Play MKV with multiple video stream

[elpoolet 26]

Hi everyone.

 

First of all; happy new year !

 

I had a question. I can't see the multiple video streams in an mkv when playing.

It shows well on the details, but when playing, it's not possibl to "choose" what stream to play.

Emby plays the default stream.

 

I give some details.

My emby server is on a Desktop Windows 10 PC with a AMD 3400G CPU that is not used to display.

I use Chrome to access my server on my laptop.

I use the Emby app on my Philips Smart TV

I use the Emby app on Amazon Fire TV Stick for another TV.

 

When the video stream is h264, no transcoding occurs.

When the video is hevc, transcoding (and CPU Intensive) occurs when playing with Chrome.

 

I tried to re-encode the video with StaXRip to create an h264 video.

Remux with mkvtoolnix the 2 video streams (hevc and h264) in one .mkv bt Emby only plays h264 (marked as default stream).

 

I also tried to convert (via the enby options) the media to a profile compatible with direct stream, but now, the movie appears 2 times in the list.

 

 

My question are :

 - is there a workaroud to have only one item in the list when the movie is in several formats?

 - is there anything specific to do to have Emby let the choice of the video stream to play ?

 

Many thanks.

 

Let me know if ,you need some details from the files.

 

Many thanks

 

 

 

 

 

[elpoolet 26]

Hi 

 

I partialy respond to myself....

Using "sync folders" achieves partially the need... but... but : 

 - how to add manualy a transcoded video to the sync folder ? is this a t least possible ?

beacause the "download to" option is very long when you already have medias encoded with compatible direct streaming...

 

Many thanks for answers

[ebr 16181]

Hi.  We do not support multiple video streams in one file at this time.  You would need to separate them out and then use our multi-version feature to show them as one item with a drop down option.

[elpoolet 26]

Hi.

Many thanks to helped me.

It's exactly what I want !

 

But just a little thing. It seems the subtitles are not available on all versions unless they are presnet in th mkv.

Do I needt to extract them in the folder ?

 

PS : this need is only for hevc videos played on Chrome or FireTV....

[Luke 42078]

Just to clarify, you can play these files, but we don't offer any facility to choose which video stream you want. So yes, multi-version videos would be a great alternative approach.

 

 

 

Do I needt to extract them in the folder ?

To make the same subtitles available for each, they either need them all embedded, or yes, you'd have to extract them.

[elpoolet 26]

Hi all.

 

After I understand how folders works..

It's great.

 

I created a folder named "Jumanji - (2017) - Welcome to the Jungle - tt2283362"

I include the iMDB or TheMovieDB ID in the filename and I didn't get classification error !!!

 

Then, I created 2 files : 

Jumanji - (2017) - Welcome to the Jungle - tt2283362 - 1080p h264.mkv

Jumanji - (2017) - Welcome to the Jungle - tt2283362 - 1080p hevc.mkv

 

And when I play, i can select wich version is played.

1080p h264 on WebClient, Mobilephone...

1080p hevc on SmartTV, EmbyTheater Windows App

 

Thanks for all

[Luke 42078]

Thanks for the feedback!

[HawkXP71 112]

Hate to bring up the dead

Is there any plan to support multiple video streams like how emby supports multiple audio streams?

[Luke 42078]

2 minutes ago, HawkXP71 said:

Hate to bring up the dead

Is there any plan to support multiple video streams like how emby supports multiple audio streams?

It comes up every now and then. Always possible for future updates. Thanks.

[Zodler 18]

Always possible? This is as basic as selecting an audio track!

[pwhodges 2012]

But is it?  Multiple video streams will multiply the bandwidth requirement hugely, whereas multiple audio and subtitle streams have modest impact.  Surely it is better to have a separate file for each video layer, and add just the matching audio and subtitle streams.  Virtually the same disk space requirement, and sensible bandwidth.  The required version can be selected using the established versioning system.

Paul

[rbjtech 5284]

9 minutes ago, pwhodges said:

But is it?  Multiple video streams will multiply the bandwidth requirement hugely, whereas multiple audio and subtitle streams have modest impact.  Surely it is better to have a separate file for each video layer, and add just the matching audio and subtitle streams.  Virtually the same disk space requirement, and sensible bandwidth.  The required version can be selected using the established versioning system.

Paul

Bandwidth would relate the video stream that is chosen ?

If it had a 4K and 1080p stream - then by playing the 1080p stream, you would only require bandwidth for the 1080p stream ...

Having two 'files' - you are doubling the space requirement for the Audio - which, if HD Audio, is not insignificant...

 

[rbjtech 5284]

36 minutes ago, Zodler said:

Always possible? This is as basic as selecting an audio track!

From a pure 'direct' playback perspective - maybe - but when you start incorporating all the possible transcoding parameters into ffmpeg - all based off the 'default' video stream today (#0) then it becomes complicated very quickly.

There is also the fact multi resolution tracks are extremly rare - so not sure it is worth the technical investment.

It would probably be easier to just have a 'split' function that creates two titles, copying the Audio/Subs as required.

 

[pwhodges 2012]

32 minutes ago, rbjtech said:

If it had a 4K and 1080p stream - then by playing the 1080p stream, you would only require bandwidth for the 1080p stream ...

So, remuxing, not direct playing.  Well, I suppose that's no great deal.

34 minutes ago, rbjtech said:

Having two 'files' - you are doubling the space requirement for the Audio - which, if HD Audio, is not insignificant...

If there are multiple audio streams for different languages (matching the mentioned scenario of signs in different languages), then they don't need to be duplicated to every video file.

OK, so it's feasible - but is it worth it?

Paul

[ebr 16181]

1 hour ago, rbjtech said:

Bandwidth would relate the video stream that is chosen ?

Only if not direct playing...

[rbjtech 5284]

37 minutes ago, ebr said:

Only if not direct playing...

Hmm,,

Are you saying that all available data is sent in a direct stream regardless of what stream is chosen by the client ?

So if I direct play a title - all video, all audio and all subtitles are sent regardless ?

If yes, why would you not just stream the tracks that the client is using ?  (I've always assumed that this is the case ..)

[Luke 42078]

This comes up every now and then. Yes it is possible, but would take a bit of work.

[ebr 16181]

37 minutes ago, rbjtech said:

Are you saying that all available data is sent in a direct stream regardless of what stream is chosen by the client ?

If direct playing, the whole file is delivered to the app player and all track switching is internal.

If we are transcoding, then only the appropriate tracks are delivered but, with things like subtitles, we will send them all so that the app can quickly switch without having to re-start the stream.

[rbjtech 5284]

10 minutes ago, ebr said:

If direct playing, the whole file is delivered to the app player and all track switching is internal.

Yep - just tested this using network monitor stats - indeed, doesn't matter if you choose AAC2.0 or TrueHD - the direct playback bandwidth for that file is the same.

Every day is a school day - thanks for the info.

So as a lesson learnt then - the more HD Audio Tracks you add to a title - the more bandwidth it needs and ultimately wastes on a direct play - useful to know.

10 minutes ago, ebr said:

If we are transcoding, then only the appropriate tracks are delivered but, with things like subtitles, we will send them all so that the app can quickly switch without having to re-start the stream.

ok - that make sense as subs are tiny - I don't transcode that much, but I asume it re-starts the transcode if you change audio tracks ?

.. and @pwhodges- You were correct in your original statement - my apologies, I incorrectly though the HLS stream just sent the tracks required directly, it appears not.  For real FILE direct via SMB, then yes, it would obviously need to send the entire file at the SMB packet level, so no way to split the streams.

Interesting info and insight.

Thanks all.

Edited September 7, 2023 by rbjtech

[Luke 42078]

Quote

but I asume it re-starts the transcode if you change audio tracks ?

Usually.

[elpoolet 26]

13 minutes ago, ebr said:

If direct playing, the whole file is delivered to the app player and all track switching is internal.

So, multiple audio streams is pointless concerning bandwith ?

Untill then, I encoded my files with 4 audio streams : the 2 primary in he-AAC 2.0 and the 2 complimentary in AC3 5.1 (when multi is available and AC3 also, for sure).

I thinked that when no transcode operates, only the requested streams by the client were sent...

Apparently I was not right...

Is there a way to force DirectStream (not direct play) in order to only deliver requested streams ?

[Luke 42078]

Quote

Apparently I was not right...

Is there a way to force DirectStream (not direct play) in order to only deliver requested streams ?

You don't want to do that. Direct playing original files is always the simplest, most reliable, more likely to just work and stats playing quicker than any kind of conversion happening by the server.

I'm not saying that conversion on the fly isn't reliable - of course it is, but it's still something that you only want to do when necessary.

[elpoolet 26]

3 minutes ago, Luke said:

You don't want to do that. Direct playing original files is always the simplest, most reliable, more likely to just work and stats playing quicker than any kind of conversion happening by the server.

I'm not saying that conversion on the fly isn't reliable - of course it is, but it's still something that you only want to do when necessary.

Sure.

But this reflexion explain why sometimes I have some videos which plays transcoded with a final bandwidth at 3 mbps, even if the video stream is 2 Mbps and the first audio stream is 128kbps....

But the whole file is around 5 Mbps (2 M for video, 2x128k he-AAC, 2x640 k AC3)...

[rbjtech 5284]

11 minutes ago, Luke said:

I'm not saying that conversion on the fly isn't reliable - of course it is, but it's still something that you only want to do when necessary.

I think that really depends on the amount of bandwidth to do so @Luke

Let's say you have a 4K Remux, with both a DTS-HD, True-HD in multiple languages - that is an extra 20-30 Mbit/sec !

For wired LAN usage, probably not an issue, but for borderline Wifi or maybe even remote, now that Direct Play fails because of bandwidth when it would have worked ok if it just send the requested single non HD Audio stream.

Edited September 7, 2023 by rbjtech

[ebr 16181]

9 minutes ago, rbjtech said:

now that Direct Play fails because of bandwidth when it would have worked ok if it just send the requested single non HD Audio stream.

But now you're no longer direct playing because the server has to decompose the streams and then re-package them to send only those streams - so now you are using HLS.