has mpeg-4 been added to? How 'bout parts 3,4,5,6,7,8,9? Hmmm? Would you say that new codecs have been added to the mpeg-4 format sicne then? Has this created incompatibilities? Come on, you know the answers? The versioning of mpeg-4 is irrelevent as the nice quote above said. Each part number doesn't introduce conflicts because the underlying layers of objects are the basis for these new parts. Each new layer is fully backward compatible. This post was edited by sodajerk on Thursday, December 19, 2002 at 20:47. |
| #37 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 12/19/2002 8:52:48 PM |
| what you are referring to is the SP and ASP profiles. This isn't all that mpeg-4 is, dumbass. H.264 is not compatible with ASP, yes. I have no problem with that statement. mpeg-4 encoders or decoders released with H.264 compatibility can play all of these formats. Are we getting there now? I feel we're close... I feel as if I am watching a single-celled organism form from the primordial ooze... what was that? Oooo... did I hear a brain cell pop? |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 26 through 50 of 242 Prev | Last | Next |
The time now is
9:55:04 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
