Asked for an update on the potential for .mkv support and received the following:-

"We are checking the possibility of supporing MKV, but I am not sure about the result. Once we found we can support MKV, we will announce.

Regards,
Eric"

Hopefully some more news to come on this and positive!

Yeah, mkv support is a make or break feature for me!

I'm fairly certain Sigma 8623 doesn't have the horsepower required for Matroska playback. I mean, sure, it shouldn't be a problem to write a Matroska decoder and the box should be able to open it, but then there wouldn't be enough CPU cycles left to actually decode & play the video/audio streams stored inside the container.

I'm fairly certain Sigma 8623 doesn't have the horsepower required for Matroska playback. I mean, sure, it shouldn't be a problem to write a Matroska decoder and the box should be able to open it, but then there wouldn't be enough CPU cycles left to actually decode & play the video/audio streams stored inside the container.
You're confusing a few things here.

(1) Matroska/MKV is not a codec but a container. So you don't need (you even can't) write a "Matroska decoder". But what you need to do is to write a "Matroska splitter".

(2) There are many containers supported by the current 8623 boxes, including e.g. VOB, AVI, MPG and many more. What sets these containers apart from Matroska? I see no reason why Matroska splitting would need more processing power than e.g. AVI or MPG splitting. It's really all the same, just slightly different file format.

You're confusing a few things here.
No, I'm not. I know perfectly well Matroska is a container and not a codec. Yes, I should've used the word "splitter" instead of decoder, but it refused to come to mind while I was writing the post.

(2) There are many containers supported by the current 8623 boxes, including e.g. VOB, AVI, MPG and many more. What sets these containers apart from Matroska? I see no reason why Matroska splitting would need more processing power than e.g. AVI or MPG splitting. It's really all the same, just slightly different file format.
If it was equally easy on the CPU, how come we haven't seen it in any box so far? The 8623 is really struggling with processing power as it is (CIFS/SMB streaming is pretty much out of the question for high bitrate HD content, for example). My theory is that certain containers are written into the 8623 hardware which helps immensely in the task. MKV is not, and programmers need to handle it in 'software', so to speak. That's probably also where the limited amount of memory comes into play.

No, I'm not. I know perfectly well Matroska is a container and not a codec. Yes, I should've used the word "splitter" instead of decoder, but it refused to come to mind while I was writing the post.
Ok, that's good. Then you're one of the few who understands the difference between a splitter and a decoder... :)

If it was equally easy on the CPU, how come we haven't seen it in any box so far? The 8623 is really struggling with processing power as it is (CIFS/SMB streaming is pretty much out of the question for high bitrate HD content, for example). My theory is that certain containers are written into the 8623 hardware which helps immensely in the task. MKV is not, and programmers need to handle it in 'software', so to speak. That's probably also where the limited amount of memory comes into play.
Ok, that might be possible. But do you think that all supported containers like AVI, ISO, IFO, VOB, TS, MPG, MP4, WMV etc are all supported by the 8623 hardware directly? I'm having a hard time believing that. But then what do I know... :o

how come we haven't seen it in any box so far?
My best guess is that:

(1) Manufacturers and firmware writers totally under-estimated how important MKV support is.
(2) Many people believe MKV is only for h264, and only the very latest boxes can handle h264 to begin with. So they never bothered to implement it for non-h264 boxes.

But do you think that all supported containers like AVI, ISO, IFO, VOB, TS, MPG, MP4, WMV etc are all supported by the 8623 hardware directly? I'm having a hard time believing that. But then what do I know... :o
I'm just theorizing here :) I'd guess not all of those are in hardware, and the Sigma SDK is used to write support for additional containers in 'software'. That being the case, it certainly sounds possible to implement support for Matroska in 8623, but it's totally up to 1) the firmware programmers and 2) the available CPU power.

(1) Manufacturers and firmware writers totally under-estimated how important MKV support is.
(2) Many people believe MKV is only for h264, and only the very latest boxes can handle h264 to begin with. So they never bothered to implement it for non-h264 boxes.
Both sound very likely to me.

Just my two cents here.....but If I can remux MKV 720p and (sometimes...lol) 1080p into TS or AVI..........and it plays perfect (limHD)....whats the logical conclusion?

K

Just my two cents here.....but If I can remux MKV 720p and (sometimes...lol) 1080p into TS or AVI..........and it plays perfect (limHD)....whats the logical conclusion?
The logical conclusion is that limHD can play 720p and 1080p in TS and AVI containers. Nothing more, nothing less. That is not proof positive for MKV playback capability.

The logical conclusion is that limHD can play 720p and 1080p in TS and AVI containers. Nothing more, nothing less. That is not proof positive for MKV playback capability.

I didn't just mean the LimHD!

K

I didn't just mean the LimHD!
Heh, OK. Regardless, the fact that contents of some other containers play fine does not prove that MKV will. It could be, for example, that transport stream (ts) is supported in hardware and takes little to no CPU power. Playing MKV might need too much CPU and/or memory. We'll have to wait and see. While TsRemux is steadily working towards MKV support, I for one don't wish to re-mux all my MKVs; I'd much rather see the 4100 support MKV directly.

(1) Manufacturers and firmware writers totally under-estimated how important MKV support is.

Matroska is CRAP.

It was never needed and has only created a pain in the ass process if one wishes to do anything with a video wrapped in it.

There are SOOO many problems with sync issues and playback for MKV files.

And it does take more CPU power to playback MKV, quite a bit more. Run some tests if you disagree.

Matroska is CRAP.

It was never needed and has only created a pain in the ass process if one wishes to do anything with a video wrapped in it.

There are SOOO many problems with sync issues and playback for MKV files.
I don't have any problems with sync issues and playback at all. In my experience I had more sync issues with TS files. Tell me another container that can hold h264 and AC3 and text subtitles and which allows to assign names and language identifiers to all audio straems and which has decent freeware muxing tools available and then you may claim that MKV was never needed.

And it does take more CPU power to playback MKV, quite a bit more. Run some tests if you disagree.
Give me a technical reason why it should need more CPU power, then I may believe you. On my PC MKV files need a bit more time to open/start compared to TS files, but once the file is playing, MKV files play better than any other container on my PC, except maybe TS which plays comparably on my PC.