Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

video players other than mplayer and vlc?

K

k8t

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Dec 27, 2006
8
0
hello,

are there any video players other than mplayer and vlc that plays mkv, mp4 and .ogm files?

mplayer (1.0rc1 intel) sometimes quits unexpectedly, need to force quit the mplayer process because quitting from the gui doesn't actually close the program, slow in opening files and other annoyances.

vlc (0.8.6 intel) has a slow response time when giving it commands (ie play, pause, jumps, etc), is unable to display soft subs adequately (text overlapping and doesnt use the custom formats the video file is set to), has a crappy network buffer (many videos skip and error messages show up when playing files through a network.

i'm currently using a mbp and boot into windows when i want to watch videos.
 
i see. i guess i'll just continue to boot into windows when watching those videos. i hope mplayer or vlc gets better soon.

thanks for your help.
 
That's like saying, What is the point of playing AVI files or WMV files. The guy obviously has a legitimate question, and makes use of these types of videos, so sarcastic replies like yours really aren't needed are they?

That being said, VLC and mplayer are unfortunately the only options that I can think of for you, sorry. I hope one of them improves in matroska playback for you, good luck :)
 
i obviously need to play enough videos in these formats for me to ask for players that play them well.

it would be nice for perian to support these files in the future then i could play these videos in front row or other free players that use quicktime codecs.
 
Maxwell Smart said:
That's like saying, What is the point of playing AVI files or WMV files. The guy obviously has a legitimate question, and makes use of these types of videos, so sarcastic replies like yours really aren't needed are they?
Click to expand...

I meant, what is the point of starting yet another video format. Why would anybody or any organization do that. What purpose could possibly be served by initiating yet another one, there are already dozens. Whoever decided "hey, I think I'll add another video container to the mix" should be jailed. Obviously this person needs to play them or he wouldn't have asked, but perhaps he would be better served to try and find other versions, or convert them somehow, rather than hunt down a player for them. It may be a better use of his time, take the same amount of work, and be an overall better solution, especially in the long run (what if MKV development ceases). It's called considering all options, perhaps not something you do very often.

If the developer of this format really cared enough about me, you, and the original poster, he would be considerate enough to write a plug-in for the major players QuickTime and/or Windows Media. But since he/she/they don't, I have to seriously question the value of supporting this format.

And for the record, no, it is not even close to being the same as somebody asking "what is the point of playing AVI or WMV files." Those are long-established major formats, and a question like that would be absurd.
 
Maybe if you would, oh I don't know, READ the website linked, you would find some of the benifits in this alternate video format:

Matroska is designed with the future in mind. It incorporates features you would expect from a modern container format, like:

* Fast seeking in the file
* High error recovery
* Chapter entries
* Selectable subtitle streams
* Selectable audio streams
* Modularly Extendable
* Streamable over internet (HTTP and RTP audio & video streams)
* Menus (like DVDs have)
Click to expand...

By your logic, all new developments should stop. Psh, I guess Apple shouldn't have released h.264. Oh wait, they were adding yet another new video format and yet they had a reason, to provide a format with new compression and features that could not be utilized in an existing format.
 
That basically is a list of available QuickTime / Windows Media functions, and is there to attempt to qualify the format's existence, indicated by the statement "It incorporates features you would expect from a modern container format." Remember those QT games Apple released to show off the true flexibility of QT? So, we should use this obscure format because it can do the same things as the major ones?

Also, releasing new codecs that play within an existing major container is much better than creating a whole new container.

Nice try, though.
 
dpaanlka said:
Also, releasing new codecs that play within an existing major container is much better than creating a whole new container.
Click to expand...

So? You still need a software upgrade to play it no matter what, so I don't see your point.

Also, with 3 million downloads, I wouldn't say that it's very obscure, not to mention the fact that it is open source, which many users prefer. Not to mention that if someone continued distributing videos in this format, it would be quite the annoyance to convert it every time you wanted to play a new video.
 
Maxwell Smart said:
So? You still need a software upgrade to play it no matter what, so I don't see your point.
Click to expand...

You can't see the down-side of adding a container that no major player can play, thus requiring some other player?

Also, with 3 million downloads, I wouldn't say that it's very obscure
Click to expand...

That is extremely, extremely obscure.

EDIT: According to IDC, worldwide computer sales will be just slightly under 300 million for the year 2006 alone. Compare that to 3 million downloads, doesn't seem very widespread does it?

EDIT #2: Compare that to FireFox's 250+ million downloads. And that still only has a 13% worldwide market share!

not to mention the fact that it is open source, which many users prefer.
Click to expand...

Somethings are just better not open source. We can't just rely solely on open-source. If the entire industry was open-sourced, there would be no economic functions. A severe degradation of quality products. Perhaps some new gee-wiz stuff would appear on the scene quickly, but only by sacrificing usability, compatibility, etc... Besides, if the developer of this particular container wants to be taken seriously, he can mosey on down to Apple's QuickTime Developer page, and find information to make his format compatible with Apple's player, and thus, compatible with everything that uses QuickTime (iTunes, various software, web-site embeds, etc).

EDIT: Microsoft has a similar page for Windows Media.
 
Anyway, to get back on topic, my point is the original poster should be aware of the choices he has, and hopefully with all of our information he can make the best decision for himself.
 
its absurd to attack open source, and its ironic u would use M$ as example when u attack them like crazy at some posts,

user should be welcomed by apple, which means the more codec/player under mac OSX, the more attractive it will be.

the OP's problem has been answered in the beginning 5 posts, there is no need to keep bashing here, again, sorry, won't argue with u, im scared, ok :p
 
clevin said:
its absurd to attack open source, and its ironic u would use M$ as example when u attack them like crazy at some posts
Click to expand...

Why do you keep posting replies to my posts without actually addressing any specific thing that I've said, or offering any sort of reasonable counter point other than "you're absurd!"

clevin said:
user should be welcomed by apple, which means the more codec/player under mac OSX, the more attractive it will be.
Click to expand...

What does that even mean!

clevin said:
the OP's problem has been answered in the beginning 5 posts, there is no need to keep bashing here, again, sorry, won't argue with u, im scared, ok :p
Click to expand...

It's a discussion forum. We're discussing. Feel free to join in with a counter point of some sort.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back