Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Container vs Codec
5 views
Skip to first unread message
Joe
Mar 30, 2012, 10:02:09 PM3/30/12
to
I just found something that reminds me of the "explanations" that I have
seen so far of, especially, "Container" of a video.
"In the beginning there was nothing. God said, 'Let there be light!'
And there was light. There was still nothing, but you could see it a
whole lot better."
:)
--- Joe
seen so far of, especially, "Container" of a video.
"In the beginning there was nothing. God said, 'Let there be light!'
And there was light. There was still nothing, but you could see it a
whole lot better."
:)
--- Joe
dorayme
Mar 30, 2012, 11:06:10 PM3/30/12
to
In article <none-E606A7.1...@earthlink.us.supernews.com>,
So share it, don't keep that religious reminder to yourself!
--
dorayme
--
dorayme
Warren Oates
Mar 31, 2012, 8:21:11 AM3/31/12
to
> I just found something that reminds me of the "explanations" that I have
> seen so far of, especially, "Container" of a video.
I guess those explanations have gone over your head.
> seen so far of, especially, "Container" of a video.
What are you missing exactly?
--
... do not cover a warm kettle or your stock may sour. -- Julia Child
Joe
Mar 31, 2012, 2:07:23 PM3/31/12
to
In article <4f76f6b8$0$2067$c3e8da3$9f40...@news.astraweb.com>,
Here are some examples of stuff that *may* help explain containers:
1. Why are there *several* containers that use the same codec?
2. What codecs are compatible with what containers?
3. What causes some codecs to be incompatible with some containers?
4. Why are containers necessary at all?
5. Compare and contrast, in detail, the info that is in codecs vs
containers.
Fiat Lux! (The motto of my Alma Mater, btw. :))
--- Joe
Warren Oates <warren...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <none-E606A7.1...@earthlink.us.supernews.com>,
> Joe <no...@given.now> wrote:
>
> > I just found something that reminds me of the "explanations" that I have
> > seen so far of, especially, "Container" of a video.
>
> I guess those explanations have gone over your head.
>
> What are you missing exactly?
They haven't gone over my head.
> In article <none-E606A7.1...@earthlink.us.supernews.com>,
> Joe <no...@given.now> wrote:
>
> > I just found something that reminds me of the "explanations" that I have
> > seen so far of, especially, "Container" of a video.
>
> I guess those explanations have gone over your head.
>
> What are you missing exactly?
Here are some examples of stuff that *may* help explain containers:
1. Why are there *several* containers that use the same codec?
2. What codecs are compatible with what containers?
3. What causes some codecs to be incompatible with some containers?
4. Why are containers necessary at all?
5. Compare and contrast, in detail, the info that is in codecs vs
containers.
Fiat Lux! (The motto of my Alma Mater, btw. :))
--- Joe
Warren Oates
Mar 31, 2012, 5:21:28 PM3/31/12
to
In article <none-16218C.1...@earthlink.us.supernews.com>,
codec and wants to use mp3 with it; 2, 3, and 4 are just a google away.
Of course then there's FLAC which says it's a codec but is a container
as well. Compared to ALAC which really is a codec inside the the mp4
container, and provides a quick way of getting your pirated FLACs into
iTunes. Then there's .wav and .aiff files which are called codecs but
they're really formats for uncompressed audio and can exist inside other
containers (and there are obscure compressed versions of each of them).
This is trivial stuff. Move on.
Joe <no...@given.now> wrote:
> They haven't gone over my head.
>
> Here are some examples of stuff that *may* help explain containers:
>
> 1. Why are there *several* containers that use the same codec?
>
> 2. What codecs are compatible with what containers?
>
> 3. What causes some codecs to be incompatible with some containers?
>
> 4. Why are containers necessary at all?
>
> 5. Compare and contrast, in detail, the info that is in codecs vs
> containers.
You're over-thinking this. 1, because everyone's got a better video
> They haven't gone over my head.
>
> Here are some examples of stuff that *may* help explain containers:
>
> 1. Why are there *several* containers that use the same codec?
>
> 2. What codecs are compatible with what containers?
>
> 3. What causes some codecs to be incompatible with some containers?
>
> 4. Why are containers necessary at all?
>
> 5. Compare and contrast, in detail, the info that is in codecs vs
> containers.
codec and wants to use mp3 with it; 2, 3, and 4 are just a google away.
Of course then there's FLAC which says it's a codec but is a container
as well. Compared to ALAC which really is a codec inside the the mp4
container, and provides a quick way of getting your pirated FLACs into
iTunes. Then there's .wav and .aiff files which are called codecs but
they're really formats for uncompressed audio and can exist inside other
containers (and there are obscure compressed versions of each of them).
This is trivial stuff. Move on.
Joe
Mar 31, 2012, 9:41:37 PM3/31/12
to
In article <4f777559$0$24279$c3e8da3$a8a6...@news.astraweb.com>,
school teacher's response to a student's intelligent questions.
> Of course then there's FLAC which says it's a codec but is a container
> as well. Compared to ALAC which really is a codec inside the the mp4
> container, and provides a quick way of getting your pirated FLACs into
> iTunes. Then there's .wav and .aiff files which are called codecs but
> they're really formats for uncompressed audio and can exist inside other
> containers (and there are obscure compressed versions of each of them).
Do you understand any of the stuff you just spouted? Lots of words but
no real explanation of anything.
> This is trivial stuff. Move on.
If you say so. What a complete load of bullshit. More dung for the
"explanation" heap. Thanks for nothing.
Warren Oates <warren...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <none-16218C.1...@earthlink.us.supernews.com>,
> Joe <no...@given.now> wrote:
>
> > They haven't gone over my head.
> >
> > Here are some examples of stuff that *may* help explain containers:
> >
> > 1. Why are there *several* containers that use the same codec?
> >
> > 2. What codecs are compatible with what containers?
> >
> > 3. What causes some codecs to be incompatible with some containers?
> >
> > 4. Why are containers necessary at all?
> >
> > 5. Compare and contrast, in detail, the info that is in codecs vs
> > containers.
>
> You're over-thinking this.
What the fuck does that mean? It reminds me of an incompetent high
> In article <none-16218C.1...@earthlink.us.supernews.com>,
> Joe <no...@given.now> wrote:
>
> > They haven't gone over my head.
> >
> > Here are some examples of stuff that *may* help explain containers:
> >
> > 1. Why are there *several* containers that use the same codec?
> >
> > 2. What codecs are compatible with what containers?
> >
> > 3. What causes some codecs to be incompatible with some containers?
> >
> > 4. Why are containers necessary at all?
> >
> > 5. Compare and contrast, in detail, the info that is in codecs vs
> > containers.
>
> You're over-thinking this.
school teacher's response to a student's intelligent questions.
> Of course then there's FLAC which says it's a codec but is a container
> as well. Compared to ALAC which really is a codec inside the the mp4
> container, and provides a quick way of getting your pirated FLACs into
> iTunes. Then there's .wav and .aiff files which are called codecs but
> they're really formats for uncompressed audio and can exist inside other
> containers (and there are obscure compressed versions of each of them).
no real explanation of anything.
> This is trivial stuff. Move on.
"explanation" heap. Thanks for nothing.
dorayme
Mar 31, 2012, 9:14:39 PM3/31/12
to
In article <none-8784EA.1...@earthlink.us.supernews.com>,
and inappropriate music), a male operative is ordered to get
information from a woman by getting 'close' to her. The agent is not
sure if this is intended to mean he has to sleep with her if that is
what it takes. His superior tells him he is "over-thinking it". In
other words, stop worrying, just do what she wants and get the info,
it's no big deal.
Anyway, it is a bit odd to be asking wtf this means when you have
given no fair account of the answers you complained about in the first
place. Still, it is easy to *imagine* you are right in what you said
in your first post, but what use is that?
--
dorayme
Joe <no...@given.now> wrote:
> In article <4f777559$0$24279$c3e8da3$a8a6...@news.astraweb.com>,
> Warren Oates <warren...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
...
> In article <4f777559$0$24279$c3e8da3$a8a6...@news.astraweb.com>,
> Warren Oates <warren...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > You're over-thinking this.
>
> What the fuck does that mean?
In Spooks, a BBC spy thriller series (with absurdly continuous, loud
> > You're over-thinking this.
>
> What the fuck does that mean?
and inappropriate music), a male operative is ordered to get
information from a woman by getting 'close' to her. The agent is not
sure if this is intended to mean he has to sleep with her if that is
what it takes. His superior tells him he is "over-thinking it". In
other words, stop worrying, just do what she wants and get the info,
it's no big deal.
Anyway, it is a bit odd to be asking wtf this means when you have
given no fair account of the answers you complained about in the first
place. Still, it is easy to *imagine* you are right in what you said
in your first post, but what use is that?
--
dorayme
Joe
Mar 31, 2012, 10:37:07 PM3/31/12
to
In article <dorayme-0F583E...@news.albasani.net>,
What have you been smoking? "You're over-thinking this" is a convenient
attempt at discussion stopping by someone who doesn't want to or can't
offer anything constructive.
In this aspect, you are right, I shouldn't have asked what he meant.
It should be, and was to me, obvious that he had nothing of value as far
as giving an explanation of container vs codec.
As to your "Spooks" anecdote, are you saying that "stop worrying" is a
helpful response to a question about digital videos? Sheesh!
The black hole of instruction must be passing over you and Herr Oates.
attempt at discussion stopping by someone who doesn't want to or can't
offer anything constructive.
In this aspect, you are right, I shouldn't have asked what he meant.
It should be, and was to me, obvious that he had nothing of value as far
as giving an explanation of container vs codec.
As to your "Spooks" anecdote, are you saying that "stop worrying" is a
helpful response to a question about digital videos? Sheesh!
The black hole of instruction must be passing over you and Herr Oates.
Message has been deleted
Joe
Mar 31, 2012, 11:35:03 PM3/31/12
to
In article <vilain-954635....@news.individual.net>,
Michael Vilain <vil...@NOspamcop.net> wrote:
> Although you've fallen for one our trolls, Mr. Oats has been around this
> groups a lot longer than you. You replies to him and attitude says
> volumes.
>
> Now go away before we taunt you again.
>
> *plonk*
Yes, it says that I don't pretend that pompous, uninformative verbiage
has any value. Mr. Oats (sic) longevity in this group would seem to
indicate that he has some value to it. I haven't seen it in his
unhelpful, insulting responses.
As for you, Mr. Villain, your defense of dung makes me conclude that
you are knee deep in it too.
Michael Vilain <vil...@NOspamcop.net> wrote:
> Although you've fallen for one our trolls, Mr. Oats has been around this
> groups a lot longer than you. You replies to him and attitude says
> volumes.
>
> Now go away before we taunt you again.
>
> *plonk*
Yes, it says that I don't pretend that pompous, uninformative verbiage
has any value. Mr. Oats (sic) longevity in this group would seem to
indicate that he has some value to it. I haven't seen it in his
unhelpful, insulting responses.
As for you, Mr. Villain, your defense of dung makes me conclude that
you are knee deep in it too.
dorayme
Mar 31, 2012, 11:01:30 PM3/31/12
to
In article <none-06ED5B.1...@earthlink.us.supernews.com>,
don't understand something?
> "You're over-thinking this" is a convenient
> attempt at discussion stopping by someone who doesn't want to or can't
> offer anything constructive.
>
It can be this but who knows since you *still* give no proper
reference to the explanations you have heard. It is *not very
interesting* that you have seen some bad or unhelpful explanations.
These are a dime a dozen for anything whatsoever. It is only
interesting if they are the only type of explanation around or in
circumstances where it is made clear that the intention is to explain
the matter well and by a reputable source.
> In this aspect, you are right, I shouldn't have asked what he meant.
> It should be, and was to me, obvious that he had nothing of value as far
> as giving an explanation of container vs codec.
>
> As to your "Spooks" anecdote, are you saying that "stop worrying" is a
> helpful response to a question about digital videos? Sheesh!
>
What exactly was your question? You asked what an expression meant and
I gave you an example that was meant for mass BBC and ABC type
audiences, half hoping it might make it less mysterious.
--
dorayme
Joe <no...@given.now> wrote:
> In article <dorayme-0F583E...@news.albasani.net>,
> dorayme <dor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> > In article <none-8784EA.1...@earthlink.us.supernews.com>,
> > Joe <no...@given.now> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <4f777559$0$24279$c3e8da3$a8a6...@news.astraweb.com>,
> > > Warren Oates <warren...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > ...
> > > >
> > > > You're over-thinking this.
> > >
> > > What the fuck does that mean?
> >
> > In Spooks, a BBC spy thriller series (with absurdly continuous, loud
> > and inappropriate music), a male operative is ordered to get
> > information from a woman by getting 'close' to her. The agent is not
> > sure if this is intended to mean he has to sleep with her if that is
> > what it takes. His superior tells him he is "over-thinking it". In
> > other words, stop worrying, just do what she wants and get the info,
> > it's no big deal.
> >
> > Anyway, it is a bit odd to be asking wtf this means when you have
> > given no fair account of the answers you complained about in the first
> > place. Still, it is easy to *imagine* you are right in what you said
> > in your first post, but what use is that?
>
> What have you been smoking?
You should regret this remark. Why make with the insults whenever you
> In article <dorayme-0F583E...@news.albasani.net>,
> dorayme <dor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> > In article <none-8784EA.1...@earthlink.us.supernews.com>,
> > Joe <no...@given.now> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <4f777559$0$24279$c3e8da3$a8a6...@news.astraweb.com>,
> > > Warren Oates <warren...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > ...
> > > >
> > > > You're over-thinking this.
> > >
> > > What the fuck does that mean?
> >
> > In Spooks, a BBC spy thriller series (with absurdly continuous, loud
> > and inappropriate music), a male operative is ordered to get
> > information from a woman by getting 'close' to her. The agent is not
> > sure if this is intended to mean he has to sleep with her if that is
> > what it takes. His superior tells him he is "over-thinking it". In
> > other words, stop worrying, just do what she wants and get the info,
> > it's no big deal.
> >
> > Anyway, it is a bit odd to be asking wtf this means when you have
> > given no fair account of the answers you complained about in the first
> > place. Still, it is easy to *imagine* you are right in what you said
> > in your first post, but what use is that?
>
> What have you been smoking?
don't understand something?
> "You're over-thinking this" is a convenient
> attempt at discussion stopping by someone who doesn't want to or can't
> offer anything constructive.
>
reference to the explanations you have heard. It is *not very
interesting* that you have seen some bad or unhelpful explanations.
These are a dime a dozen for anything whatsoever. It is only
interesting if they are the only type of explanation around or in
circumstances where it is made clear that the intention is to explain
the matter well and by a reputable source.
> In this aspect, you are right, I shouldn't have asked what he meant.
> It should be, and was to me, obvious that he had nothing of value as far
> as giving an explanation of container vs codec.
>
> As to your "Spooks" anecdote, are you saying that "stop worrying" is a
> helpful response to a question about digital videos? Sheesh!
>
I gave you an example that was meant for mass BBC and ABC type
audiences, half hoping it might make it less mysterious.
--
dorayme
Joe
Apr 1, 2012, 12:09:58 AM4/1/12
to
In article <dorayme-68B7A2...@news.albasani.net>,
dorayme <dor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
A bushel full of dung.
Go away and play with your etch-a-sketch.
dorayme <dor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
A bushel full of dung.
Go away and play with your etch-a-sketch.
Warren Oates
Apr 1, 2012, 8:58:22 AM4/1/12
to
> If you say so. What a complete load of bullshit. More dung for the
> "explanation" heap. Thanks for nothing.
Go fuck yourself, Joey. Do your high school assignments on your own.
> "explanation" heap. Thanks for nothing.
Warren Oates
Apr 1, 2012, 8:59:41 AM4/1/12
to
> What have you been smoking? "You're over-thinking this" is a convenient
> attempt at discussion stopping by someone who doesn't want to or can't
> offer anything constructive.
Go fuck yourself Joey. Do your own high school assignments. You've heard
> attempt at discussion stopping by someone who doesn't want to or can't
> offer anything constructive.
of Google, right?
Paul Sture
Apr 1, 2012, 10:17:44 AM4/1/12
to
On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 12:14:39 +1100, dorayme wrote:
> In Spooks, a BBC spy thriller series (with absurdly continuous, loud and
> inappropriate music), a male operative is ordered to get information
> from a woman by getting 'close' to her. The agent is not sure if this is
> intended to mean he has to sleep with her if that is what it takes. His
> superior tells him he is "over-thinking it". In other words, stop
> worrying, just do what she wants and get the info, it's no big deal.
An odd programme, Spooks. I went off it because it seemed to me that it
> In Spooks, a BBC spy thriller series (with absurdly continuous, loud and
> inappropriate music), a male operative is ordered to get information
> from a woman by getting 'close' to her. The agent is not sure if this is
> intended to mean he has to sleep with her if that is what it takes. His
> superior tells him he is "over-thinking it". In other words, stop
> worrying, just do what she wants and get the info, it's no big deal.
was promoting government policies (e.g. let's paint the bankers as
terrorists, right when the economic crisis was at a peak).
--
Paul Sture
Joe
Apr 1, 2012, 11:45:42 AM4/1/12
to
Mr. Oats has abundantly lived up to providing us with
"... still nothing, but you could see it a whole lot better."
when he took TWO posts, count them, TWO posts, to disgorge his wisdom in
the following statements:
1. Go fuck yourself, Joey. Do your high school assignments on your own.
and then he, the Great Communicator, added, in his followup post
2. Go fuck yourself Joey. Do your own high school assignments. You've
heard of Google, right?
Pathetic.
"... still nothing, but you could see it a whole lot better."
when he took TWO posts, count them, TWO posts, to disgorge his wisdom in
the following statements:
1. Go fuck yourself, Joey. Do your high school assignments on your own.
and then he, the Great Communicator, added, in his followup post
2. Go fuck yourself Joey. Do your own high school assignments. You've
heard of Google, right?
Pathetic.
dorayme
Apr 1, 2012, 11:58:53 AM4/1/12
to
In article <8l4m49-...@news.sture.ch>, Paul Sture <pa...@sture.ch>
wrote:
Yes, there is a lot of pandering to the sorts of popular fears that
governments like to promote. For me, it is almost impossible to enjoy
because of the crazy non-stop music sound-track. I recall once
enjoying it, perhaps they have run out of ideas and try to compensate
by desperately over-egging their pudding. The BBC are following the
Americans in pouring music or any unnatural sound over all their
outputs like bad cooks pour too much syrup over things.
--
dorayme
wrote:
governments like to promote. For me, it is almost impossible to enjoy
because of the crazy non-stop music sound-track. I recall once
enjoying it, perhaps they have run out of ideas and try to compensate
by desperately over-egging their pudding. The BBC are following the
Americans in pouring music or any unnatural sound over all their
outputs like bad cooks pour too much syrup over things.
--
dorayme
Joe
Apr 3, 2012, 12:39:10 AM4/3/12
to
In article <vilain-954635....@news.individual.net>,
Michael Vilain <vil...@NOspamcop.net> wrote:
> Although you've fallen for one our trolls, Mr. Oats has been around this
> groups a lot longer than you. You replies to him and attitude says
> volumes.
>
> Now go away before we taunt you again.
>
> *plonk*
Disagree with one of the group "experts"? Mr. Vilain tries to pile on.
Michael Vilain <vil...@NOspamcop.net> wrote:
> Although you've fallen for one our trolls, Mr. Oats has been around this
> groups a lot longer than you. You replies to him and attitude says
> volumes.
>
> Now go away before we taunt you again.
>
> *plonk*
dorayme
Apr 3, 2012, 4:18:47 AM4/3/12
to
In article <none-4A83C4.2...@earthlink.us.supernews.com>,
Villain is not much different to you in some respects, someone who
does not read properly, makes constant gratuitous insults, and is a
coward who won't stand there and have an argument addressing issues
without descending into nasty personal remarks. Would it actually kill
you to read what is said and think and argue as cogently as you can
and be a little civil? You don't even try.
--
dorayme
does not read properly, makes constant gratuitous insults, and is a
coward who won't stand there and have an argument addressing issues
without descending into nasty personal remarks. Would it actually kill
you to read what is said and think and argue as cogently as you can
and be a little civil? You don't even try.
--
dorayme
0 new messages