Computing Template‑class High‑importance

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This template has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Computer graphics Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Computer graphics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computer graphics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer graphicsWikipedia:WikiProject Computer graphicsTemplate:WikiProject Computer graphicscomputer graphics articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

I've created a new version of this template at Template:MediaCompression/v2draft. I'll move it to this page in a few days if nobody has any issues with it. --Tom Edwards 12:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It to big and likely wont work well small screen resolution not to mention you've hard-coded the background color. I would be generally unopposed to breaking up the template. -Dispenser 18:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have a fair point with the colours (although, in my defence, it is a Wiki limitation). But while the draft design might not be brilliant at low resolutions, I personally consider that a lower priority than the template being easily readable - which in its current state it really is not, on anyone's screen! --Tom Edwards 18:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll merge in half and hour. --Tom Edwards 15:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done. I replaced background colours with dotted borders, which doesn't quite look as good but will work cross-theme. We really need some classes for this sort of thing! --Tom Edwards 16:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this is a good draft and should be swapped with this current template. Great work!-Hairchrm 22:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Layer 2 should be listed before Layer 3 on account of numerical/chronological/evolutionary ordering XanderJ 19:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't JFIF, JIF, and Exif be added to the MM Container section? algocu 16:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

EXIF isn't a container format; it's a format for metadata tags similar to the one used for TIFFs. (I'm not saying the other two are container formats; I just don't know.) grendel|khan 01:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't Audio Compression Formats include DTS? 22:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at this one. I used nested tables inside ((navbox generic)) in order to get the show/hide and v-d-e buttons. This version has less whitespace than the current one, so it's not quite so huge. Suggestions for colors/themes or styling welcome. Also for how to get the navbox to default to hidden. (Actually, at this size, do we want to default it to hidden?) grendel|khan 02:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AIFF is not a compression format. Nor is WAV. But, if we are including those file types (non-compressed) then we need to add in RIFF to the audio only section. Thank you!-Hairchrm 22:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Implemented. Hope no one hates it... grendel|khan 22:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently AMR-WB is G.722.2 in this template. But where is AMR itself? --82.195.186.220 16:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More work on this, a bit more generic. What we really want is to be able to use Wiki-style templates inside the navbox, but I'm not sure this is currently possible. Chris Cunningham 14:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added the navbox subgroups instead since that is much nicer, I hope you like it? And I made every second line light grey for readability as we often do now. But for some reason Thumperward destroyed the every second grey thing and made the lines grey in groups of 2-3 lines instead. Very weird. I'll ask him about it.

--David Göthberg 17:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I much preferred it as it was, per Grendelkhan above. It was both more attractive and more readable then. Any chance of changing it back? Jheald 18:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jheald: Seriously? Did you see the version before Chris Cunningham/Thumperward changed it? I mean this version.

--David Göthberg 20:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made it every second list row light grey again. My guess is that Chris Cunningham/Thumperward simply didn't realise what that markup was for. Jheald: What do you you think about it?

--David Göthberg 07:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know what the markup is for, I just didn't feel it had a strong enough effect on clarity to warrant keeping it (manually changing the colour of certain lines makes the template less maintainable in the long run). There are two other templates closely-related to this one which should look as similar to it as possible, and they'd need to be manually fiddled-with too. Chris Cunningham 08:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you made it so 2-3 list rows at a time became grey. If we set it to every second list row now and in the future someone adds another row somewhere in the middle without updating the settings only two rows will get the same colour. Instead of as now all rows having this problem. So why should we have the problem already now? I mean, let's not give up beforehand. And besides, there are plenty of skilled editors around who will probably fix any such future mistakes.

--David Göthberg 09:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, I regard this kind of thing as premature optimisation. The loss of clarity is only very slight (on my home LCD it's almost unnoticable) and it actually leads to less distinction between the separate main groups (because it's harder to distinguish the subgroups from one another). And for consistency this sub-striping needs to be manually applied to every sub-group on every navbox on Wikipedia. This is rather a lot of work even for dedicated templaters. Chris Cunningham 10:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so Here we have a list of compression formats for various uses. However it is a poorly organized list. Its not nearly as bad as the List of mobile phone standards tho. Might I suggest grouping compression by some sort of timeline. where newer formats like AAC would be listed ahead of mp3. And if G.721 came out in '84 and g.723 in '86. but were merged into G.726 in 1990.... The point is, i don't believe that they are current enough to get as much attention as more widespread stuff.

(Funkasaurus (talk) 07:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Shouldn't cinepak be added? --kupirijo (talk) 21:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FleetCommand, you said H.265 is an ITU-T style name, so was it not appropriate to add it under the ITU-T list of standards?--Spectatorbot13 (talk) 11:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because that is not what ITU-T has officially called it! Officially, there is no such thing as H.265. ITU-T prefers to call it High-Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC). Well, they are allowed to name their project whatever they love and we may only use their official name if we are to stay true to copyright laws.

I think you should just accept the fact: The official name is HEVC and that what you should call it. Fleet Command (talk) 12:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So who does call it H.265? Is it an entirely informal name? If they officially call it HEVC I guess that's what we need to use but it seems to make little sense to include the name HEVC twice in the template and H.265 not at all rather than using both once on the ISO/IEC and ITU-T lines respectively. The Seventh Taylor (talk) 07:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the section "MPEG media containers" is wrong: MPEG-PS (VOB · EVO · MOD) · MPEG-TS (M2TS · TOD) · MPEG-4 Part 14 (3GP and 3G2) · Packetized elementary stream (M2V) · Elementary stream)

• 3GP/3G2 container formats were not defined by MPEG, they were defined by 3GPP/3GPP2 - and are based on the ISO base media file format. 3GP/3G2 are not fully based on MPEG-4 Part 14, they use only some parts of the MP4 definition.
• MP4 (MPEG-4 Part 14) is also based on the ISO base media file format.
• There are two different Flash Video container formats - FLV and F4V. F4V is also based on the ISO base media file format and it is similar to MP4.
• Motion JPEG 2000 also defined a container format based on the ISO base media file format - MJ2.
• M2TS was not defined by MPEG, but Blu-ray Disc Association.
• M2V is a filename extension, not a typical container format - there is no information about "M2V" in the ISO/IEC 13818-1 (MPEG-2 Systems) specification.

--89.173.66.229 (talk) 16:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 89.173.66.229. I've answered to similar message in my talk page. Here is a copy:

Fleet Command (talk) 18:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but I don't think your edits are useful, because they are confusing and misleading. If you put a format to brackets after another format, it looks like the second format is only a sub-part of the first format ... and that is not true. Please, look at usage of brackets in the Template:Compression formats - they are used only for sub-parts of the format. But you use them in a different way - and that is confusing.

1. 3GP is not extended from MPEG-4 Part 14, it is only partially extended ... and it is primarily extended from MPEG-4 Part 12. It is misleading to put 3GP in brackets after MPEG-4 Part 14.
2. MP4 is based on MPEG-4 Part 12 - and you do not use this information. If you want to put together "extensions" of container formats such as 3GP and MP4, there must be a mention about the ISO base media file format. 3GP and MP4 are both based on MPEG-4 Part 12.
3. Flash Video - if you want to separate "MPEG containers and other derivates", you must separate F4V from FLV.
4. Motion JPEG 2000: no, you did not touch it, but your edits are incomplete, because there are more container formats based on the ISO base media file format
5. M2TS - yes, it is extended from MPEG-TS, but it is misleading to put M2TS to brackets after MPEG-TS.
6. M2V - I think it is an inappropriate information about a filename extension that is sometimes used for MPEG-2 video elementary streams. M2V is not a container format.

--89.173.66.229 (talk) 18:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, resuming now.

1. Duly noted. Template changed.
2. Duly noted. Template changed.
3. Duly noted. Template is changing as I write this.
4. Duly noted. Template changed.
5. What do you suggest I do with M2TS?
6. What do you suggest I do with M2V?

Fleet Command (talk)

Hello, I understand your effort and the "connections" between formats. But this table is not about formats' extensions or connections between formats. This is only a list of compression formats (and media containers). I think there is no possibility how to put information about extensions and connections between formats to this small table - it will be always confusing and misleading. (In last months I considered to separate "ISO" containers in this table, but I declined it - because of the complexity of format connections.)

If you want to describe extensions and connections, you should write a separated article. And I am sure, an article about this will be very complex.

As I already wrote, I think your creation of separated row with "MPEG" containers is completely wrong and confusing. Thank you for your effort, but this is not useful. Please, try to create a new table about connections between formats.

This table for example contains information about ITU-T audio compression formats - and there are only ITU-T formats and no other extensions or sub-sets. Why? Because it will be very chaotic and confusing tu put Siren, AMR-WB, ACELP, ADPCM etc to ITU-T audio compression formats. And there are also many other connections/extensions: e.g. H.263 -> MPEG-4 Part 2, VP3 -> Theora, WMV -> VC-1, H.263 -> RealVideo, H.261 -> OMS Video, G.728 (and others) -> RealAudio, H.263 (partially) -> Sorenson Spark, Musepack (partially) -> MPEG-1 Audio Layer II ... etc.

And there are also other extensions in containers, e.g. MOV (QuickTime) -> MPEG-4 Part 12.

VOB is only a sub-set of MPEG-PS. M2TS is an extension of MPEG-TS. So, is the information in brackets about "extensions" or about "sub-sets" or about "any type of connection"? How should anyone understand what is it all about?

What will you do, if any new connection/extension will be developed or dropped? It is really impossible to put all the complex information in so small table. Please, revert the edits and create a new table or article.

--89.173.66.229 (talk) 07:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is really difficult to decipher. The problem is that the table creator knew what he meant, but the reader will have no clue. The reader must go through the same thought process as the table creator: Ah, so the brackets in the "MPEG-1 Layer III (MP3)" entry mean "MP3 is another name for MPEG-1 Layer III". And in the "AVI (DivX)" entry, the brackets mean that DivX is a company that created the DivX Media Format which is a superset of the AVI format. And in the "MPEG-4 (Part 2/ASP · Part 10/AVC)" entry, the brackets mean "Part 2 and Part 10 are subsets of the MPEG-4 standard", and MPEG-4 is not a compression standard, only the whole multimedia standard, I see... And in the "MPEG-2 (Part 2)" entry, the brackets are saying "to be more specific, we mean the Part 2 of the MPEG-2 standard". And so on.

It is unrealistic to think readers will be able to make head or tail of all this. For example, the typical reader will interpret the "AVI (DivX)" entry like "DivX is another name for AVI". Which is actually what most people think. So I would get rid of it, too. It is chaotic, illogical, inconsistent and very confusing.—J. M. (talk) 16:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now, now, Unindentified One! This edit was really unwarranted. Full condemnation of connecting irrelevant topics is not really a good idea. I do not deny that it is probable that my idea of categorizing them was not a god-grade perfect idea; but I also do not agree that returning them to the mixed mode is the better idea. In fact, I am sure that it isn't. Now, if you have a better idea, you are more than welcome to introduce it.

And let us not forget that the aim of the navbox is to ease navigation between the articles, and not to categorize the standards, formats or codecs. It is a navbox, not a diagram, chart or roadmap. Fleet Command (talk) 20:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but it looks like you are trying to categorize the container standards and formats without reading the articles and facts about them.

It is impossible to categorize the "connections" between them in so small table. Your edits for containers are totally different than the categorization of video and audio compression formats. You do not see the difference? Why you created so inconsistent changes without any prior discussion?

Are M2V and "Elementary streams" a container formats? AFAIK, they are not. If you add M2V, you should also add M1V, MP2 ... etc. But this table is not about filename extensions. If you want to link to the articles about elementary streams, you should add there a new row about "theory" - and put there information about bitstreams, muxing and so on. (There are some informations about theory in the Template:Compression methods.)

I don't understand why you want to write about "MPEG" containers and not about ISO/IEC or ITU-T containers. If you want to separate ISO/IEC containers, you should put there only standards that were published by ISO/IEC: e.g. MPEG-PS, MPEG-TS, MPEG-4 Part 12/JPEG 2000 Part 12 (ISO base media file format), MP4 (MPEG-4 Part 14) ... and maybe MPEG-21 Part 9 and MPEG-4 Part 15. The subsets (e.g. VOB) or supersets/extensions (e.g. M2TS, 3GP, F4V) of these standards were not defined and published by ISO/IEC. And for consistency you should add standards published by ITU-T - H.222.0. (H.222.0 is identical to ISO/IEC 13818-1 - and defined both MPEG-2 transport stream and MPEG-2 program stream.)

DivX is not AVI or any subset/superset of AVI. The name "DivX" is commonly used for software/codec, but not for the DivX Media Format.

--89.173.66.229 (talk) 09:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You said:

You are wrong. I categorized them after reading the articles and based on the Extended from and Extended to fields in the infoboxes in the articles.

You said:

Then, what are they? And what do you think we should do with them?

You said:

Only and only if they were independent articles! Right now, they are not. When and if they become an independent article, we will take them into consideration. Still, if M2V and MPEG PES are as close as MP2 and MPEG Audio Layer II are, why don't you propose a merger? I'll support.

You said:

DivX article infobox says .divx is extended from AVI. Besides, I also know that it is true. Having worked with GSpot and Hex Editor, I myself can testify that .divx file format is indeed very similar to AVI.

You said:

Now, that is a great idea! Let's work on it. My initial idea was to separate container formats that only carry MPEG-type video from those that can carry any type of data. (For instance, I've never seen a .VOB file that carries Sorenson Video stream or Windows Media Video stream. All VOBs that I have seen carry MPEG Video, to such extent that disc authoring applications use VOB, DVD Video and MPEG-2 interchangeably.) But now, you are suggesting that we separate them based on their publishers? Tell me, how the end result would look like?

Fleet Command (talk) 13:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"You are wrong. I categorized them after reading the articles and based on the Extended from and Extended to fields in the infoboxes in the articles."

I think you don't understand the complexity of connections between formats. OK, I will spend some time to clarify it. The field "Extended from/to" is not always used in infoboxes in video and audio compression formats' articles, but many of them are extended from other formats. But you do not suggest to put these informations to the table. As I wrote above, it will be totally chaotic and not useful, if we will mix for example Siren formats with ITU-T formats (because G.722.1 is extended from Siren), H.263 with MPEG-4 Part 2 (because MPEG-4 Part 2 is extended from H.263) ... etc.

This template/table is NOT about format extensions, subsets or supersets ... and I am sure, that the extensions/subsets/supersets will not help for better navigation in this template.

"Then, what are they? And what do you think we should do with them?"

Please, read the container format (digital) article. A multimedia container usually contains elementary streams/bitstreams ... . Video and audio compression formats are bitstreams/elemementary streams. When they are multiplexed/muxed together, they are carried in a container format. Files with .M2V extension are AFAIK elementary streams or packetized elementary streams. What we should do with M2V? Nothing. It is already in the table - there is already MPEG-2 Part 2 video compression format. This format can use .m2v filename extension, but also the .mpg extension, .mpeg extension, etc..

Please, read my previous reactions carefully - I already suggested what to do with "elementary stream" article.

"Only and only if they were independent articles! Right now, they are not. When and if they become an independent article, we will take them into consideration. Still, if M2V and MPEG PES are as close as MP2 and MPEG Audio Layer II are, why don't you propose a merger? I'll support."

Sorry, but you don't understand. MP2 is usually used as a filename extension for MPEG Audio Layer II and MP1 is used for MPEG Audio Layer I. But this template/table is NOT about filename extensions. It is about formats. Some of the formats use the same "name" for the filename extension and also for the official format's name, so it looks like the template is about filename extensions. But it is not. There can be various MPEG formats stored as MPEG PES, not only MPEG-2 Part 2. The M2V article is about filename extension and I think it is not worth for this table.

"DivX article infobox says .divx is extended from AVI. Besides, I also know that it is true. Having worked with GSpot and Hex Editor, I myself can testify that .divx file format is indeed very similar to AVI."

But there is BIG difference between .divx and DivX. As I wrote, the name "DivX" is not used for the container format.

"My initial idea was to separate container formats that only carry MPEG-type video from those that can carry any type of data."

So, here is the problem. Most of the multimedia container formats can carry various data. (It is often technically possible to carry any type of data, but many players will not support/play them.) It is the main purpose of a container format to carry various data. MPEG-PS and MPEG-TS can carry various formats in so-called private streams. There are registration authorities for registration of new formats, but it is not mandatory to registrate a format. So, there are some formats that can be used in "MPEG" containers, but are not registered. MPEG-TS can for example carry the Dirac video - and it is also registered. Please, look at Comparison of container formats.

"(For instance, I've never seen a .VOB file that carries Sorenson Video stream or Windows Media Video stream. All VOBs that I have seen carry MPEG Video, to such extent that disc authoring applications use VOB, DVD Video and MPEG-2 interchangeably.) "

VOB file is very specific container - defined only for DVD-Video format and it is not commonly used for other purposes. VOB is a a strict subset of MPEG-PS with non-MPEG formats in private streams (e.g. LPCM, AC-3 and subtitles were not defined in MPEG-PS and are carried only in private streams). Please, read the VOB article. VOB was created for carrying the DVD Video content. DVD Video definition allows only MPEG-2 Video. It is not a good idea to try to understand multimedia containers on the basis of DVD authoring applications, because they can use various filters/splitters "on the fly" - and you will not see any difference between formats.

"But now, you are suggesting that we separate them based on their publishers? Tell me, how the end result would look like?"

The table is already separated by publishers - look at video, audio and image compression formats. If we want to create consistent template/table, we must use the same principles for video, audio and containers. If you want to separate ISO/IEC, ITU-T and "others" containers, there is no other possibility.

Note: MPEG-4 Part 14 and MPEG-4 Part 12 are based on Apple QuickTime MOV. But this information will not help users of this template/table.

--89.173.66.229 (talk) 16:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want the separation of "MPEG" containers at any price, here is my proposal:

Proposition accepted. You may proceed with deployment. Fleet Command (talk) 17:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think MPEG Multichannel and MPEG Surround should not be in this template. I think these formats are not about compression, but about using multiple channels. MPEG Surround can use various compression formats or uncompressed audio. MPEG Multichannel can use only MPEG-1/2 Audio Layer II.

ISO/IEC 23003-1:2007 describes MPEG Surround as an "efficient technology for multi-channel audio compression". "Rather than performing a discrete coding of the individual audio input channels, MPEG Surround captures the spatial image of a multi-channel audio signal into a compact set of parameters that are used to synthesize a high quality multi-channel representation from a transmitted downmix signal." [1] But I am not sure, if this is a compression format. I think it could be a "compression method". --89.173.64.7 (talk) 09:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should MPEG-DASH be added here? If so, where exactly? The Seventh Taylor (talk) 11:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are Apple Video (aka Road Pizza) and Apple Graphics (aka SMC) notable enough for this list? Conquerist (talk) 22:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Do they have an article on Wikipedia? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 02:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought they did, but apparently the articles I had in mind were on the multimedia.cx wiki, not on Wikipedia. So that answers my question, thanks. Conquerist (talk) 17:10, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I ended up creating the article for Apple Video and I dug up an article for the QuickTime Animation codec. I've tried to find their official names, but there is not too much to go on. The best I could find was this file on the archived Apple website. On Page 115 it lists the two codecs as "Apple video" and "Animation", respectively. "Animation" on its own is a little vague though. Also the point about QuickTime being a container format is valid, so the edits here from 18:43, 5 April 2013 and the "QuickTime Animation" page move look good to me.Conquerist (talk) 17:23, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should DAT12 be included as a compression format? I have seen it mentioned under RTP audio video profile, and for example see the description of DAT12 here:http://www.stl-ip.com/stl-ip-plus-features.html John a s (talk) 15:28, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]