
What is an audio or video data container Part 2

First the proprietary DivX codec, then its open counterpart Xvid, helped burn a DVD to a CD. The quality was, of course, much worse than that of the DVD.
But an hour and a half of film took up 700 MB and in the 2000s the boom in film piracy was linked precisely to these codecs. If there were movies on the computer, they were movies of this format, with rare exceptions.
And since 2003 modernity begins. The Joint Video Team, under the auspices of the ubiquitous Moving Picture Experts Group, introduced the H.264 codec, which encodes video at the bottom of the post.
Well, almost after all, since then it was finalized, and YouTube generally outperformed my video in VP9 =) For example, in 2007, a plugin for H.264 was released – SVC (Scalable Video Coding), which not only complicated decoding and so on is not an easy codec for computers, it also made it possible to store video at various resolutions in such a format that the highest were dependent on the lowest. Most likely, you have seen pictures on the Internet in a progressive jeep, when they are not loaded from top to bottom, but first in squares, and then everything works out better until they are fully loaded. Here’s a similar story. With the advantage that devices that need to output video in a lower resolution than video, they may not waste resources decoding unnecessary layers.
And the codec consumes a lot of resources. It contains a lot of advanced technologies that I am unfortunately not strong at. However, today, even phones successfully cope with FullHD video in this format, and high-end ones also use 4K.
At the same time, the bit rate of such a 1080p video fluctuates around 2 Mbps, and even less without sound. And the fact of how much it is possible to reduce the amount of data by intelligently increasing the volume and complexity of the calculations still amazes me.
In 2006, Blurey records appeared.
In two years they have supplanted their competitor HD-DVD. They are still alive. The databases were developed by an entire consortium of large companies. Disks come in one layer and two layers, with capacities of 25 and 50 GB, respectively. The video for them is encoded in MPEG-2, MPEG-4, H.264 and the new Microsoft VC-1 codec at the time.
For HD-DVD, the capacities were a bit more modest (15 and 30 GB), but they could also be double-sided. The codec set is the same.
At the same time, the future is slowly approaching. Many would like to meet you in the person of the free VP9 codec, but it is most likely the corporate smile of H.265, which is also called HEVC. What can I say with the coming =)
Seriously, both codecs will find their place. Already today you can find video embeds on sites that are implemented in the open WebM format, which uses VP9 or 8. And since Google is only forcing the use of VP9, YouTube will also support both new codecs.
Both codecs are not revolutionary, but this is another round of video technology. Videos in H.264, VP8, H.265 and VP9 look great. Only the last two are smaller and have a higher usage ceiling. Another question is how much faster or slower will video be encoded in new formats, so that modest content producers like Slaylama are comfortable too. Yes, and these codecs have no special competitors, because today it is important again whether devices can decode video hardware to hardware – your smartphone can handle any open source Theora without any problem, but it will download much faster. So we have good and bad again, Coca-Cola and Pepsi, Android and iPhone, VP9 and H.265.







