I'm looking at two short video clips, one an AVI file and the other an ASF file: The FourCC code on the AVI file is "mpg4", and on the ASF file it's "mp43". I have neither of these codecs installed on my computer. Here is what is happening:
1) Neither file will open in VirtualDub (AVI in 1.4.10, ASF in 1.3c). Both generate error messages specifying the missing codecs.
2) DivX Player (2.0 Alpha) will not open the AVI file and gives no message specifying why. (It of course does not handle ASF at all.)
3) Both Windows Media Player (6.4.07.1112) and the RadLight (3.03 [R5]) player will play both videos (although RadLight renders both the video and audio with far better quality).
4) In AutoPlay Menu Studio (which only supports AVI directly), the AVI file will play audio but not video, but does identify the missing codec.
Question: Why the vast differences in the way these files are handled by these programs? In other words,
a) If the codecs are not there, how can any of them play these files, and, if some of them can, why can't all?
b) Given the same input video, how does RadLight produce such superior quality? Both MUST be using SOME codec; is it that they are using different ones, or is it that their programming is that different? [Note: My installed codecs are VDOM, CVID, IV31 and IV32 (same DLL), MSVC, MRLE, M263, M261, IV50, and DIVX (5.0.1).] And if it is the latter, how would that effect my encoding if my videos were primarily going to people with only the Windows Media Player?
1) Neither file will open in VirtualDub (AVI in 1.4.10, ASF in 1.3c). Both generate error messages specifying the missing codecs.
2) DivX Player (2.0 Alpha) will not open the AVI file and gives no message specifying why. (It of course does not handle ASF at all.)
3) Both Windows Media Player (6.4.07.1112) and the RadLight (3.03 [R5]) player will play both videos (although RadLight renders both the video and audio with far better quality).
4) In AutoPlay Menu Studio (which only supports AVI directly), the AVI file will play audio but not video, but does identify the missing codec.
Question: Why the vast differences in the way these files are handled by these programs? In other words,
a) If the codecs are not there, how can any of them play these files, and, if some of them can, why can't all?
b) Given the same input video, how does RadLight produce such superior quality? Both MUST be using SOME codec; is it that they are using different ones, or is it that their programming is that different? [Note: My installed codecs are VDOM, CVID, IV31 and IV32 (same DLL), MSVC, MRLE, M263, M261, IV50, and DIVX (5.0.1).] And if it is the latter, how would that effect my encoding if my videos were primarily going to people with only the Windows Media Player?
Comment