From MultimediaWiki
Revision as of 13:36, 8 May 2006 by Snacky (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

I think the entire conception of this page is confused.

MPEG-4 is a standards suite. It does include H.264. It also includes a whole bunch of crap supposedly related to video in Part 2; really, only a subset of this, ASP, is what we think of as a video codec. Unfortunately the naming wrt to this entire suite (and for that matter, most things MPEG-related) is horrible and confusing, but as currently written, this page is also confused.

In summary, the MPEG-4 suite now contains two completely different video codecs; some audio codec or another; a container format; a popcorn flavoring; a DRM scheme; and a partridge in a pear tree. Saying "MPEG-4" to refer to a type of video is easy, but wrong. IMO maybe we should have all along been using the (stupid, annoying) name "ASP" (Advanced Simple Profile), and this mess wouldn't have gotten as bad as it is. Then, we have Apple confusing the public even further by getting their container format named .mp4... --Snacky 19:28, 26 January 2006 (EST)

Replying to myself here. How about renaming this article to "MPEG-4 ASP" (lame, annoying name IMO but it also happens to be more correct)? Then you could have an "MPEG-4" page that breaks down the standards suite into its components (parts). One component will be "MPEG-4 Part 2", which in turn breaks down into a bunch of profiles, of which only "Simple Profile" and "Advanced Simple Profile" are really of any interest.

Snacky 15:38, 8 May 2006 (EDT)

Snacky-- please, by all means, I invite you to edit this page up one side and down the other. That's what the Wiki concept is for. Split it out into other pages and reorganize as you see fit. We need people who take initiative. I eventually want to cover all of this stuff in the Wiki (everything multimedia, after all). --Multimedia Mike 16:20, 8 May 2006 (EDT)

OK, will do, probably before 1 week passes. I thought I should give warning first. Note that my re-organization of the topics will essentially end up looking like Wikipedia's, which I consider to be more correct. Snacky 16:36, 8 May 2006 (EDT)