Why do Mac's have more options? (Video Encoding Software)

[Video Beagle]

Hey look, click bait title!

 

TLDR: Why is this the case?

 

I'm mainly a mac user, but I also have a nice PC mainly for gaming... I've been playing with video converting software to make videos "3d" to use with my steam vr stuff.

There's a ton of programs, all pretty much clones of each other, all with both pc and mac versions. I've tried the windows versions so I could take use of the GPU in there to go quicker, but across the line, the Windows versions have fewer options than the mac versions, especialy in the resolution options.  Macs let you chose pretty much any resolution, as big as you want, and the program will produce it.  The PC version though pretty much give you 1280x720 or 1920x1080 only.

 

Test video: 1280x720

 

PC: Target: 1920x1080 (3840x1080 SBS...doesn't give an option for OU)

      Result video: 1920x1080 (3840x1080 SBS)

 

 

Mac: Target 1920x1080 (1920x2160 OU)

         Result: 1920x1080 (1920x2160 OU)

 

 

So my question is..why is this? Doesn't matter what program this is, Tipard, Aieesoft, DVDfa, unicoverter... they're all identical in interface, and all have plenty of options in the Mac version and none in the PC?

(If someone knows a PC version that DOES give you resolution options, let me know).

[TetraSky]

What if you select "customize" ? Does it let you choose more options ? 

Personally I use Adobe Premiere and it has plenty of options for "3D" SBS videos and resolution... But then again, it's also a premium product, so obviously.

 

Is this with the exact same software, both on Mac and Windows ? Or with a "equivalent" type of deal? (It's not clear to me with your post)

[WereCatf]

12 minutes ago, Video Beagle said:

So my question is..why is this? Doesn't matter what program this is, Tipard, Aieesoft, DVDfa, unicoverter... they're all identical in interface, and all have plenty of options in the Mac version and none in the PC?

At least in the two screenshots you're comparing apples and oranges: the upper screenshot only offers resolutions that'd preserve the aspect-ratio, but in the latter screenshot you get resolutions that will not preserve aspect-ratio!

[exhaustedbrit]

Personally, for screen capture just use OBS, for encoding just use Handbrake. Every other tool I have used either free or paid for is just massively inferior.

Most encoders are just wrappers around libraries like ffmpeg.

[Video Beagle]

Customize let's you mess with the bitrates, but not go beyond the listed resolutions.

Does Premiere have an auto "3d" function? I haven't touched it in years, and this is just to make 3d music videos for VR headset fun.

 

54 minutes ago, WereCatf said:

At least in the two screenshots you're comparing apples and oranges: the upper screenshot only offers resolutions that'd preserve the aspect-ratio, but in the latter screenshot you get resolutions that will not preserve aspect-ratio!

That's literally what the post is about. The Mac version, the lower, gives more options in the resolution choice.  the PC version does not. I'm wondering why.

 

53 minutes ago, exhaustedbrit said:

Personally, for screen capture just use OBS, for encoding just use Handbrake. Every other tool I have used either free or paid for is just massively inferior.

For real encoding, I use handbrake..but it doesn't have the "3d function" which is what this is about.

[exhaustedbrit]

9 minutes ago, Video Beagle said:

For real encoding, I use handbrake..but it doesn't have the "3d function" which is what this is about.

I see - it sounds like you just care about the metadata. I would still recommend using Handbrake to handle the actual encoding, what you need is a tool to remux the footage to preserve the original metadata, or at least let you modify it. You can just add the metadata to the MP4 container that handbrake spits out.

A video with '3D support' still just consists of the same ordinary video/audio streams, there's just additional metadata enclosed in that video container, standard FFMpeg tools work for adding this too, but this tool wraps it and makes it fairly easy. 

[WereCatf]

12 minutes ago, Video Beagle said:

That's literally what the post is about. The Mac version, the lower, gives more options in the resolution choice.  the PC version does not. I'm wondering why.

Because the dev decided that way. There is nothing about Windows that prevents you from encoding videos in all sorts of random resolutions just like there isn't on Mac OS -- it's just simply up to the developer.

[Video Beagle]

14 minutes ago, exhaustedbrit said:

A video with '3D support' still just consists of the same ordinary video/audio streams, there's just additional metadata enclosed in that video container, standard FFMpeg tools work for adding this too, but this tool wraps it and makes it fairly easy. 

 

No.. it actually redoes the video, making a left and right (or top and bottom) side that are slightly shifted so that a 3d player program will combine them with a simulated 3d effect.

I'm sure it's pretty much just horizontal offsets, that ffmpeg does based on the presets in the program, but it's more than just meta data.

 

 

 

12 minutes ago, WereCatf said:

Because the dev decided that way. There is nothing about Windows that prevents you from encoding videos in all sorts of random resolutions just like there isn't on Mac OS -- it's just simply up to the developer.

So no developer on the PC side thinks putting the resolution options they already have in their mac versions is worth it? Not a one thinks "Hey, this option gives us a way to differentiate our program in the market from all the other ones!"

 

 

 

[Video Beagle]

A more-techie than I colleague suggests:

Apple and Berkley (the guys who make OSX's kernel) both have several video coding patents, locking them off of Windows.
Either domestic or licensed under exclusive deals
Windows has fewer it can include by default, which means apps on PC have fewer default options

 

That does explain the universal disparity between similar programs across the two platforms.

[LogicalDrm]

-> Moved to Programs, Apps and Websites

[exhaustedbrit]

19 minutes ago, Video Beagle said:

A more-techie than I colleague suggests:

Apple and Berkley (the guys who make OSX's kernel) both have several video coding patents, locking them off of Windows.
Either domestic or licensed under exclusive deals
Windows has fewer it can include by default, which means apps on PC have fewer default options

 

That does explain the universal disparity between similar programs across the two platforms.

If it's actually recomposing the original source content before encode then I can understand it, but the video encoding patents is a complicated topic that I am very familiar with, in this case MPEG-LA, the company which covers licensing for MPEG-4, AVC, HEVC and some other similar technologies is a consortium of license holders which include Apple, Microsoft, Sony, Samsung and many other companies because the technology used to encode and distribute this content is covered by thousands of individual patents.

It's simply a choice by the developer to enable certain options.

Usage of h264 encoders is broadly covered by Microsoft and Apple respectively in the rights included by the purchase of Windows or hardware which is licensed for windows. Yes this is usually restrictive, and restricted to 'personal, non-commercial use only' but arbitrary restrictions such as the resolution are not a caveat unless relying on some stubborn encoding tools baked into the OS which I'm almost certain is not the case here.

[Video Beagle]

2 hours ago, exhaustedbrit said:

arbitrary restrictions such as the resolution are not a caveat unless relying on some stubborn encoding tools baked into the OS which I'm almost certain is not the case here.

all you say makes sense, but there has to be reason why no company on the windows side has it while all on the mac does...and again, it's the same companies with differing versions (though all the software is clones of each other)

[WereCatf]

4 hours ago, Video Beagle said:

A more-techie than I colleague suggests:

Apple and Berkley (the guys who make OSX's kernel) both have several video coding patents, locking them off of Windows.
Either domestic or licensed under exclusive deals
Windows has fewer it can include by default, which means apps on PC have fewer default options

 

That does explain the universal disparity between similar programs across the two platforms.

No, it doesn't. What the colleague is talking about is codecs, not resolutions. There is no such a patent that'd allow you to only use H.264 at specific resolutions.

[Video Beagle]

1 hour ago, WereCatf said:

No, it doesn't. What the colleague is talking about is codecs, not resolutions. There is no such a patent that'd allow you to only use H.264 at specific resolutions.

Is there a better one that isn't "For no particular reason, the same companies decided not to have the same options in the same program on the two different platforms."