Talk:RMVB

Why it isn't more popular

I don't get why this format isn't more popular. The quality is reasonable better in comparison to your (average) Xvid encoded .avi (150-200 megs for 20 minutes) and at the same time it's only about a third of the size. I've got no clue about the technical specifics, but the examples I've seen were clearly superior. Definitely needs some more promotion. --PhilippN 00:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The reason it's not more popular is because the majority of groups are smart. They can see that there aren't any open and free ways to play this format. It doesn't work well (at all?) with most of the encoding programs that most groups use. Further, h.264 is far in advance of this codec, even in it's current half implemented state. It's not popular, primarily, because it's shit in all the catagories that matter to encoders. --CalPaterson 20:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Even if you think so, you don't have to use words like sh*t here. Ap2000 02:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a chance for popularity for this format. Remember, it's still intended as a streaming format, and competes against a largely implemented ASX (full family) streaming format (present by default in Windows). The encoders from REAL are crippled in functionalty, to entice people to pay for a full version. Unless they change their policies, it is to be expected REAL's content share will not increase significantly, even in the eventuality their codecs are superior. The world works this way. And even a a non-streamed format, REAL's videos non-editability is largely an obstacle to adoption. Some of the most recent features specifically need/require the newest versions of RealPlayer, wich has already and more than once been coined as largely obstrusive. Plesae read Real Player's history for a more constructive criticism about REAL's marketing and bundling practices.--Omega Said 21:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

'RMVB files are typically much smaller in file size than MPEG4-part2 formats'

'RMVB" is half the size of avi and quality is about 80 -90% same as avi

I have a practical evidence that this is true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neon_white (talk • contribs)  15:44, December 18, 2006

I agree! The MPEG-4-part-2 codecs family were gaining popularity back when most 'fair use' was based on CD-Rs. So, movies (and much less TV-shows) were encoded with 2-pass ABR to fit on 1 or 2 CDs. Hence the typical around 800 kbps video and 128 kbps audio. However, one can cut down on this, and still get a decent effect.

Also there is some information, that "quick" scenes require more bandwidth. This is not precise, because in quick scenes the eye has less time to focus and detect missing details or artifacts.

RV40 is a lossy codec, and something's got to give - the videos are watchable, that is certain, but they have smudged colors and motion. The compatibility issues, closedness etc. make it a difficult compromise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.144.9.18 (talk) 22:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I have removed that statement. If RMVB really uses compression similar to MPEG-4 Part 10 (AKA H.264) then it's no wonder that it achieves better results then MPEG-4 Part 2 (AKA H.263, Xvid, old Divx) codecs. What it should be compared against are implementations of H.264 based codecs like x264 or WMV 9/VC-1. I've also moved the adjacent statement about its popularity to the next paragraph, as the real reason for this is its popularity in Asia. I assume this will need another "citation needed" tag, though - which I don't have one at the moment, TBH. 88.217.104.71 (talk) 19:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

'noticeably present (though not entirely popular) on file sharing platforms'

The claim that they are a noticeable presence on p2p networks also needs to be evaluated or deleted, if no hard evidence and figures can be cited. RMVB's are typically seen, in my experience, on Chinese torrent sites, for files originating from China or Hong Kong. Due to the proprietary nature of the format and lack of support by other players, it is **NOT** the format of choice among encoding individuals and groups. I have seen them only on rare occasions on major BitTorrent sites like mininova.org and thepiratebay.org. Also I agree with Neon_white. We ought to remove the claim that RMVB files are typically smaller than DiVX/XViD files, as there is no basis for this assertion.

pogo 18:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Add Section or Note about using 3rd party tools to access or convert RMVB files

To save others the headaches I encountered when accessing and transcoding RMVB files with 3rd party applications (Quicktime, etc). I would like to add a Section or Note on how to access RMVB files outside of the RealPlayer GUI.

Baseline for instructions on how to install the required codecs to a location where mplayer or ffmepgX can find them when opening a RMVB file. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.126.180.177 (talk) 00:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I now see in article's history that simular information was added by someone back in Oct 2007 and then removed on 18:34, 8 January 2008 by 71.170.166.206 with no comments for the removal of this information?

Converter Program Works 50% of the Time

The link to the converter, http://www.rmvbcodec.com/, sends you to a page where you download a rmvb to whatever (.mp4 .avi ect) converter. Personally i have had little luck with the converter, and when it does work the audio is about 5 seconds off. I know it is a free option (other than torrents) but still... it could be a little better. 76.1.73.225 (talk) 02:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Portable Player Support

The Chinese-made "ipod knockoffs" that are based on the RockChip RK2706 chip have built in support for RVMB playback without the need of converting the video to a supported format. Most of these are sold on eBay or other wholesalers that specialize in Chinese imports and are exceedingly cheap for thier features. Dewdude (talk) 16:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)