Hello,
I decided to do some experimenting with the Lagarith lossless codec. In MEP, I used an MPEG-2 720x576 video, and exported to AVI using the Lagarith codec. The resulting file plays fine in Windows Media Player, but, for some reason, when I put the file on a USB stick and attempt to play it on my TV/Blu-ray Player, it comes up with “Video resolution not supported”. It plays the audio but not video. Does anyone know what the issue could be here?
Ray is correct, Al @AAProds may have a solution for you, he does know everything there is to know about the Lagarith codec - it was he that put me onto it. This is what I think I know about the codec and I stand to be corrected by Al.
The Lagarith encoded AVI will play in Windows Media Player on your system because the Lagarith codec is installed on your system.
The Lagarith encoded AVI will not play properly through your TV/Blu-ray Player because the Lagarith codec is not installed on your TV/Blu-ray Player. The audio plays because you've probably used MP3 for the audio which your TV/Blu-ray Player will have installed.
The Lagarith codec is excellant for use on a computer for the reasons Al has extolled in several posts but, as far as I know (and indeed found out when I first started using it), it is useless for a file to be played on a TV.
The Intel AVI codec works on my TV.
If you're using 720x576 for your AVI why not encode to DV-AVI, it's slow but not as painfully slow as with the Intel codec..It works on my TV. Just don't use DV-AVI for any files you want to edit, only use it for a finished video.
Ray, 720x576 encodes very nicely to 16:9. I use it a lot when editing VHS stuff and I find it surprising how good the picture can be on a modern TV.
The files look soft and indeed sometime blurry when plaued on my computer monitor but the TV obviously upscales much better than my monitor because 720x576 videos look OK on the TV - not 4k quality but definately watchable.
AndyW
@jak.willis @CubeAce @me_again
It will be because the TV and Bluray can't decode the LAGS codec. I haven't been able to play any type of AVIs on my LG Smart TV or WDTV media player, but there could be a media player out there that does.
Windows programs will play LAGS files because the codec is installed on your system, and VLC Player has it's own codec library.
An option which I didn't know (but do now!, found after some sleuthing): if you have a Chromecast, you can play the AVI on your 'puter and cast it to your TV.
Play the file, go to Playback>Renderer, and choose the Chromecast.
If install Splashtop you can remote-control your computer from your phone!
Just saw Andy's post; my TV won't play DV-AVIs (USB or network) but my Apple TV will, via the network. I haven't tried via USB. but I assume it will.
I concur with Andy's comment about 720x576 on big TVs; they play correctly (unless deliberately stretched in the TV settings) and the upscaling is great. I tend to think 1440x1080 looks a tiny bit better but there's not a lot in it.
@jak.willis @CubeAce @me_again
It will be because the TV and Bluray can't decode the LAGS codec. I haven't been able to play any type of AVIs on my LG Smart TV or WDTV media player, but there could be a media player out there that does.
Windows programs will play LAGS files because the codec is installed on your system, and VLC Player has it's own codec library.
An option which I didn't know (but do now!, found after some sleuthing): if you have a Chromecast, you can play the AVI on your 'puter and cast it to your TV.
Play the file, go to Playback>Renderer, and choose the Chromecast.
If install Splashtop you can remote-control your computer from your phone!
Just saw Andy's post; my TV won't play DV-AVIs (USB or network) but my Apple TV will, via the network. I haven't tried via USB. but I assume it will.
I concur with Andy's comment about 720x576 on big TVs; they play correctly (unless deliberately stretched in the TV settings) and the upscaling is great. I tend to think 1440x1080 looks a tiny bit better but there's not a lot in it.
Thanks for clearing that up for me, that does make some sense now. Although, if it’s unable to play the video because of the codec, then why doesn’t the player just say “codec not supported” instead of “video resolution not supported”? Seems a bit strange.
As you are the expert here on Lagarith, the other thing I’m confused about is why it produces files with a much larger file size and bitrate than the original source files. If you export as AVI uncompressed then obviously the file size & bitrate is much larger, but if Lagarith is lossless, then how come it ends up producing files with a size & bitrate that almost mimics a fully uncompressed file?
Hi
The most universal formats for Smart TV and player support are MP4 (.mp4), or AVCHD (.m2ts) container files with, h.264/AVC encoded video and AAC (AC3?) audio.
. . . . if Lagarith is lossless, then how come it ends up producing files with a size & bitrate that almost mimics a fully uncompressed file . . .
The same applies to Lagarith as for the uncompressed AVI in your previous topic.
The only difference is that once the frames have been created with no loss, they are then compressed, using a similar technique of compression for Zip files, to reduce the file size slightly.
John EB
Hi
The most universal formats for Smart TV and player support are MP4 (.mp4), or AVCHD (.m2ts) container files with, h.264/AVC encoded video and AAC (AC3?) audio.
. . . . if Lagarith is lossless, then how come it ends up producing files with a size & bitrate that almost mimics a fully uncompressed file . . .
The same applies to Lagarith as for the uncompressed AVI in your previous topic.
The only difference is that once the frames have been created with no loss, they are then compressed, using a similar technique of compression for Zip files, to reduce the file size slightly.
John EB
Hi, so Lagarith is more or less the same as uncompressed then?
My guess would be, and it is a guess, that Lagarith is still recording each pixel separately but how the pixel data is represented may be written differently using slightly less code. It is a 'lossless' codec. There is at present no way around that.
Lossless formats are not always a good thing. For instance, in a video camera you would set your sharpness and colour balance or allow the automatics to do it for you. In a stills camera that would normally be recorded in with the pixel information and be applied when viewed in an editor. A true lossless image such as Tiff for stills does not record that information. That means the resulting image looks softer, the image can suffer colour noise even at low ISO settings and everything has to be done from scratch. Any advantage gained from taking decisions when the image is recorded is lost.
I have stills cameras that shoot in Tiff 14 bit RAW and jpeg, and although I prefer the colour that Tiff gives, getting the final image to look correct is much more difficult and hard work and the file size is three times larger than the 14 bit RAW file and generally still has to be exported as a jpeg for general use.
I can see the usefulness that AAprods and others find for it when transferring older analog video or film footage to be digitized ready for further editing, but for use as a general playback medium, no.
Ray.
Video compression is a compromise with size. The more compressed a video is, the more data has been "thrown away" as well as more complex encoding with various types of frames, as Cubeace has described).
LAGS is one of the so-called "lossless" codecs that, while compressed, retains all the video data. An "uncompressed" video has the same data but with no compression. A "lossy" codec such as MPEG 4 is great for smaller file sizes but compromises by reduced quality. That reduction is not a lot, as long as you keep the bitrate up.
So, what to use? It depends on the source. If you are capturing analogue video (eg VHS), capture in a lossless codec such as LAGS; the file sizes are pretty big, but you get a lossless copy of the tape which you can then edit and re-encode into MP4 for playing on your various devices, or MPEG for a DVD.
If you already have an MP4 or an MPEG 2 file, after there would be much point in encoding it to LAGS just to view. Just export to MP4 again or MPEG 2, keeping the bitrate up.
There is case for exporting into lAGS: if you wanted to re-edit the edit. I think i mentioned in the other topic that I had a piece of problem video that I re-encoded multiple times. I stayed in LAGS the whole time to minimise quality loss, then at the end, brought that back into MEP for the final export to MP4.
As it turns out, it appears none of the MEP AVI export options are not truly "uncompressed". I had to use Virtual Dub to get a true uncompressed file. The AVIs (and the MXV at 100% quality) are allegedly "lossless", although the Microsoft Video 1 is so much smaller that it may be a bit "lossy".
I would surmise that the lower the file size, the higher the compression, but that the quality of that MP4 is pretty close to all the the others at a fraction of the size (you would not want to re-edit that MP4 though). These are 720x576 files.
Found this on Wiki re that Microsoft Video 1. As I alluded to, it seems to be an old lossy codec:
@AAProds, @jak.willis, @CubeAce, @me_again
Hi all
. . . . LAGS is one of the so-called "lossless" codecs that, while compressed, retains all the video data. An "uncompressed" video has the same data but with no compression. . . . .
The use of the word 'compression' is somewhat ambiguous - using a couple of examples already mentioned:
h.264/h.265* involve video compression, as Al has said throwing away some data, this is done before the encoded video is put into the container file. Whether file compression occurs I can find no reference to this - if it is applied as well then the video audio data is compressed further, think of Zip files and how they are compressed, without throwing anything away.
Lagarath, on the other hand, has the option to not compress the video, however the resulting video audio data can be compressed to make the file size smaller with no loss.
* This involve some complex maths calculations, the algorithm for h.265 is more complex than h.264 and can throw away more video data while maintaining the same perceived quality as h.264 for a significantly smaller file sizes, however you need more CPU/GPU power to decode them.
. . . . Microsoft Video 1 . . . .
Definitely not recommended for high quality video, the colour space appears to be restricted at 15 bit - 5 bits/colour - 32,768 colours.
John EB
@AAProds, @jak.willis, @CubeAce, @me_again
Hi all
. . . . LAGS is one of the so-called "lossless" codecs that, while compressed, retains all the video data. An "uncompressed" video has the same data but with no compression. . . . .
The use of the word 'compression' is somewhat ambiguous - using a couple of examples already mentioned:
h.264/h.265* involve video compression, as Al has said throwing away some data, this is done before the encoded video is put into the container file. Whether file compression occurs I can find no reference to this - if it is applied as well then the video audio data is compressed further, think of Zip files and how they are compressed, without throwing anything away.
Lagarath, on the other hand, has the option to not compress the video, however the resulting video audio data can be compressed to make the file size smaller with no loss.
* This involve some complex maths calculations, the algorithm for h.265 is more complex than h.264 and can throw away more video data while maintaining the same perceived quality as h.264 for a significantly smaller file sizes, however you need more CPU/GPU power to decode them.
. . . . Microsoft Video 1 . . . .
Definitely not recommended for high quality video, the colour space appears to be restricted at 15 bit - 5 bits/colour - 32,768 colours.
John EB
I see. So, in Lagarith, what do you need to do to ensure it does compress? And, the other weird thing I’ve noticed is that whenever I export a 4:3 video using Lagarith, the output file ends up as 5:4. Is there any particular reason for this?
So, in Lagarith, what do you need to do to ensure it does compress?
Nothing; it does it automatically.
And, the other weird thing I’ve noticed is that whenever I export a 4:3 video using Lagarith, the output file ends up as 5:4. Is there any particular reason for this?
Well spotted. We've noticed the same. I don't know why. All the AVI exports from MEP seem to have 5:4 in the box (but not when I have a 16:9 project...). I used to think it was the 5:4 analogue video from my capture stick, as it registers as 5:4 in Mediainfo, but since you mention it for your MPEG (which is not, I assume, 5:4), it is a conundrum! At least MEP throws up a message warning you of it.
Greetings, assuming you are saving to 720x576 then that is 5:4 aspect.
I read somewhere, and it's been proven in practice, that 720x576 accepts 16:9 but not actually 4:3.
We know LAGS does this as does does HEVC and H264. In this lattwr case I convert the files to MKV which is accepted as 4:3 by my TV as long as you tell the mkv converter the aspect you want.
Having said that, if I really need 4:3 as a final aspect ratio, I encode to 720x540 or 764x576 which are both true 4:3s.
But surely this is a moot point as LAGS is only used as an interim codec before finally converting to MP4?
As for MPEG2, all my purchased 4:3 format DVDs are actually in 5:4. I assume there must be a code in the MPEG container to tell the DVD player to convert to the cirrect output fir the TV.
This is where life gets complicated and I doff my cap to the experts.
AndyW
Nah, MEP correctly interprets it as 4:3 when importing:
When you go to the Export screen, it shows 4:3. But as soon as you choose a codec, the export screen appears to ignore the project setting of 4:3 and jumps to 5:4. I suspect it is because the exporting engine isn't reading the file info properly and reverts to the pixel aspect ratio (which is, as you say, 5:4). In MEP's defence, Mediainfo also reports the DAR of my captures as 5:4, even though they are 4:3.
720x576 4:3 is the standard resolution for all "normal" SD video. Another example is HDV: it's 1440x1080 but coded with a 16:9 aspect ratio. it all depends on what the video Display Aspect Ratio (as opposed to the pixel aspect ratio) is set to.
But surely this is a moot point as LAGS is only used as an interim codec before finally converting to MP4?
Agree. Jak hasn't explained why they want to use LAGS. Although I will say it encodes much quicker that MP4.
This reminds me of a discussion years ago about MEP's "confusing" export of a still from a 720x576 4:3 DAR video. MEP will export it as 768x576 (ie PAR of 4:3), and on re-import, it displays properly but obviously 768x576 PAR (square pixel 4:3).
My head hurts!
@me_again, @jak.willis, @AAProds
Hi
. . . . in practice, that 720x576 accepts 16:9 . . . .
Yes and no.
If the pixels were to remain square then the resolution for 16:9 would be 720 x 405 or 1280 x 576, depending on whether you keep the width or height constant.
To achieve the 16:9 AR the Pixel Aspect Ratio (PAR) is changed - to be more specific, each pixel is stretched horizontally to the correct aspect ratio so that the video appears as 16:9.
John EB
@me_again, @jak.willis, @AAProds
Hi
. . . . in practice, that 720x576 accepts 16:9 . . . .
Yes and no.
If the pixels were to remain square then the resolution for 16:9 would be 720 x 405 or 1280 x 576, depending on whether you keep the width or height constant.
To achieve the 16:9 AR the Pixel Aspect Ratio (PAR) is changed - to be more specific, each pixel is stretched horizontally to the correct aspect ratio so that the video appears as 16:9.
John EB
All this talk about aspect ratios brings me on to another potential issue that I have...
I own a Panasonic Blu-ray Recorder, as well as a Panasonic Blu-ray Player. When playing 4:3 content on the player, it looks like 4:3. However, when playing 4:3 content on the recorder, the 4:3 aspect ratio doesn’t look correct. In other words, the picture in between the two black bars looks more narrow.
Sorry Al, not on my system anymore. Mp4 encoding for me flies in MEP 2022 - at last 😄
Now you're taunting me, Andy! 😂
I own a Panasonic Blu-ray Recorder, as well as a Panasonic Blu-ray Player. When playing 4:3 content on the player, it looks like 4:3. However, when playing 4:3 content on the recorder, the 4:3 aspect ratio doesn’t look correct. In other words, the picture in between the two black bars looks more narrow.
Probably caused by dodgy encoding of the content ie DAR/PAR/SAR not set correctly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel_aspect_ratio
Some players will play a file correctly, even though all the AR settings may not be spot on. Other players may not.
There may be a setting in the BluRay recorder controls that can set what to do if playing 4:3 content.