Windows Media Encoder x64 now available - with VC-1 support!

[zambelli]

This morning Microsoft released a new x64 version of its Windows Media Encoder 9 series. You can download it from http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/9series/encoder/default.aspx. Here are the details on the differences between the x86 and x64 version:

Comparing 32-bit and 64-bit Versions
You can encode audio and video content in Windows Media Video (WMV) format using either the 32-bit version or the 64-bit version of Windows Media Encoder 9 Series. The version you choose will depend on your encoding scenarios.

The new Windows Media Encoder 9 Series x64 Edition contains the same feature set as the widely used 32-bit version of Windows Media Encoder 9 Series as well as the following updates:

VC-1 video codec. Windows Media Encoder 9 Series x64 Edition includes support for a fully SMPTE-compliant version of the new VC-1 video codec. Windows Media Video 9 Advanced Profile is Microsoft’s implementation of VC-1, which is the proposed SMPTE standard that delivers high-definition quality with highly efficient compression rates. It requires less computational power and can be decoded at full 1080i/p resolution on a typical computer. Windows Media Video 9 Advanced Profile delivers high definition (HD) content at bit rates as low as 6 Mbps to 8 Mbps.
Windows Media Digital Rights Management (DRM). In contrast to the 32-bit version of Windows Media Encoder 9 Series, the 64-bit version includes a separate DRM Protect Utility that allows you to apply DRM protection to your content files after the encoding process is completed. The DRM Protect Utility uses the information in the DRM profile you select to encrypt your content with a key, and other digital rights management settings that are specific to that DRM profile.
The DRM Protect Utility is available only for the 64-bit version of the encoder and cannot be used with the 32-bit version. Additionally, the DRM encryption functionality in the 32-bit version of the encoder does not work with the 64-bit version.


Encoding Scenarios
Windows Media Encoder 9 Series x64 Edition is designed to introduce you to the x64 support found in Microsoft Windows Vista. Therefore, some encoding scenarios are not yet fully optimized for the 64-bit version of the encoder. You should determine whether to use the 32-bit or 64-bit version depending on your encoding scenario and on your plans to migrate to x64 versions of encoding applications.

Scenarios that are optimized for the 64-bit version include:

Encoding 720p HD 2-pass PVBR content on quad-processor and dual-processor computers.
Encoding 720p HD AVI using the new VC-1 codec on quad-processor and dual-processor computers.


Scenarios that are not yet fully optimized for the 64-bit version include:
Resizing content from AP HD to AP standard definition (SD).
Encoding high-quality SD content.

[Valeron]

Q1: Does the Advanced Profile support 2 pass encoding now?
Q2: There's no updates for the 32bit version encoder. I've check for the player update, there's new version available. A big 10M package, is it the Advanced Profile update?

Thx

[JuanCC]

This means that there is a 64bits version of windows media codecs?

[zambelli]

Q1: Does the Advanced Profile support 2 pass encoding now?
I'll have to get back to you on that one. I'm guessing it's fully supported now since that's what most content authors will be using, but I'll double check that - I haven't had a chance to install it yet because I don't have x64 hardware in my office.

Q2: There's no updates for the 32bit version encoder. I've check for the player update, there's new version available. A big 10M package, is it the Advanced Profile update?
The 32-bit encoder hasn't been updated.

[acidsex]

Not trying to hijack the thread but what happen to the announcement at NAB this year between MS and Gridiron and their partnership on grid encoding? It said Q2 and this year is almost over. Has it been scrapped?

[CruNcher]

acidsex "The Grid" isn't even existing yet ;P

[Sirber]

VFW? or the big GUI?

[Valeron]

VFW? or the big GUI?

They haven't upgrade the vfw, but the WME GUI~

[acidsex]

acidsex "The Grid" isn't even existing yet ;P

What I meant was the Xfactor program that was first used in Adobe After Effects.

Here is the link to the press release back on April 17, 2005/Gridiron software (http://www.gridironxfactor.com/corporate/news/xfactor_wme.asp)

[acidsex]

Question. How much of a speed improvement should I expect to see with A AMD64 3700+ using x64 encoder on XP64 as opposed to using 32bit encoder on XP Pro 32bit? Is it significant?

[Elias]

Can this Windows Media Encoder be used with Windows Movie Maker? If not, how about future versions? Or is it a completely independent GUI?

[Valeron]

Can this Windows Media Encoder be used with Windows Movie Maker? If not, how about future versions? Or is it a completely independent GUI?

AFAIK, WMV encoder is a DMO based encoder.
The WME is just a GUI.
Maybe you can find the encoder object as an option in the encoders' drop down list of Movie Maker.

[Elias]

What's DMO?

[Valeron]

What's DMO?

Direct Media Object, according to DirectX's document.
They recommend the developers to build their encoder in this way better than VFW.
UC, this is just the recommendation file in DirectX's docs, few people implement their encoder in this way.

[Elias]

Is DMO the new vfw? Can VirtualDub use DMO?

[Valeron]

Is DMO the new vfw? Can VirtualDub use DMO?

No, it's part of DirextX, there's large gap between VFW and DMO.
So you can't use it in VirtualDub or any other vfw base program.

[bond]

does the tool output vc-1/wmv9 in the .mpg container as smpte defines it? or only m$ own .wmv container?

[guada 2]

Hello zambelli;

You said that:" The 32-bit encoder hasn't been updated "

And i have a small question:

What is the difference between these 3 versions?
- 5.50.4134.600
- 6.0.2600.0
- 9.00.00.2980


Thank you to clarify.

Bye.

[guada 2]

apparently, they are all identical. :confused:

very very strange, But why?

[Valeron]

@bond:

WMV is aka ASF, it's also a specs-open container.
The specs can be found here (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/format/asfspec.aspx).

[Valeron]

Hello zambelli;

You said that:" The 32-bit encoder hasn't been updated "

And i have a small question:

What is the difference between these 3 versions?
- 5.50.4134.600
- 6.0.2600.0
- 9.00.00.2980


Thank you to clarify.

Bye.

6.0.2600.0 is the version number of WMV9VCM, which is a simple/main profile implementation of vc-1(incompletely impelmented I think, at least I don't think it can do b-frame. anyone can check if it does packed bitstream mod like XviD do with AVI? Same for the DMO base encoder) based on vfw.
9.00.00.2980 is the version number of WME, the GUI only.
The WMV9 SP/MP DMO base encoder has ever get a small mirror upgrade with WMP10 afaik. 2980 is not its version number.

But where does 5.50.4134.600 come from?
I had never seen this encoder version....

[bond]

@bond:

WMV is aka ASF, it's also a specs-open container.
The specs can be found here (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/format/asfspec.aspx).sure, but this doesnt change/answer my question ;)

[acidsex]

ok, I have installed the x64 encoder. Loaded up a file and selected the Advanced Profile Codec. Tried to select 2-pass and it defaulted back to WM9 (no Adv Prof.) So no on the 2pass.

Second, where are the settings i.e. B frames, inloop, etc? I know with the 32bit we had to change the values in the registry but in the x64 I dont see where these settings are. Honestly, it looks just like the 32bit version.

Anyone know what gives?

[Valeron]

@bond:
The new encoder is probably still outputting wmv.

btw, even themselves haven't implemented asf well.
I had ever meet some WMVA clips in wmv seeking so bad.

[zambelli]

does the tool output vc-1/wmv9 in the .mpg container as smpte defines it? or only m$ own .wmv container?

SMPTE or DVD Forum? I was under the impression that SMPTE certified VC-1 as a codec and not as a complete format solution, so I'm pretty sure SMPTE didn't define a container for it (but if you can point me to a document, I'd be happy to read it).

But to answer your question... WM Encoder 9 only outputs VC-1 video in ASF format.

[acidsex]

@zambelli: installed the x64 encoder and saw the advanced profile but how do you configure b frames and lookahead etc...? Do you still have to use the registry hack?

[bond]

SMPTE or DVD Forum? I was under the impression that SMPTE certified VC-1 as a codec and not as a complete format solution, so I'm pretty sure SMPTE didn't define a container for it (but if you can point me to a document, I'd be happy to read it).you are pretty sure? you are wrong :p

SMPTE RP227 defines how to place vc-1 in mpeg-2 transport and program streams. and it actually also makes sense to define this

But to answer your question... WM Encoder 9 only outputs VC-1 video in ASF format. so what is actually the new thing about the vc-1 encoder compared to the wmv9 encoder?
they are identical afaik... :D

[Doom9]

<SMPTE RP227 defines how to place vc-1 in mpeg-2 transport and program streams. and it actually also makes sense to define thisBut it makes very little sense to have a desktop encoder output in this format. Even those in TV broadcasting would not use it, instead they'd have an on-the-fly encoder that may not even output a TS but an intermediary format and in the end you have one muxer that muxes all your channels together into a TS. TS on the desktop is a major waste of space.

[Elias]

One question about VC-1: how is it different from Windows Media 9 video codec series? I thought they were the same at first. Is VC-1 also based on MPEG-4?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VC-1

[Doom9]

why do you need to ask when you've already posted the answer with your link?

[bond]

But it makes very little sense to have a desktop encoder output in this format. Even those in TV broadcasting would not use it, instead they'd have an on-the-fly encoder that may not even output a TS but an intermediary format and in the end you have one muxer that muxes all your channels together into a TS. TS on the desktop is a major waste of space.especially for a desktop encoder it makes sense to have a clearly defined output format, cause how else do you want to ensure that the produced file is handled by other implementations of the standard (ok for vc-1 there is only m$'s)
btw as i said smpte also defines how to store vc-1 in program streams not only ts

of course "desktop encoder" companies are not interested in interoperability, thats why they use own formats (eg placing avc in mov), or own extensions for existing formats (eg placing avc in .m4v and not .mp4), or modify existing formats in a strange way (sony's ".mp4" files)...

still for the user its good if every company uses the same container, eg mpeg-1/2 in .mpg works like a charm in most cases in totally different tools (yeah there might be bugs)...

One question about VC-1: how is it different from Windows Media 9 video codec series? I thought they were the same at first. Is VC-1 also based on MPEG-4?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VC-1wmv9 is one implemenation of the vc-1 format, like x264 is one implementation for the avc format
with the difference that for vc-1 only one implementation exists (which will change tough), whereas for avc multiple ones exist (list available here (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=95939))

[stephanV]

especially for a desktop encoder it makes sense to have a clearly defined output format, cause how else do you want to ensure that the produced file is handled by other implementations of the standard (ok for vc-1 there is only m$'s)
A desktop enviroment does not need such ensurance, it never has, it never will. I can play MPEG4 ASP in AVI, MP4, MKV, ASF and OGM without issues while you make it seem such a thing is highly exceptional. I agree that for hardware devices some kind of standardisation is still necessary, but for an environment as flexible as a PC it is absolutely not.

still for the user its good if every company uses the same container, eg mpeg-1/2 in .mpg works like a charm in most cases in totally different tools (yeah there might be bugs)...
Forgive me if I am wrong, but most people who are using MPEG1 and 2 are not watching their files on their PC, but are using their DVD player. Such standardisation is not necessarily a must for the user, nor is it always beneficial. It depends on what you want to do.

[bond]

Forgive me if I am wrong, but most people who are using MPEG1 and 2 are not watching their files on their PC, but are using their DVD player. Such standardisation is not necessarily a must for the user, nor is it always beneficial. It depends on what you want to do.well you are a video freak, you have to look beyond your pc
my parents surely cant play "MPEG4 ASP in AVI, MP4, MKV, ASF and OGM without issues"...

if i were to spread files to joe average i would use mpeg-1 video + mp2 audio in .mpg, which is still the most widely supported format

so having a standardised environment from codec till container is useful on the pc too

the only reason why this "mpg situation" isnt repeated with better codecs is that companies dont agree on a new comparable standard but try to push their own formats

[Elias]

why do you need to ask when you've already posted the answer with your link?I posted it afterwards by edit, I don't think it's comprehensive enough, and there must be differences that can be better explained. Besides, Wikipedia is far from accurate :)

[stephanV]

well you are a video freak, you have to look beyond your pc
my parents surely cant play "MPEG4 ASP in AVI, MP4, MKV, ASF and OGM without issues"...
My parents don't even know how to turn on a computer let alone play a video. Then again, my parents hardly know how to handle a DVD player either.

But its not the point, it doesn't exactly require a genius to install VLC or ffdshow + a splitter on someones computer. You can't ago around installing something if you want to play video. Yes, WMP is installed by default on most computers and because of that coincedence MPEG1 is a widely supported format (but not used!), but it is this same default WMP installation you think is bad.

You only have to search on a P2P network to see what a wide variety of formats is being spread and I don't think all those people downloading that are video freaks.

the only reason why this "mpg situation" isnt repeated with better codecs is that companies dont agree on a new comparable standard but try to push their own formats
The "MPG situation" has never really existed on desktops, only on hardware, thats the thing you seem to be forgetting.

[vlada]

Elias> XviD and MPEG-4 ASP equals to WMV9 and VC-1. The first one is a codec, the second one is a format specification.

VC-1 is officially not based on MPEG-4, but in fact it is. It uses a very similar compression techniques.

[vlada]

stephanV> I get about 5 funny shrot clips in my email everyday. Aproximately 70% of the movies are MPEG-1, the rest is WMV (WMV2 usually, WMV3 is th rest). I never got an MP4, MKV or OGM file. I only got very few AVIs with MPEG-4 compression (DivX). The reason for this is simple. People are using formats which can be played on windows "out of the box".

The situation with movies on P2P nets is different. If somebody downloads a movie and it won't play, he'll start looking for codecs (I see all the time people requesting a codec for MP4 :-) ). If they get a movie in email and it won't play, they will simply delete it.

[bond]

muhaha my parents know how to start a computer and they also know that they have to doubleclick on a file if the want to open it. not more.

.mpg seems to be already supported on windows (and windows is the joe average os) by default (wmv9 is not supported on windows by default)...
the more advanced users might also know other players, like quicktime and realplayer, and damn, they also support .mpg!!!

and when i look at what files are around i see lots of .mpg files, and its ok to use the format cause it simply is supported as good as everywhere, also on software, like video editing software

so how can it be you dont see the wide support for mpg on the desktop?


well anyways we can discuss that endlessly, its just no fun discussing with someone who, you know it before he even answers, always says the contrary to what you say...
seems to be some sort of sport :rolleyes:

[Elias]

well you are a video freak, you have to look beyond your pc
my parents surely cant play "MPEG4 ASP in AVI, MP4, MKV, ASF and OGM without issues"...

if i were to spread files to joe average i would use mpeg-1 video + mp2 audio in .mpg, which is still the most widely supported format

so having a standardised environment from codec till container is useful on the pc too

the only reason why this "mpg situation" isnt repeated with better codecs is that companies dont agree on a new comparable standard but try to push their own formatsExactly! Well put bond. This is the reason why I'm so pro-MPEG-4-in-mp4.XviD and MPEG-4 ASP equals to WMV9 and VC-1. The first one is a codec, the second one is a format specification.

VC-1 is officially not based on MPEG-4, but in fact it is. It uses a very similar compression techniques.Why not just go with MPEG-4 ASP then instead of VC-1?The "MPG situation" has never really existed on desktops, only on hardware, thats the thing you seem to be forgetting.What are you talking about? Every desktop computer in the world supports MPEG-1.

[bond]

Why not just go with MPEG-4 ASP then instead of VC-1?because m$ propably paid dunno how many millions of marketing money to push vc-1, but noone did this for asp :D

[Elias]

because m$ propably paid dunno how many millions of marketing money to push vc-1, but noone did this for asp :DGah! We don't need another codec/container format; it's already a jungle out there. It's so typical Micro$oft to concoct up their own standards instead of following the already existing standards. Why do they do this? It's so superfluous.

[Sagittaire]

direct link please ... !!!

[stephanV]

so how can it be you dont see the wide support for mpg on the desktop?
What are you talking about? Every desktop computer in the world supports MPEG-1.

I said MPEG1 was a wide supported format...

But maybe there is no point in talking with people who think its best if everything would be a shade of blue.

[vlada]

Gah! We don't need another codec/container format; it's already a jungle out there. It's so typical Micro$oft to concoct up their own standards instead of following the already existing standards. Why do they do this? It's so superfluous.

M$ built their whole bussines in not accepting ISO and other standards. Almost nobody would use these days Excel or Word if other projects like OpenOffice, KOffice or AbiWord would be 100% compatibile with .doc and .xls. Incompatibility with everything is what's keeping people using M$ products forever once they started.

This is why I'm recommending people not to use WMV and WMA. M$ is like cancer, said prime minister of Brazil. I think he was right.

[IvS]

Since this thread ever so expectedly became another anti Microsoft the evil, evil company thread, allow me to contribute a bit of a reality check.

because m$ propably paid dunno how many millions of marketing money to push vc-1, but noone did this for asp :D

It's so funny it's almost sad that people think MPEG-4 ASP, AVC, AAC, or whatever, "was never pushed".
As anyone who knows a little about this group called the Motion Pictures Experts Group, you probably know that it is composed of some of the most powerful and influential multimedia companies in the world. Allow me to list a few:

AOL Time Warner, Apple, Ateme, ATI, Axis Communications, Canon, Casio, Cirrus Logic, Coding Technologies, DTS Inc., Envivio, ETRI, France Télécom, Fraunhofer, Fugi, Hitachi, Kawasaki Microelectronics, LG, Mitsubishi, Motorola, Nero AG, Nintendo, Nippon, Nokia, NVIDIA, Philips, Pinnacle, QUALCOMM Inc., Samsung, Sharp, Sonic Solutions, TDK, Telecom Italia, Thomson, Toshiba...
And many more.

If for a second you think MPEG technology is not "pushed" by anyone, welcome to Reality. Microsoft doesn't have to "payoff" any MPEG body. MPEG handles quite well on their own, thank you. The standardization is standardization for a reason, it doesn't come from thin air. All the persons and companies comprising the MPEG bodies are responsible for the fine technology available to you in its standardized glory.

The fact the Microsoft's technology, which is in no way a "ripoff" of MPEG technology as some love to state, basing their statements on nothing but "astounding similarity" (the kind that could say Vorbis is a ripoff of AAC since it uses so similar algorithms, as if MPEG is the only body allowed to use widely used algorithms) managed to pass the MPEG quality assurance means nothing but that, it passed.

So there you have a little reality check as opposed to "M$" disussion.

[zambelli]

Gah! We don't need another codec/container format; it's already a jungle out there. It's so typical Micro$oft to concoct up their own standards instead of following the already existing standards. Why do they do this? It's so superfluous.
Did you ask that question when Matroska was being developed too? What about Ogg? And how about when the MPEG group used Apple's QuickTime file format as a starting point for the development of MP4?

FYI, Microsoft introduced ASF (Advanced Streaming/Systems Format) in 1999 and patented it on March 21, 2000. The format was created because the existing Microsoft A/V file format (AVI) lacked advanced features such as streaming support, extended metadata, multiple streams, etc. What other format had those features at the time? On the other hand, MPEG group defined MP4 as ISO/IEC 14496-14 in 2001. Who's being superfluous here?

[zambelli]

ok, I have installed the x64 encoder. Loaded up a file and selected the Advanced Profile Codec. Tried to select 2-pass and it defaulted back to WM9 (no Adv Prof.) So no on the 2pass.
Correct, 2-pass AP encoding is still unsupported in this release.


Second, where are the settings i.e. B frames, inloop, etc? I know with the 32bit we had to change the values in the registry but in the x64 I dont see where these settings are. Honestly, it looks just like the 32bit version.
No UI updates were made to support to AP settings. The new release has an updated Format SDK and new codec DMOs, compiled and optimized for x64.

[zambelli]

you are pretty sure? you are wrong :p

SMPTE RP227 defines how to place vc-1 in mpeg-2 transport and program streams. and it actually also makes sense to define this
Sure, that document defines a container for VC-1 in the context of ATSC broadcasts. But AFAIK, the actual SMPTE approved codec standard doesn't define a container for the codec because it's only a codec standard.


so what is actually the new thing about the vc-1 encoder compared to the wmv9 encoder?
they are identical afaik... :D
The UI is the same, but the Format SDK and DMOs are new.

[zambelli]

wmv9 is one implemenation of the vc-1 format, like x264 is one implementation for the avc format
with the difference that for vc-1 only one implementation exists (which will change tough), whereas for avc multiple ones exist (list available here (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=95939))
Actually, it'd be more accurate to say that VC-1 is a superset of WMV9.

And yes, you're right, Microsoft won't be the only company offering VC1 encoding and decoding solutions. Google for "VC-1 encoder" and you can already find existing non-MS implementations.

[Sgt_Strider]

So the x64 encoder is more advanced than the 32-bit edition? I can't believe Microsoft would alienate the millions of 32-bit users for the 64-bit minority.

[vlada]

Did you ask that question when Matroska was being developed too? What about Ogg? And how about when the MPEG group used Apple's QuickTime file format as a starting point for the development of MP4?

FYI, Microsoft introduced ASF (Advanced Streaming/Systems Format) in 1999 and patented it on March 21, 2000. The format was created because the existing Microsoft A/V file format (AVI) lacked advanced features such as streaming support, extended metadata, multiple streams, etc. What other format had those features at the time? On the other hand, MPEG group defined MP4 as ISO/IEC 14496-14 in 2001. Who's being superfluous here?

Matroska is a container format that has many advantages over all other existing containers. OGG Vorbis is the best lossy sound compression. I always heard Apple used MP4 as a starting point for their MOV, not the other way. But I have no prove for this.

Now what brings us VC-1? It has nothing to offer over MPEG-4. The only existing implementation (WMV9) has even lower quality then MPEG-4 ASP.

ASF is not a good container, it has very often problems with seeking, has a limited codec support. Yes right, in 1999 there was nothing better, but now we have OGM (I know it's dead), MKV and MP4. The bigest disadvantage of ASF is that VirtualDub can't read it and because of M$ it never will. There are no tools to work with ASF like MKVToolnix for matroska or MP4Box for MP4.

[stephanV]

I always heard Apple used MP4 as a starting point for their MOV, not the other way. But I have no prove for this.
Of course you don't, because its simply wrong.

ASF [..] has very often problems with seeking, has a limited codec support.
Wrong and wrong.


The bigest disadvantage of ASF is that VirtualDub can't read it.
That's not any different for any other container but AVI and MPG.

Please don't spread fud.

[Doom9]

I always heard Apple used MP4 as a starting point for their MOV, not the other way.You're mistaken, it's definitely the other way round. Think about it.. mov was available prior to MP4, prior to 2001 when MP4 was created.

Any ideas when the 32 bit version will be available and when the advaned profile options will finally be exposed to the end user other than having to hack the registry?

[Wilbert]

That's not any different for any other container but AVI and MPG.
You know very well that VDub can't read asf, because Avery got a phone call from some company when it could. (The part you snipped from vlada's reply ...) For which other containers is this also the case?

[bond]

Actually, it'd be more accurate to say that VC-1 is a superset of WMV9. WMV9 supports only simple and main profiles of VC1. WMV9 Advanced Profile supports the advanced profile of VC1.i assume wmav9 ap is not a totally new codec, but normal wmv9+ap features

like x264 high profile isnt a different codec than x264 main profile

And yes, you're right, Microsoft won't be the only company offering VC1 encoding and decoding solutions. Google for "VC-1 encoder" and you can already find existing non-MS implementations. i never found a proove that a company made its own vc-1 implementation. what makes you think that they are not simply using m$' codec?

[Doom9]

well, if you follow the google advice, there are definitely other encoders out there.. just no desktop encoders. It's kinda hard to use software when you're making a hardware platform...

[acidsex]

well, if you follow the google advice, there are definitely other encoders out there.. just no desktop encoders. It's kinda hard to use software when you're making a hardware platform...

No doubt and the hardware shit isnt cheap at all.

[acidsex]

I may have missed the answer as I didnt see it when I looked back through the posts but does the x64 encoder provide any speed increases for encoding? 1080i advanced profile takes forever as it is. any speed up would be welcomed.

[acidsex]

One other issue. I dont know if this was in the 32bit encoder, but during a one pass ADvanced Profile encode, the input looks crisp and clear and the blacks are rich. However on the output side (using the "next" display) the output side looks like it has a nasty film covering it (overlay???) So how do I get my output to have the same blacks as the input?

[vlada]

stephanV, Doom9> I know MOV was here before MP4, but I thought there just might be more MOV versions. I was wrong. I wrote that I'm not sure about it and thank you fo clearing this up.

stephanV> What compressions other then MS-MPEG4 and WMV can be stored in ASF? How do I produce such a file? And you never saw an ASF file with seeking problems?

VirtualDubMod can read/write OGM and MKV too. For muxing/demuxing and cutting/joining of MKV and MP4 there are free tools. What about ASF?

But this is way off-topic. I was only trying to explain to zambelli, why it had sense to have a new container and audio compression formats. But at the same time, I see no use for VC-1 format.

[Wilbert]

stephanV> What compressions other then MS-MPEG4 and WMV can be stored in ASF? How do I produce such a file?
Pretty much anything: http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=92136

[stephanV]

You know very well that VDub can't read asf, because Avery got a phone call from some company when it could. (The part you snipped from vlada's reply ...) For which other containers is this also the case?
For none, but it is the same reason why VirtualDub doesn't support MPEG2. Even so, do not overestimate the asf "support" that VirtualDub had back then.

@Vlada:
stephanV> What compressions other then MS-MPEG4 and WMV can be stored in ASF? How do I produce such a file?
Basically any.

Here's a nice thread about a free ASF muxer for DirectShow --> http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=92136&highlight=asf+muxer

And you never saw an ASF file with seeking problems?
I basically have seen any file type with seeking problems. If this is fault of the file format is highly doubtful.

VirtualDubMod can read/write OGM and MKV too.
Reading MKVs with VirtualDubMod is quite problematic these days. And VirtualDub-MPEG2 can read ASF.

But this is way off-topic. I was only trying to explain to zambelli, why it had sense to have a new container and audio compression formats. But at the same time, I see no use for VC-1 format.
Yes it is way off-topic but then just don't use it and keep it at that. There are a lot of things that I consider useles and redundant for me personally, I'm certainly not commenting on all of them. :)

Since VC-1 is mandatory for the upcoming DVD standards, there's enough reason to show at least some interest in it IMO. The problem is that when something smells of MS (or M$ in cool terms) some people seem to always deem it necessary to show their dislike of it. It's a. not relevant and b. very boring.

[Elias]

Since this thread ever so expectedly became another anti Microsoft the evil, evil company thread, allow me to contribute a bit of a reality check.



It's so funny it's almost sad that people think MPEG-4 ASP, AVC, AAC, or whatever, "was never pushed".
As anyone who knows a little about this group called the Motion Pictures Experts Group, you probably know that it is composed of some of the most powerful and influential multimedia companies in the world. Allow me to list a few:

AOL Time Warner, Apple, Ateme, ATI, Axis Communications, Canon, Casio, Cirrus Logic, Coding Technologies, DTS Inc., Envivio, ETRI, France Télécom, Fraunhofer, Fugi, Hitachi, Kawasaki Microelectronics, LG, Mitsubishi, Motorola, Nero AG, Nintendo, Nippon, Nokia, NVIDIA, Philips, Pinnacle, QUALCOMM Inc., Samsung, Sharp, Sonic Solutions, TDK, Telecom Italia, Thomson, Toshiba...
And many more.

If for a second you think MPEG technology is not "pushed" by anyone, welcome to Reality. Microsoft doesn't have to "payoff" any MPEG body. MPEG handles quite well on their own, thank you. The standardization is standardization for a reason, it doesn't come from thin air. All the persons and companies comprising the MPEG bodies are responsible for the fine technology available to you in its standardized glory.

The fact the Microsoft's technology, which is in no way a "ripoff" of MPEG technology as some love to state, basing their statements on nothing but "astounding similarity" (the kind that could say Vorbis is a ripoff of AAC since it uses so similar algorithms, as if MPEG is the only body allowed to use widely used algorithms) managed to pass the MPEG quality assurance means nothing but that, it passed.

So there you have a little reality check as opposed to "M$" disussion.Which is good. The more companies that are involved in MPEG, the more they make MPEG codecs suitable for open standards. I'd rather see 1 000 000 companies involved in a codec solution, than 1 alone controlling it.

[acidsex]

Well, I suppose theres no way to set different variables for AP. Looked in the registry and there is no "scrunch" entry so shit has changed. Seems to be no way of using B Frames or lookahead and its definitely not available through the gui encoder.

I suppose this encoder should read x64 beta 1.

[IvS]

The more companies that are involved in MPEG, the more they make MPEG codecs suitable for open standards. I'd rather see 1 000 000 companies involved in a codec solution, than 1 alone controlling it.

Exactly. The fact that the MPEG is not some puny group which can be "bought out" by a single monopoly (they themselves are the strongest possible "monopoly") means you can forget about Microsoft or any single company taking over and ruining things for everybody.

[zambelli]

So the x64 encoder is more advanced than the 32-bit edition? I can't believe Microsoft would alienate the millions of 32-bit users for the 64-bit minority.
Only in the ways listed in the original posting: VC-1 support and a new DRM module.

[zambelli]

Any ideas when the 32 bit version will be available and when the advaned profile options will finally be exposed to the end user other than having to hack the registry?
I can't give specific dates, but there are new versions of the encoder in the works. I'll get back to you on this one.

[zambelli]

i assume wmav9 ap is not a totally new codec, but normal wmv9+ap features
Well, a significant amount of work has been (and still is being) done on the VC1 implementation, so yes, although the basis of the codec is the same, it'd be unfair to say that it's just a repackaged WMV9 as shipped 3 years ago.

i never found a proove that a company made its own vc-1 implementation. what makes you think that they are not simply using m$' codec?
Because MS is stil tweaking its own implementation. :)
(Why does everyone adopt M$ but no one ever writes $ony, for example?) :)

[Valeron]

(Why does everyone adopt M$ but no one ever writes $ony, for example?) :)

Because it's not "cool" to write $ony here but M$. ;)

[Valeron]

I can't give specific dates, but there are new versions of the encoder in the works. I'll get back to you on this one.

Good news

[bond]

zambelli: are you working for microsoft?

Well, a significant amount of work has been (and still is being) done on the VC1 implementation, so yes, although the basis of the codec is the same, it'd be unfair to say that it's just a repackaged WMV9 as shipped 3 years ago.my point is to get away from marketing but point out the facts which imho are
1) vc-1 = wmv9, so this brandnew feature "vc-1 support" is actually no new feature
2) wmv9 ap is an extension of the normal wmv9 codec and not a new codec, like x264 high profile is not a new x264 codec, but an extension of x264 main profile, so to say "the same codec"

Because MS is stil tweaking its own implementation. :)
(Why does everyone adopt M$ but no one ever writes $ony, for example?) :) because, lemme quote the european commission:
Commission concludes on Microsoft investigation, imposes conduct remedies and a fine
...
the investigation concluded that the ubiquity which was immediately afforded to WMP as a result of it being tied with the Windows PC OS artificially reduces the incentives of music, film and other media companies, as well software developers and content providers to develop their offerings to competing media players.

As a result, Microsoft's tying of its media player product has the effect of foreclosing the market to competitors, and hence ultimately reducing consumer choice, since competing products are set at a disadvantage which is not related to their price or quality.

Available data already show a clear trend in favour of WMP and Windows Media technology. Absent intervention from the Commission, the tying of WMP with Windows is likely to make the market "tip" definitively in Microsoft's favour. This would allow Microsoft to control related markets in the digital media sector, such as encoding technology, software for broadcasting of music over the Internet and digital rights management etc.

More generally, the Commission is concerned that Microsoft's tying of WMP is an example of a more general business model which, given Microsoft's virtual monopoly in PC operating systems, deters innovation and reduces consumer choice in any technologies which Microsoft could conceivably take interest in and tie with Windows in the future."an example of a more general business model"
"foreclosing the market to competitors"
"controlling markets"
"reducing consumer choice"

and thats the official opinion of one of the highest bodies of the european union

[IvS]

Sure. We all know the EU is a very "respectable" body.
If you want to limit a company in such ways like preventing it from including very basic things like a multimedia player and codecs with its operating system and an internet web browser (....) you're not very OK in the head, or you're just looking for ways to get lots of money.
I can't quite remember WMA being popular. In fact I'd say the percentage of people using WMA as a primary format for audio files is immensely low compared to users of the "good old" popular MP3, which, by the way, Microsoft has included a decoder for in its operating systems since ages.

As for video files, I can't quite remember when WMV files have been popular. "DivX" seems to be a synonym for "digital video" amongst avarage users who don't know too much about codecs. As for online content, Microsoft, Apple and Real have succeeded in that field because all their offerings have been unfortunately more complete than MPEG based ones and were adopted by many companies.

How well do the European Union's arguments hold? Not too well at all I'd say.
Microsoft has no monopoly whatsoever in the multimedia field and that's the fact. And if you'd like to prevent it from having a useable operating system, you'd have to prevent all others too. Mac OS, Linux and various UNIX based solutions, all of them should have no multimedia support "out of the box." Why, that would be unfair!

[zambelli]

zambelli: are you working for microsoft?
Yes, I am. I don't work for the encoder team though, hence my delay in getting specific answers back to you. I also need to be careful I only discuss information which is already public - you know, standard business non-disclosure policy.

my point is to get away from marketing but point out the facts which imho are
1) vc-1 = wmv9, so this brandnew feature "vc-1 support" is actually no new feature
WMV9 (as released in WMP10) is only a subset of VC-1. Your old math teacher would probably object to you using an equal sign for that relation. :)

2) wmv9 ap is an extension of the normal wmv9 codec and not a new codec, like x264 high profile is not a new x264 codec, but an extension of x264 main profile, so to say "the same codec".
True, but considering the amount of work gone into WMV AP since the VC-1 proposal, you should at least consider this a codec update.

because, lemme quote the european commission:
"an example of a more general business model"
"foreclosing the market to competitors"
"controlling markets"
"reducing consumer choice"
and thats the official opinion of one of the highest bodies of the european union
And the special European Windows XP non-media version is now selling like hot cakes. ;) But seriously... You have to ask yourself: what's the alternative? How do you make an operating system in the 21st century without including video and audio playback capability? Can you imagine Apple shipping MacOS without QuickTime or iTunes? It's just simply not realistic.
(speaking as a private individual and not as an employee)

[bond]

Yes, I am. I don't work for the encoder team though, hence my delay in getting specific answers back to you. I also need to be careful I only discuss information which is already public - you know, standard business non-disclosure policy.good to know, its always nice of having people from companies around :)
what are you doing at microsoft?

WMV9 (as released in WMP10) is only a subset of VC-1. Your old math teacher would probably object to you using an equal sign for that relation. :)still till now available wmv9 was following the vc-1 specs too, which means m$ supports vc-1 since it released wmv9 so to say

again i see wmv9 advanced profile not as a new codec (and i am sure it isnt), but simply as new features added to wmv9, supporting full vc-1 (which doesnt mean that it didnt support vc-1 before)...

And the special European Windows XP non-media version is now selling like hot cakes. ;) But seriously... You have to ask yourself: what's the alternative? How do you make an operating system in the 21st century without including video and audio playback capability? Can you imagine Apple shipping MacOS without QuickTime or iTunes? It's just simply not realistic.
(speaking as a private individual and not as an employee) well this has been discussed already enough in other threads...
read my opinion there ;)

[keel]

VC-1 video codec. Windows Media Encoder 9 Series x64 Edition includes support for a fully SMPTE-compliant version of the new VC-1 video codec. SMPTE has not yet approved VC-1, how can you have a "fully SMPTE-compliant version"?

[bond]

SMPTE has not yet approved VC-1, how can you have a "fully SMPTE-compliant version"?because wmv9 = vc-1? :D

[keel]

because wmv9 = vc-1? :DNow, you know that's not true.
Sorry, sounds like the usual Microsoft PR to me. Exaggerate the truth.
Maybe some people put an $ in Microsoft but not in Sony because Microsoft is a convicted monopolist but Sony isn't.

[bond]

of course its true :p

[keel]

The king of MS combinations of facts and PR, of course, is amirm in avsforum.
If anone is really bored and needs something to read, and you don't know about it, there is an interesting HDTV thread on how MS got WMV9 (now VC-1) to be a contender
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=6575755&&#post6575755
It looks like some of the codec battles are being fought in the trenches, for the hearts and minds of the cognoscenti....
Of course, I always welcome real facts that are not wrapped in hype, nor surrounded by copy/paste buzz from corporate PR releases.

[Sirber]

I can't encode from xvid files. Says I have no codec :confused:

[unmei]

wouldn't surprise me if you needed a DMO xvid decoder =)

[stephanV]

A 64 bit program normally must use 64 bit decoders.

[zambelli]

A 64 bit program normally must use 64 bit decoders.
Of which there are, like, 2. :)
Not 100% sure what the story is there, but in the meantime, Sirber, can you try passing the input through Avisynth or a similar wrapper that can output uncompressed YV12/YUY2 video?
Also, if you're using ffdshow, can you try enabling/disabling VfW vs. DShow versions of the Xvid decoder?

[CruNcher]

Alex Zambelli ?

[zambelli]

good to know, its always nice of having people from companies around :)
what are you doing at microsoft?
Thanks. I've been a Doom9 regular for many years, even before I joined Microsoft. I've been working as a test engineer on Windows Media Player since v9, on both desktop and Win Mobile. I'm actually scheduled to start working for the VC-1 team very soon so I'll try to watch this particular forum more closely in the future and chime in when necessary.

still till now available wmv9 was following the vc-1 specs too, which means m$ supports vc-1 since it released wmv9 so to say
Well, WMV9 SP+MP (as shipped with WMP9) was actually developed before VC-1 was drafted, so it's a chicken or the egg kind of question at this point. But the general idea is that if you develop a VC-1 compliant decoder, it ought to be able to decode video streams encoded with the existing WMV9 codec.

well this has been discussed already enough in other threads...
read my opinion there ;)
I'll actually stay out of that whole discussion because I'm a little biased. :)

[bond]

Thanks. I've been a Doom9 regular for many years, even before I joined Microsoft. I've been working as a test engineer on Windows Media Player since v9, on both desktop and Win Mobile. I'm actually scheduled to start working for the VC-1 team very soon so I'll try to watch this particular forum more closely in the future and chime in when necessary.great! :)

I know it may sound like semantical nitpicking, but WMV9 is an *implementation* of VC-1. Saying it's the same is kind of like saying a chocolate cake is the same thing as its recipe. You can't eat a recipe, can you? Someone else could make a cake based on that recipe, but it wouldn't be the same as your cake. Make sense? :) my words!!! vc-1 is the format, wmv9 an implementation of it

[CruNcher]

my words!!! vc-1 is the format, wmv9 an implementation of it


Jep with all the additional features that M$ didn't provided as amandments for AVC as they left the standard :P

[HookedOnTV]

Can you now encode AC3 5.1 to WMA 5.1? Never have been able to do this without converting to mono wavs then to multichannel avi then to wma.

[acidsex]

Heres a better question regarding the Adanced Profile for Zambelli.

Now lets suppose that content producers are encoding to VC-1 currently. Will the files we encode today be easily authored in the upcoming BLu Ray/HD-DVD or will we have to re-encode our content again at that time? What are the optimal settings from the VC-1 advanced profile that MS recommends that will ensure playback on the HD players that are due out? Lookahead? B frames? Default?

Furthermore, will MS ever release an app that allows the authoring of Menus instead of being forced to buy an entire encoding pc system from Sonic? I saw a demo of it and its quite clunky and heavily overpriced. Definitely not in the price range of idnependent producers or hobbyists.

[zambelli]

Now lets suppose that content producers are encoding to VC-1 currently. Will the files we encode today be easily authored in the upcoming BLu Ray/HD-DVD or will we have to re-encode our content again at that time? What are the optimal settings from the VC-1 advanced profile that MS recommends that will ensure playback on the HD players that are due out? Lookahead? B frames? Default?
Content producers encoding for HD-DVD/BD aren't using WME9. This encoder only produces ASF files, whereas for HD-DVD/BD authoring you need elementary video streams. Although it might be possible in the future to extract the video stream from an ASF file and mux it into an MPEG transport stream for HD-DVD/BD, I wouldn't count on that. So in other words - if you're looking to produce HD-DVD/BD compliant VC-1 streams today, don't do it with WME9.

Furthermore, will MS ever release an app that allows the authoring of Menus instead of being forced to buy an entire encoding pc system from Sonic? I saw a demo of it and its quite clunky and heavily overpriced. Definitely not in the price range of idnependent producers or hobbyists.
Menus for what? HD-DVD?

[acidsex]

Menus for what has been used on windowmedia.com.

I know MS put out the docs regarding how to code for menus but alot of content producers dont know javascript very well it at all.

To your earlier response, if this will not likely be possible, then what is the sense of encoding to WM9 HD today it it unlikely to be supported for HD-DVD authoring later? Does the Xbox360 even support playback of Wm9 HD files (w or w/o DRM)?

[bond]

imho these wmv9 dvds were more about promoting that wmv9 can do hd, than to be a real format competing with hd-dvd/bluray

afaik these wmv9 dvd menus are some sort of html, so nothing really fancy (this has been discussed already)

wmv9 encoded today and these wmv9 dvds will definitely not be compliant with hd-dvd or bluray (the same way as h.264 encodes made today are not compliant). that is because the specs will definitely define in details how these streams will have to look like (gop structure aso) and we today simply dont know these specs

[zambelli]

@Bond:
Correct on all counts. I'm guessing the WMV-HD discs will be phased out as soon as a dominant HD DVD standard emerges.
@Acidsex: (ouch)
What's the point of any encoder? :)

[Doom9]

@zambellin: I haven't heard from Dan yet.. if you know him, could you ask him if he got my mail regarding the next codec comparison and your participation in it?

[CruNcher]

Correct on all counts. I'm guessing the WMV-HD discs will be phased out as soon as a dominant HD DVD standard emerges.

If you could repeat that in the Standalone Forum and AVSforum for all the users that bought HD capable chinese players, because they thought your WMV-HD stuff is the new big mofo and try to explain them why all companies promoteing your WMV-HD DVDs as HD-DVD on the cover that would be cool ;) (but be carefull not to be sliced into pieces by the audience)

[bond]

haha :D

[mrcorbo]

If you could repeat that in the Standalone Forum and AVSforum for all the users that bought HD capable chinese players, because they thought your WMV-HD stuff is the new big mofo and try to explain them why all companies promoteing your WMV-HD DVDs as HD-DVD on the cover that would be cool ;) (but be carefull not to be sliced into pieces by the audience)

Do you actually believe anyone ever thought WMV-HD (in terms of commercial releases) was ever anything more than an intermediate solution until the real HD-DVD formats arrived?

[zambelli]

If you could repeat that in the Standalone Forum and AVSforum for all the users that bought HD capable chinese players, because they thought your WMV-HD stuff is the new big mofo and try to explain them why all companies promoteing your WMV-HD DVDs as HD-DVD on the cover that would be cool ;) (but be carefull not to be sliced into pieces by the audience)
Let's get one thing clear: I am on this forum mainly as a private individual, like I have been since the day I joined. The fact that I work for the company - you can consider that a nice bonus, not the other way around. What I say are my own opinions, particularly something explicitly worded as "I'm guessing..." To consider that anything but a personal opinion is an intentional misreading on your part.

Now, with that out of the way... What words publishing companies use to describe DVDs is largely is up to them. I'm not sure if Microsoft has any control over anything other than the WMV-HD logo. I've seen WMV-HD titles that are very accurate in their description of the HD content included on the DVD, clearly indicating that the WMV-HD is intended for playback on PC and PC only (see "Step Into the Liquid" description). Others, however, use very vague (and possibly misleading) words such as "DVD HD" and "HD DVD-ROM". I suspect these are just labels made up by marketing people who figure "HD" is the new buzzword that will help sell the DVDs.

I've heard of players by IO Data and Zensonic that allegedly play WMV HD content, but I'm unsure whether they're actually capable of playing released WMV-HD titles because that would involve supporting DRM in all its forms (some titles such as "Terminator 2" require over-the-Internet license acquisition). The WMV HD boast might be just their way of saying "we play WMV files and we're capable of decoding high definition resolutions". I don't know, I've never actually tried one of these players. If you have specific info, please enlighten me.

[acidsex]

@zambelli: Again, I may hav missed it in this thread but can you please clarify soem points for me.

1) How can the user define different features such as B frames or Lookahead using the x64 encoder? 32bit use can change the registry setting under scrunch. Under x64, scrunch is not there. So how does a user implement that?

2) Is it reasonable to expect some sort of speed increase when encoding using the x64 encoder over the 32bit version? If not, then can you please explain what the benefit of using the x64 encoder over the 32 bit other than Advanced Profile is available by defaul with the x64 even though you cannot currently tweak any specific features?

Thank you.

[zambelli]

1) How can the user define different features such as B frames or Lookahead using the x64 encoder? 32bit use can change the registry setting under scrunch. Under x64, scrunch is not there. So how does a user implement that?
Have you tried just creating the HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Scrunch\WMVideo key and putting Advanced Profile settings in there? I see no reason why it wouldn't work.

2) Is it reasonable to expect some sort of speed increase when encoding using the x64 encoder over the 32bit version? If not, then can you please explain what the benefit of using the x64 encoder over the 32 bit other than Advanced Profile is available by defaul with the x64 even though you cannot currently tweak any specific features?
Thank you.
The advantage is that the x64 version runs natively on 64-bit Windows without WOW64. You can expect performance benefits in some encoding scenarios, but not necessarily across the board. Just like with 64-bit versions of VirtualDub, Avisynth, Xvid, etc, the speed improvements are not revolutionary but they do exist.
Want to run some objective benchmarks and post the results?

[Doom9]

So I'm wondering, has anybody tested the 64 bit encoder on a full movie? What kind of performance are you seeing?

[acidsex]

slow, make that very slow. Not much improvement in speed over the 32bit version. SD conversions are not optimized. HD encodes look very good to me. I encoded a Dave Matthews 1080i HD capture and at times its very hard to distinguish between that and the source.

x264 and Ateme beta2-3 encodes look awesome as well but man, 1080i playback using H.264 AVC is nearly impossible on my A64 3700+.

[Doom9]

what is slow for you? Have you ever tried a regular DVD rip?

[Sagittaire]

With my benchmark (APSNR, OPSNR and SSIM) WMV9 VCM (vfw encoder) is really better than WM9Encoder (32 bits version) and particulary for very low bitrate ... :confused:

You can explain that ... lol

[acidsex]

Tried a DVD rip a week ago but had to cut the encode off because I needed the machine for a quick project. I can try it again in the next couple days and report back here if you would like me to.

[temporance]

Does anyone know if it's possible to write a VfW codec that wraps a DMO encoder? Then we could use the new encoder in VirtualDub, etc.

I know FFVFW works in this way - it wraps up a DirectShow filter in a VfW codec.

[Xayd]

I've heard of players by IO Data and Zensonic that allegedly play WMV HD content, but I'm unsure whether they're actually capable of playing released WMV-HD titles because that would involve supporting DRM in all its forms (some titles such as "Terminator 2" require over-the-Internet license acquisition). The WMV HD boast might be just their way of saying "we play WMV files and we're capable of decoding high definition resolutions". I don't know, I've never actually tried one of these players. If you have specific info, please enlighten me.

the catch with such players is there is a network interface going back to a PC that is required for DRM'd playback. the player sends the license request to PC, software provided with player acts as a server on said PC and fetches license info, then sends it back to the player.

although i haven't used one to play back DRM'd content the playback of HD resolution mpeg-4 ASP and non-DRM wmv9 content is very good, and playback of mpeg-2 transport streams is also very good (they can even play 1080i).

considering it takes a hefty CPU to play back 1920x1080 mpeg-4 or mpeg-2 content on a PC, these players are a great alternative to a PC for HD playback since they only cost ~250 to 300 dollars. sigma is to be commended for their chipset, imo ;).

[diogen]

...slow, make that very slow. Not much improvement in speed over the 32bit version. SD conversions are not optimized. HD encodes look very good to me...

May I ask a stupid question?
What codecs do you use to run 64bit encodes?
I'm not new to WME, but have only done it under WinXP (32bit) using the 32bit version of the encoder.
But I can't use any 32bit codecs with WME64bit under WinXP x64: WMP plays ts files fine using those but the encoder complains codec missing.

Any advice?

Thanks.
Diogen.

[Xayd]

If you could repeat that in the Standalone Forum and AVSforum for all the users that bought HD capable chinese players, because they thought your WMV-HD stuff is the new big mofo and try to explain them why all companies promoteing your WMV-HD DVDs as HD-DVD on the cover that would be cool ;) (but be carefull not to be sliced into pieces by the audience)

they won't take it too hard.

those type of people on avsforum take great pride in wasting their money. just tell them that the wmv players have superior dacs and firmware and use lots of words like "soundstage" and they'll keep buying them.

[IvS]

they won't take it too hard.

those type of people on avsforum take great pride in wasting their money. just tell them that the wmv players have superior dacs and firmware and use lots of words like "soundstage" and they'll keep buying them.
LOL...

[lazyn00b]

those type of people on avsforum take great pride in wasting their money. just tell them that the wmv players have superior dacs and firmware and use lots of words like "soundstage" and they'll keep buying them.

Hahahaha! Is it OK if I make this quote my sig over at AVSForum?

[fight2win]

i have wixnp sp2,which version is for me, 32 bit or 64?

[zambelli]

i have wixnp sp2,which version is for me, 32 bit or 64?
WinXP SP2 is 32-bit OS regardless of the platform you're running it on. Use the 32-bit encoder (you don't have a choice really).