Windows Media Encoder Studio Edition Beta 1 released

[benwaggoner]

We've just released Beta 1 of the Windows Media Encoder Studio Edition to the web

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/forpros/encoderse/default.aspx

Beta 1 still exports a WMV file, not a VC-1 elementary stream, so it doesn't yet make HD DVD or Blu-ray compliant output, but it's a demo of the workflow we're working for. And it includes many (but not all) of the codec enhancements we've made for the studios in VC-1.

We'd appreciate any feedback at our official newsgroup as we drive toward a public encoding solution for VC-1:

http://www.microsoft.com/communities/newsgroups/list/en-us/default.aspx?dg=microsoft.public.windowsmedia.encoder.studioedition

Make sure to read the release notes and EULA.

Removed THE HUGE BLINKING LETTERS. They really make the product announcement (advertisement) look cheap

EDIT: Fixed URL

[Sharktooth]

i was about to think it was vaporware... :p

[benwaggoner]

Removed THE HUGE BLINKING LETTERS. They really make the product announcement (advertisement) look cheap[/QUOTE]
Sorry, I was excited :).

But they were blinking? I thought they were just huge...

[diogen]

Am I missing something or is Studio not working with MPEG-2 files?

Diogen.

[benwaggoner]

Am I missing something or is Studio not working with MPEG-2 files?

MPEG-2 isn't one of the supported source formats for this Beta.

For our core scenario, we really focused on v210 AVI files.

[check]

Seems nice, but the actual encoder itself is very slow still. Are there plans to optimise the codec?

[Easy123]

And again, I "love" M$... Doesn´t run on Windows XP x64... Is there going to be a x64 Version of this?

[chilledoutuk]

this pos needs sp2 i dont like sp2 they can keep it

[benwaggoner]

this pos needs sp2 i dont like sp2 they can keep it
What is it you wish it would run on, and why?

[benwaggoner]

And again, I "love" M$... Doesn´t run on Windows XP x64... Is there going to be a x64 Version of this?
Do you mean one that will run on 64-bit OS's, or do you mean a 64-bit native version?

[chilledoutuk]

i wish to run it on a windows xp computer with sp1 i dont like sp2 everything its bloated with rubbish only numpties need.

[Kostarum Rex Persia]

Well, I think he talk about native 64-bit version?

[benwaggoner]

i wish to run it on a windows xp computer with sp1 i dont like sp2 everything its bloated with rubbish only numpties need.
Sorry, SP2 is likely the oldest OS that'll ever be supported for it. Not enough SP1 machines out there in professional video to be worth spreading our testing resources thinner for.

[bratao]

WHAT HEEEEEELLLLLLLLL(sorry)
Damm, holly shit
Why you guys doesnt think about WE windows 2003 users ???
Another MS release that not install in 2003
There is NO limitation in kernel that should explain that !

Ok, i cracked it, but think about it, not everyone have a debugger/reverse knowledge.

[benwaggoner]

WHAT HEEEEEELLLLLLLLL(sorry)
Damm, holly shit
Why you guys doesnt think about WE windows 2003 users ???
Another MS release that not install in 2003
There is NO limitation in kernel that should explain that !

Ok, i cracked it, but think about it, not everyone have a debugger/reverse knowledge.
It is a beta after all. We're aware that folks would like to run the production version on 2003 in some cases.

[check]

A few thoughts on the GUI.
It's obviously designed for rather huge monitors (doesn't fit nicely onto my 1152x864), and I think a larger monitor would do the GUI a lot more justice.
The biggest improvement over WME9 that has been immediately obvious is the lack of pauses when switching around the settings. I absolutely HATED having to wait 5 seconds for a tab to load in WME9 and I'm happy to say the new GUI is very quick to use.
A smaller niggle I've found is that the arrows in the top right of the boxes on the first and third tab seem to be upside down for my thinking. It's nice to see no animation for them though.
I'd assume some better importing compatibility is coming soon - will it try import unknown files through DShow or VfW or not at all?
Will WME include support for exporting in raw audio/video format? That's something I really miss from WME, but I guess it's part of your marketing strategy.

Finally, no .wmv support in the "add sources" dialog??? Is this going to be permanent? They are visible through the "all files" import and work correctly, but is this going to be the same as the final version?

[Easy123]

Do you mean one that will run on 64-bit OS's, or do you mean a 64-bit native version?

The Programm won´t install under XP x64... I would like to test this app, but I won´t install my old XP Home for that ^^ A native 64bit Version would be great, but for this Time a Version that will let itself install would be enough for me ;)

[bond]

ben/zambelli: is wmv9 complex profile vc-1 compliant? if no, what does it do that breaks vc-1?

[zambelli]

ben/zambelli: is wmv9 complex profile vc-1 compliant? if no, what does it do that breaks vc-1?
I once asked somebody on my team about complex profile and got the answer that the profile pretty much no longer exists in the new VC-1 world. I'm not sure if it's incompatible with VC-1 though; it might be more likely that it just falls within main profile spec.

[bond]

I once asked somebody on my team about complex profile and got the answer that the profile pretty much no longer exists in the new VC-1 world. I'm not sure if it's incompatible with VC-1 though; it might be more likely that it just falls within main profile spec.thx.
so you will not offer encoding to it in new releases?

[crypto]

I know, the real value lies below in the codec, but talking about the new UI, I like it alot. The new design is workflow related and makes every step feel logical. One thing though. When WMESE is in its encoding state it blocks the PC because it cannot be minimized and the encoding dialog window is modal.

BTW. Does this beta include the graphical bitstream analyzer? I didn't find it yet.

[benwaggoner]

A few thoughts on the GUI.
It's obviously designed for rather huge monitors (doesn't fit nicely onto my 1152x864), and I think a larger monitor would do the GUI a lot more justice.
Yeah, I want it to work on at least 1024x768, but it's definitely cramped at lower resolutions right now.
The biggest improvement over WME9 that has been immediately obvious is the lack of pauses when switching around the settings. I absolutely HATED having to wait 5 seconds for a tab to load in WME9 and I'm happy to say the new GUI is very quick to use.
Yeah, that always bugged me as well.

A smaller niggle I've found is that the arrows in the top right of the boxes on the first and third tab seem to be upside down for my thinking. It's nice to see no animation for them though.
I'd assume some better importing compatibility is coming soon - will it try import unknown files through DShow or VfW or not at all?
Import support is a weaker point right now - the formats and codecs listed in the documentation all work, but other stuff is likely to have issues. We're definitely looking at providing more general support in later versions.
Will WME include support for exporting in raw audio/video format? That's something I really miss from WME, but I guess it's part of your marketing strategy.
I don't know if that was something we even considered. Can you give some more details about how you'd use that feature?
Finally, no .wmv support in the "add sources" dialog??? Is this going to be permanent? They are visible through the "all files" import and work correctly, but is this going to be the same as the final version?
I'll call that a bug :).

[benwaggoner]

I know, the real value lies below in the codec, but talking about the new UI, I like it alot. The new design is workflow related and makes every step feel logical. One thing though. When WMESE is in its encoding state it blocks the PC because it cannot be minimized and the encoding dialog window is modal.
It can go into the background, but yes, there should be a way to minimize it. Beta!
BTW. Does this beta include the graphical bitstream analyzer? I didn't find it yet.
It'll show up when you've completed an encode.

[benwaggoner]

thx.
so you will not offer encoding to it in new releases?
Correct. Complex doesn't really mean anything. Instead, you'll select Simple, Main, or Advanced profiles, and then pick between the tools and parameters available there.

What would you use Complex for if we had provided it?

[benwaggoner]

The Programm won´t install under XP x64... I would like to test this app, but I won´t install my old XP Home for that ^^ A native 64bit Version would be great, but for this Time a Version that will let itself install would be enough for me ;)
Yes, it certainly makes sense to have the release version be able to run on a 64-bit OS.

[check]

I don't know if that was something we even considered. Can you give some more details about how you'd use that feature?
The biggest reason I ever wanted it was for being able to record from the screen and not chew up all my CPU encoding. On my A64 3000+ the encoding of the video takes up the lion's share of my CPU, which makes it unsuitable for anything that isn't a MSWord tutorial :p.

[benwaggoner]

The biggest reason I ever wanted it was for being able to record from the screen and not chew up all my CPU encoding. On my A64 3000+ the encoding of the video takes up the lion's share of my CPU, which makes it unsuitable for anything that isn't a MSWord tutorial :p.
Live capture and screen capture are both out of scope for Studio Edition.

For my own screen tutorial work, I've been very happy using Camtasia on a dual-processor machine. I capture to a local AVI file, using the native Camtasia codec at its lowest complexity setting. You can then use Camatsia Studio to export to WMV, using the Screen codec. Works like a charm. The Screen codec is great for delivery, but I prefer to work in AVI until I'm done editing for all the usual reasons.

[bond]

What would you use Complex for if we had provided it?nothing

i just have a few complex clips and i wonder what to do with them now (not knowing whether they are vc-1 compliant?) :D

[benwaggoner]

nothing

i just have a few complex clips and i wonder what to do with them now (not knowing whether they are vc-1 compliant?) :D
Ah, I think you'll be just fine. I'm not sure what VC-1 Level they'll correspond to, but they'll be a subset of the Advanced Profile (and maybe even Main).

[zambelli]

Ah, I think you'll be just fine. I'm not sure what VC-1 Level they'll correspond to, but they'll be a subset of the Advanced Profile (and maybe even Main).
I would guess Main, since Complex was only defined for WMV3 v9/v10 encoder revisions, and that all falls under Simple/Main of VC-1.

[bond]

the question is what features complex profile uses, that seperated it from the other old encoding modes in wmv9?

btw whats "res_rtm_flag" for?

[zambelli]

the question is what features complex profile uses, that seperated it from the other old encoding modes in wmv9?
I doubt it's using anything that's not already covered by the VC-1 Main Profile spec.
btw whats "res_rtm_flag" for?
First time I hear of it. Where did you find it?

[Selur]

are there any changes of getting Avisynth script support ?

[hkl8324]

Can you explain a bit what the
"Lookahead" and "Perceptual Option"
are for?

[crypto]

The settings are explained in the online help. A more detailed description can be found here (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/howto/articles/codecadvancedsettings.aspx#Lookahead__XAEP)

[benwaggoner]

are there any changes of getting Avisynth script support ?
That's definitely something we've looked at doing, but that didn't make it into Beta 1.

[diogen]

Ben,-
can you give a time frame for the next beta and more importantly, whether it will support MPEG2?

Diogen.

[mpgxsvcd]

I tried to encode the MJPEG files from the links below with WME9 Pro. I was shocked at the quality difference between the new studio version and the old WME9 version. Finally the colors look right in the WMV file even at very low bit rates. This is awesome! There must be something different about the MJPEG file that I am encoding. I am not sure but I think it is 4:4:4? Can anyone help me determine what pixel format the movie clip below is in? This clip comes from the $400 Canon S3-IS digital still camera. Quite impressive for a digital still camera isn’t it?

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2006_reviews/s3is/samples/MVI_0098.AVI

http://img2.dpreview.com/reviews/S3IS/MVI_0639.AVI

http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/canon/powershot_s3-review/MVI_0093.AVI

[mpgxsvcd]

Oh yea here is something annoying about the new encoder. If you select a value for range reduction or range expansion and then save the project, you can not ever deselect a value. Just a minor inconvenience.

[mpgxsvcd]

I spoke to soon. Now when I try an encode it just crashes everytime with an unknown error. Anyone else have crashing problems with these files?

[benwaggoner]

Ben,-
can you give a time frame for the next beta and more importantly, whether it will support MPEG2?

Right now we're collecting your feedback and bug reports, and will generate a new plan with that in mind.

So it'll be a bit before we'll be ready to make any additional commitments, even informally.

[benwaggoner]

Oh yea here is something annoying about the new encoder. If you select a value for range reduction or range expansion and then save the project, you can not ever deselect a value. Just a minor inconvenience.
Yeah, I filed that bug myself already :).

[benwaggoner]

I spoke to soon. Now when I try an encode it just crashes everytime with an unknown error. Anyone else have crashing problems with these files?
What's the unknown error?

I've heard of that issue if you don't have either WMP10 or WMP11 installed.

[mpgxsvcd]

Please take a look at these two files. The “Test Full8.wmv” file was encoded in WME9. The “Untitled5.wmv” file was encoded in WME9 studio. Look at how much brighter the colors are in the “Untitled5.wmv” file. The “Untitled5.wmv” file is much closer to the original than the “Test Full8.wmv” is. What is the difference? This problem is the sole problem that I have had with the Windows Media Codec all along. It appears to be fixed now!

Test Full8.wmv
http://www.yousendit.com/transfer.php?action=download&ufid=2F0733BC4D7FED35

Untitled5.wmv
http://www.yousendit.com/transfer.php?action=download&ufid=12F5F7A84F5D57EF

[mpgxsvcd]

What's the unknown error?

I've heard of that issue if you don't have either WMP10 or WMP11 installed.

I think I have located the problem with the "unknown error." I was trying to make an encoding while windows media player was playing a video. It throws an "unknown error" message when you do this as I would expect it to.

[benwaggoner]

Please take a look at these two files. The “Test Full8.wmv” file was encoded in WME9. The “Untitled5.wmv” file was encoded in WME9 studio. Look at how much brighter the colors are in the “Untitled5.wmv” file. The “Untitled5.wmv” file is much closer to the original than the “Test Full8.wmv” is. What is the difference? This problem is the sole problem that I have had with the Windows Media Codec all along. It appears to be fixed now!

Test Full8.wmv
http://www.yousendit.com/transfer.php?action=download&ufid=2F0733BC4D7FED35

Untitled5.wmv
http://www.yousendit.com/transfer.php?action=download&ufid=12F5F7A84F5D57EF
This sounds like an issue with source decode, not the codec itself. What was the source like? I'm happy to hear we're much more accuraten now!

These issues can come from issues in a DirectShow filter used for source decode, like if it forces RGB decode or something.

[mpgxsvcd]

The source looks very close in colors to the “Untitled5.wmv” video. You can see these results your self by encoding any one of the three files below with both WME9 and then with WME9 Studio. The files are MJPEG in a .avi container. I think they are 4:4:4 but I am not sure?

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2006_...s/MVI_0098.AVI

http://img2.dpreview.com/reviews/S3IS/MVI_0639.AVI

http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/ca...w/MVI_0093.AVI

[mpgxsvcd]

How do I force video scaling, set the Dquant option, set motion vector cost method, set motion search range, set motion match method, and Force B frame Delta QP in WME9 Studio?

[crypto]

mpgxsvcd:
Can you give us a short note on how who you managed to use those files as input for WMESE? I can play them, but WMESE complains about an unsupported codec.

And yes, the PQ is remarkable for a $400 cam. Too bad it isn't widescreen.

[benwaggoner]

How do I force video scaling, set the Dquant option, set motion vector cost method, set motion search range, set motion match method, and Force B frame Delta QP in WME9 Studio?

MV Range = Motion Vector Search Range

The other options aren't in Beta 1, alas. There's a lot of good stuff in the beta DMO which hasn't been synced back up to this encoder. We definitely want to be supporting the full range of options in later releases.

[mpgxsvcd]

mpgxsvcd:
Can you give us a short note on how who you managed to use those files as input for WMESE? I can play them, but WMESE complains about an unsupported codec.

And yes, the PQ is remarkable for a $400 cam. Too bad it isn't widescreen.

Good question. I got them to work a few times on my laptop. However, they usually give me the unkown error message. I could not get them to work at all on my desktop. I will do some more testing and let you know what I did.

Yes too bad it isn't widescreen. I bet the next round of Canon cameras will have widescreen! Nothing will come close to them then.

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=112916

fccHandler reports that these files are 4:2:2. Is there anything different in the Studio version that would enable 4:2:2 progressive encoding that was not available in the orginal WME9?

[SenorKaffee]

Can it be that WMESEß1 doesn´t like the Lagarith codec? It always fails to start encoding with "A valid type has not been set for this stream or a stream that it depends on."

1 Video Track, 800x600, 1:1 PAR, 25 fps, Progressive.
Source is a 25 second AVI encoded with the Lagarith Codec.
Encode Tab is completely left on default settings.

[benwaggoner]

Can it be that WMESEß1 doesn´t like the Lagarith codec? It always fails to start encoding with "A valid type has not been set for this stream or a stream that it depends on."

1 Video Track, 800x600, 1:1 PAR, 25 fps, Progressive.
Source is a 25 second AVI encoded with the Lagarith Codec.
Encode Tab is completely left on default settings.
Ah, yeah, we know there are issuse in our Lagarith support. Huffyuv works fine, though.

I'm quite the fan of Lagarith myself, so I feel your pain on this one :).

[SenorKaffee]

I just started to really distrust HuffYUV because I have a huge pile of HuffYUV 2.2 encoded AVIs to convert to some different lossless format because the codec keeps crashing on my main video editing machine and the non-crashing HuffYUV 2.11 can´t properly decode these files.

But this is getting off-topic. ^^

[foxyshadis]

Try ffdshow as the huffyuv decoder (and encoder as well), might work better.

[SenorKaffee]

Yes, I can actually recover the video this way, but there is some weird post-processing going on somewhere (i use GrafEdit to do this). Maybe I should open another topic for that. ;)

[daniel.aam]

Why doesn't WMSEβ support all profiles and different levels?
Or are the levels automatically set according to the resolution? It's extremely annoying as I need to do a 3rd pass and allocate more bits to a piece of PAL originated footage which is MP@ML. Any idea's anyone?

[benwaggoner]

Why doesn't WMSEβ support all profiles and different levels?
Or are the levels automatically set according to the resolution? It's extremely annoying as I need to do a 3rd pass and allocate more bits to a piece of PAL originated footage which is MP@ML. Any idea's anyone?
Sorry, no. WMESE Beta 1 is AP only. We intend to add other profiles in later versions. I agree that an explicit level control would be useful as well.

[Vitaly Ivanov]

I wonder what is the difference between VC-1 toolkit and WMESE. Do they use the same enc?

[pwimmer]

Here's my feedback to the WMESE, ordered by priority:

1) The encoder is too slow
2) The encoder is too slow
3) The encoder is too slow
4) Quality cannot compare with H.264
5) The GUI looks like a trainee's work. Everything is too large and doesn't adhere to Microsoft's own GUI standards. It's realy ugly.
6) I've found no way to do a side-by-side comparison of uncompressed and compressed movie.
7) There is no PSNR graph to easily identify scenes which might need a higher bitrate.

[benwaggoner]

Here's my feedback to the WMESE, ordered by priority:

1) The encoder is too slow
2) The encoder is too slow
3) The encoder is too slow
First thing that can help encoding speed is to avoid having to do scaling or dithering in the tool, which are very high quality but very slow. And you can always throttle back on encoder complexity, which has a huge effect on encoding speed.

]4) Quality cannot compare with H.264
What's your scenario?

5) The GUI looks like a trainee's work. Everything is too large and doesn't adhere to Microsoft's own GUI standards. It's realy ugly.
It'll be dramatically revised in 1.0

6) I've found no way to do a side-by-side comparison of uncompressed and compressed movie.
That didn't make it into the beta, but yes, we know that's a very useful feature.
7) There is no PSNR graph to easily identify scenes which might need a higher bitrate.
The QP graph is meant to serve that purpose. High QP spikes indicate regions that should be checked for reencoding.

We've got a lot of perceptual encoding features in the new codec, so PSNR isn't as useful as it might be with simpler codecs.

[CruNcher]

benwaggoner i just have to say that Sonys Pro tools are much better Desgined and workedout than yours also the Sequential Encoding is much better layed out in Sonys Encoder Gui, WMV Encoder looks like a Semi Pro tool in that regard, you still have alot of work todo :P

[benwaggoner]

benwaggoner i just have to say that Sonys Pro tools are much better Desgined and workedout than yours also the Sequential Encoding is much better layed out in Sonys Encoder Gui, WMV Encoder looks like a Semi Pro tool in that regard, you still have alot of work todo :P
Bear in mind that Studio Edition isn't the same as the encoding workflow that studios are using for HD DVD and VOD authoring. What you've got really is just a Beta 1. We appreciate all your feedback and suggestions, which is why we released the Beta 1, and didn't call it 1.0. I think you'll be very happy with what we finally release.

[pwimmer]

@Ben:

Speed: For some unknown reasons, the encoding complexity option doesn't have any effect. The encoding frame rate is about 1 fps, no matter what complexity I choose.

Quality: I've encoded several movies in VC-1 and H.264 and H.264 was always better, for example the Rhine Valley movie at http://www.3dtv.at/Movies. Especially, H.264 looks sharper in areas with lots of fine details. I've used the the Nero H.264 and X264 codecs and WIndows Media Encoder (not SE, but the old WME, qhick tests showed me the quality is basically the same).

Btw, what about including features for stereoscopic content in the ASF specification? For example these ones: http://www.3dtv.at/Knowhow/StereoWmvSpec_en.aspx

[benwaggoner]

Speed: For some unknown reasons, the encoding complexity option doesn't have any effect. The encoding frame rate is about 1 fps, no matter what complexity I choose.
Really? What's your source?

Quality: I've encoded several movies in VC-1 and H.264 and H.264 was always better, for example the Rhine Valley movie at http://www.3dtv.at/Movies. Especially, H.264 looks sharper in areas with lots of fine details. I've used the the Nero H.264 and X264 codecs and WIndows Media Encoder (not SE, but the old WME, qhick tests showed me the quality is basically the same).
What settings did you use?

Btw, what about including features for stereoscopic content in the ASF specification? For example these ones: http://www.3dtv.at/Knowhow/StereoWmvSpec_en.aspx
I think we've got a lot of other core features to get to first :).

Seriously, though, if we supported it, how do you imagine using it?

[sjchmura]

Ben,

For those of us just encoding HD streams from camers or OTA, I think alot of the "simplicity" of x264 and Nero Recode could be contributing to VC1 not looking as good. For example, it is quite easy in x264+MeGUI to choose "720p, fix the aspect ratio on scalling (for mod16), HQ-Slow". We get Mp4 fils that are the size we want and great quality (with dual core support etc).

I think when future betas support more inputs and are easier to configure we can get fewer "this looks better" etc. It was my thought that MS's aim was to make VC-1 as good as AVC ..

[benwaggoner]

For those of us just encoding HD streams from camers or OTA, I think alot of the "simplicity" of x264 and Nero Recode could be contributing to VC1 not looking as good. For example, it is quite easy in x264+MeGUI to choose "720p, fix the aspect ratio on scalling (for mod16), HQ-Slow". We get Mp4 fils that are the size we want and great quality (with dual core support etc).
Fair enough - reencoding from OTA is not a scenario we're targeting for the tool. For customers looking for that kind of solution, it probably makes more sense to use a future version of Nero that supports the new VC-1 codec implementation.
I think when future betas support more inputs and are easier to configure we can get fewer "this looks better" etc. It was my thought that MS's aim was to make VC-1 as good as AVC ..
The codec, sure. But codec<>host app - there's lots of stuff that folks want to do with codecs that aren't directly supported by Studio Edition. We're really focusing the 10bit to WVC1 workflow for cases where segment reencoding is requiered. Other workflows would be better supported by other tools using WVC1.

[acidsex]

Fair enough - reencoding from OTA is not a scenario we're targeting for the tool. For customers looking for that kind of solution, it probably makes more sense to use a future version of Nero that supports the new VC-1 codec implementation.


Did I miss an announcement somewhere on this? I wonder if this is one of those "big" features in the Sept update that John V was touting not too long ago.

[benwaggoner]

Did I miss an announcement somewhere on this? I wonder if this is one of those "big" features in the Sept update that John V was touting not too long ago.
No, no announcement, sorry. But as always, we intend to get our codec technology supported in every tool. The codec is still in beta, so I doubt anyone has announced a schedule to ship with it.

[acidsex]

understood but you can see where someone can read your comment about a future version of Nero with VC1 as something that is already being discussed or worked out which gives the impression that its not a matter of if but more of a matter of when.

One other question. If VC1 is still beta, any idea why are companies releasing content for purchase (HD DVD for example) with a beta codec? Or are they using release version implementation and MS is still working on beta code?

[benwaggoner]

understood but you can see where someone can read your comment about a future version of Nero with VC1 as something that is already being discussed or worked out which gives the impression that its not a matter of if but more of a matter of when.
I expect it's a matter of when for all WMV encoding tools to support WVC1. I don't have anything to report on Nero in specifc.

One other question. If VC1 is still beta, any idea why are companies releasing content for purchase (HD DVD for example) with a beta codec? Or are they using release version implementation and MS is still working on beta code?
The implementation is in beta, but the bitstream is locked down. All the HD DVD titles shipping have passed bitstream validation, so we know they're good to go.

There are betas and there are betas - the codec beta is much more mature than the Studio Edition beta - it's really an enhancement of mature codec, not a ground-up new tool.

[sjchmura]

Ben,

For those of us compfortable with our (mostly) consumer archiving efforts using WMEncoder,

1. will there be a way in the future to "convert" WMV stuff we encode to VC-1 without the need to "re-encode" and simply change the container or is the stream fundementally different?

2. If #1 is true then are most of the reigstry "hacks" posted by MS to enable more advanced features after installing WMPlayer 11 in the codec "safe" to use for VC1 streams?

From what I have read, I ASSume #1 is incorrect - that the streams are slightly different would at least need transcoding etc further degrading quality. I really want to archive a bunch of HD streams (some great high speed skiing stuff in Vail from last year looks amazing from the my camcorder) and some low light data for work, but be sure in the future I can burn these to HD-DVD or Blueray or HD-Ray or whatever is the future. I am scared that my patient data will be lost (that would suck if you were a patient) in 10 years if the WMV format is not "readable" sicne it is not VC-1 complaint with Windows 2012 :)

[bond]

for vc-1 incompatibilities of wmv9 read this:
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=113968

[benwaggoner]

Ben,

For those of us compfortable with our (mostly) consumer archiving efforts using WMEncoder,

1. will there be a way in the future to "convert" WMV stuff we encode to VC-1 without the need to "re-encode" and simply change the container or is the stream fundementally different?
We've looked at how to enable this, but it's up in the air if it's reliably possible. The buffer model is different enough between the two formats that you'd probably need a conservative peak rate. And of course, GOP size, resolution, etcetera will need to be HD DVD compliant.

2. If #1 is true then are most of the reigstry "hacks" posted by MS to enable more advanced features after installing WMPlayer 11 in the codec "safe" to use for VC1 streams?
Those are mainly encoding mode features - they shouldn't have any effect on HD DVD compatibilty one way or another.

From what I have read, I ASSume #1 is incorrect - that the streams are slightly different would at least need transcoding etc further degrading quality. I really want to archive a bunch of HD streams (some great high speed skiing stuff in Vail from last year looks amazing from the my camcorder) and some low light data for work, but be sure in the future I can burn these to HD-DVD or Blueray or HD-Ray or whatever is the future. I am scared that my patient data will be lost (that would suck if you were a patient) in 10 years if the WMV format is not "readable" sicne it is not VC-1 complaint with Windows 2012 :)
Well, both VC-1 and the ASF full specifications have been published, so you're in the same boat as with other open standards as far as future compatibility goes - anyone with a compiler and sufficient motivation can build a decoder.

[sjchmura]

Sorry ben, I meant encoding to WMV using WMencoder 9 and NOT using the VC-1. That is why I am saying VC-1 would be great to have today for alot of smaller work (home also) since I know VC1 (like MP3 will be around forever).

I am sure MS will support VC-1 in 2012 :) I am a bit scared of WMV (non-vc1) will go away from native support in Media Center Ultimate 2012 :)

[benwaggoner]

Sorry ben, I meant encoding to WMV using WMencoder 9 and NOT using the VC-1. That is why I am saying VC-1 would be great to have today for alot of smaller work (home also) since I know VC1 (like MP3 will be around forever).
If you're using WMV9-Advanced Profile with either the WMP11 beta, Vista, or the beta codec installed, you're making fully SMPTE compliant VC-1 today.

I am sure MS will support VC-1 in 2012 :) I am a bit scared of WMV (non-vc1) will go away from native support in Media Center Ultimate 2012 :)
Well, all those MS MPEG-4v1 with WMA still play, right :)?

Seriously, WMV9 Main Profile (aka WMV3) is also VC-1 Main Profile. You've got decades of support coming for those files.

[bond]

Seriously, WMV9 Main Profile (aka WMV3) is also VC-1 Main Profile. You've got decades of support coming for those files.not necessarily 100% true, as i pointed out in the thread i linked to

[benwaggoner]

not necessarily 100% true, as i pointed out in the thread i linked to
Right, stay away from Complex mode.

[bond]

Right, stay away from Complex mode.you read my thread already, didnt you? complex mode and old advanced profile are not the only issues with wmv9 being incompliant to vc-1

[sjchmura]

BIt off topic - no more...

So since I have WMP11 installed (actually this was the only WGA problem I ever had but whatever) is there a nice article on how to hack WMEncoder to use the WMV-Advanced Profile that will be VC-1 compliant ... (meaning, do you still need to do those old registry hacks - I assume not right?)

Thanks.... back to the topic :)

[benwaggoner]

BIt off topic - no more...

So since I have WMP11 installed (actually this was the only WGA problem I ever had but whatever) is there a nice article on how to hack WMEncoder to use the WMV-Advanced Profile that will be VC-1 compliant ... (meaning, do you still need to do those old registry hacks - I assume not right?)

You're correct. If you have WMP11 installed, any WMV-AP encode will be VC-1 compliant.

[benwaggoner]

you read my thread already, didnt you? complex mode and old advanced profile are not the only issues with wmv9 being incompliant to vc-1
It sounds like you've already got Alex on the case there - all I'd do is ask him what was going on :).

[zambelli]

You're correct. If you have WMP11 installed, any WMV-AP encode will be VC-1 compliant.
Assuming you don't run into any of our beta codec bugs... ;)

Everyone should keep in mind that what's currently available of WMV Advanced Profile codec is all in beta form. Until we release a non-beta version (i.e. with Vista final), everyone should probably refrain from creating any WMV AP videos for "posterity". With any codec that's in beta stage, whether it's WMV, AVC or MPEG-2, there's always the possibility that the encoder might have bugs which result in illegal bitstreams.

Main Profile should be safe though, especially if you're using v9 or v10 bits. Like Bond mentioned, just stay clear of Complex Profile and Main Profile interlaced mode.

[bond]

Assuming you don't run into any of our beta codec bugs... ;)

Everyone should keep in mind that what's currently available of WMV Advanced Profile codec is all in beta form. Until we release a non-beta version (i.e. with Vista final), everyone should probably refrain from creating any WMV AP videos for "posterity". With any codec that's in beta stage, whether it's WMV, AVC or MPEG-2, there's always the possibility that the encoder might have bugs which result in illegal bitstreams.dont you use the same codec for the studios for hddvd productions?

Main Profile should be safe though, especially if you're using v9 or v10 bits. Like Bond mentioned, just stay clear of Complex Profile and Main Profile interlaced mode.yepa and this strange rtm thingie noone knows where it comes from

[benwaggoner]

dont you use the same codec for the studios for hddvd productions?
They're actually different binaries at this point.

[zambelli]

yepa and this strange rtm thingie noone knows where it comes from
There's no way to set that flag "accidentally", so nobody needs to worry about it.

[bond]

There's no way to set that flag "accidentally", so nobody needs to worry about it.microsoft offers clips having the flag set wrongly on their webpage and there are also other clips floating around having it, being created with the microsoft encoder for sure

so there must be a way to get an incompliant stream "accidentially"

[zambelli]

microsoft offers clips having the flag set wrongly on their webpage and there are also other clips floating around having it, being created with the microsoft encoder for sure
so there must be a way to get an incompliant stream "accidentially"
I should've been clearer: there is no way to set that flag accidentally by using any available release version of a Microsoft codec.

I'll explain more in the other thread. In the meantime, could you point me to some of the videos hosted on MS web that have that flag set? I should probably check them for VC-1 compliance.

[pwimmer]

I've tried to encode a 2880 x 1080 pixel video file today, but noticed that the resolution in WMESE is still restricted to 2048 pixels (thats only 48 pixels better than the old WME).

Please remove this restriction in beta 2!

Or is there actually a limitation in the codec?

[benwaggoner]

I've tried to encode a 2880 x 1080 pixel video file today, but noticed that the resolution in WMESE is still restricted to 2048 pixels (thats only 48 pixels better than the old WME).

Please remove this restriction in beta 2!

Or is there actually a limitation in the codec?
That one was my fault, sorry :).
It's a limitation in the published profiles and levels. That makes validating streams with parameters outside those a lot more complex, which we just didn't want to tackle in Beta 1.

So, what would you like o use >2 KiB widths for?

[pwimmer]

So, what would you like o use >2 KiB widths for?

Stereoscopic 3D @ 1080p. There is already a 2 x 1440 x 1080p sample on my website (http://www.3dtv.at/Movies) and it plays fine on a Pentium D. It's encoded as two separate streams in a single file.

To avoid the overhead of decoding two streams, I'd like to try a single stream instead. Previous decoder versions (I've tried up to 2000 pixels) didn't work because they were not able to use both CPU cores (that's why I created the dual stream format), but I hope to be able to use single stream files soon.

I'm aware that >2k is beyond any existing profile, but why not simply display a warning message but lets users continue encoding?

[benwaggoner]

Stereoscopic 3D @ 1080p. There is already a 2 x 1440 x 1080p sample on my website (http://www.3dtv.at/Movies) and it plays fine on a Pentium D. It's encoded as two separate streams in a single file.

To avoid the overhead of decoding two streams, I'd like to try a single stream instead. Previous decoder versions (I've tried up to 2000 pixels) didn't work because they were not able to use both CPU cores (that's why I created the dual stream format), but I hope to be able to use single stream files soon.

I'm aware that >2k is beyond any existing profile, but why not simply display a warning message but lets users continue encoding?
That's a reasonable suggestion - I'll pass it on.

Cool project!

[Bathrone]

zambelli on Vista Ultimate RC1, it fails to install claiming there isnt enough disc space -when there is. Then it complains about service pack levels that arent relevant for Vista.

Would appreciate your thoughts in my WVC1 encoding thread for the xbox 360 under media center extender.


http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=115479

[benwaggoner]

The current beta of Studio Edition isn't supported on Vista.

Obviously something we're inclined to rectify.

Of course, the new codec is certainly available for Vista, via WME or many other tools - Studio Edition is only needed if you want the advanced preprocessing or segment reencoding.

[Sagittaire]

Well you are certainely bug because quality is incredibily poor if I compare with VC1 from WME9 ... ???

[popper]

If you're using WMV9-Advanced Profile with either the WMP11 beta, Vista, or the beta codec installed, you're making fully SMPTE compliant VC-1 today.


Well, all those MS MPEG-4v1 with WMA still play, right :)?

Seriously, WMV9 Main Profile (aka WMV3) is also VC-1 Main Profile. You've got decades of support coming for those files.

well, apparently not if you intend using the MS Xbox360 as your content player....

perhaps as a turnkey re-box job?.

it seems theres going to be a serious NEED for a free MS converter RSN or theres a risk of loosing sales, would you be working on such a converter now perhaps?.

http://www.360-hq.com/article1187.html
"Can I get more technical details about the kinds of files you support?
- WMV video files with the extension ".wmv" are stored in a generic file container format known as ASF. ASF files can contain many different types of codecs within them. Xbox 360 supports most common WMV video codecs, as seen in the following chart:
Name (FourCC)
Windows Media Video 7 (WMV1)
Windows Media Video 8 (WMV2)
Windows Media Video 9 (WMV3)
Windows Media Video 9 Advanced Profile (WVC1)

- There are some files with ".wmv" extension that may play on a PC, but are unsupported on the Xbox 360 console. Windows Media Screen, Windows Media 9 Image (Photostory), and some older Microsoft codecs are unsupported, as seen in the following chart:
Name (FourCC)
Microsoft MPEG-4 Video Codec V3 (MP43)
Microsoft MPEG-4 Video Codec V2 (MP42)
Microsoft MPEG-4 Video Codec V1 (MP41)
Windows Media Screen V9 (MSS2)
Windows Media Screen V7 (MSS1)
Windows Media Video 9 Image (WMVP)
Windows Media Video 9 Image v2 (WVP2)
ISO MPEG-4 Video V1 (MP4S)

Anamorphic content with nonsquare pixels is currently unsupported on Xbox 360 console, and will be displayed as if the pixels were square. If you want to play such content on your console, it is recommended that you re-encode the content in a square pixel format.

News-Source: Official Team Xbox Blog"
http://blogs.msdn.com/xboxteam/archive/2006/10/31/fall-06-supported-video-formats.aspx
Tuesday, October 31, 2006 4:16 PM by L0G0
Fall '06 Supported Video Formats

[Bathrone]

Those details are not fully correct.

E.g. WMVP, WVP2 and WMVA are playable on the 360 in cases where vista ultimate with media centre extender is used. There maybe others as well, Ive only tested those codecs so far.

[popper]

Those details are not fully correct.

E.g. WMVP, WVP2 and WMVA are playable on the 360 in cases where vista ultimate with media centre extender is used. There maybe others as well, Ive only tested those codecs so far.

i see, i took it that the official Team Xbox Blog url would be a good reference....
http://blogs.msdn.com/xboxteam/archive/2006/10/31/fall-06-supported-video-formats.aspx

but then they did say 'but are unsupported on the Xbox 360' rather than un-playable.

i dont know what to make of this latest blog then.

http://blogs.msdn.com/xboxteam/default.aspx
"Shaheen Gandhi
http://blogs.msdn.com/user/Profile.aspx?UserID=17268
Member since 2/1/2006 8:02:49 PM
Last visited 11/5/2006 1:46:10 AM
Timezone
The timezone the user resides within. -8 GMT
Location Redmond, WA
Occupation Software Engineer "

"Emergence Day
Posted Friday, November 03, 2006 5:15 PM by shaheeng
What takes 4.7 million lines of code, partner teams from all over Microsoft, and millions of dollars to create? The Xbox 360 system software? Nope. This is just the HD DVD player"

"The Xbox 360 HD DVD Player, for the most part, is an entirely software based implementation. Other players on the market have specialized chips (called DSPs) that decode things like H.264, MPEG, VC1, DTS, Dolby Digital, and other codecs. Much like how backwards compatibility for Xbox 1 works on Xbox 360, the heavy parts of HD DVD are all done on Xbox 360's triple-core CPU.

If DVD is an audio/video pipeline with some navigation data (go to the menu, start playing, etc.), HD DVD can be considered a runtime environment where audio/video playback is just one major feature. So let's break down that 4.7 million lines of code. I don't have the numbers for each component, but each of these is a very significant chunk:

Video Codecs: H.264, MPEG-2, VC1
Audio Codecs: Dolby Digital+, DTS, TrueHD, LPCM, MPEG

HDi: The HD DVD runtime engine.
GDI: Drawing stuff like menus

AACS: Cryptography/DRM stuff
MF: Audio/Video pipeline
That's a lot of stuff."

of course, the addition of a simple cheap and low power re-programable chip such as the KiloCore FPGA
might have been a very good thing to add for the future expansion rather than some 'specialized chips (called DSPs)' but thats OT so ill just mention it in passing interest.

http://www.rapportincorporated.com/
http://www.rapportincorporated.com/kilocore/kc256.html
"Rapport’s initial chip, the KC256, includes 256 processing elements in a 16x16 array, with a peak of 25 Giga Byte Operations per second (GBops) at 100 MHz while using less than 500 mW. For even higher performance, multiple KC256 chips can be clustered.

The KC256High performance at low power consumption makes Kilocore™ ideal for demanding applications like advanced security. A KC256 runs the IDEA digital security decryption algorithm 10 times faster than an ARM7®. And the ARM7 consumes 4 times the power (120 mW vs. 500 mW), giving the KC256 a 40x power/performance advantage. Compared to a 1.8 GHz Pentium, the KC256 offers a 500x power/performance advantage. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilocore
"Kilocore, from Rapport Inc. and IBM, is a high-performance, low-power multicore processor, with 1025 cores. It contains a single PowerPC processing core, and 1024 8-bit Processing Elements running at 125 MHz each, which can be dynamically reconfigured, connected by a shared interconnect. It allows high performance parallel processing."

[travisbell]

Hey guys, just curious... it's been 4 months since beta 1 was posted... any updates as to when a beta 2 will arrive?

Thanks!

[photoguy123]

The studio edtion has vanished from the MS site with no explaination.

No more beta 1, no beta anything, no release.

Would be kind of nice if some on could have at least posted what the heck happened.

Was the product scrapped?

[benwaggoner]

The studio edtion has vanished from the MS site with no explaination.

No more beta 1, no beta anything, no release.

Would be kind of nice if some on could have at least posted what the heck happened.

Was the product scrapped?
Sorry, half of the campus in on vacation, and the other half is without power.

Simply, the current build timed out, and we didn't have a new build to release. The v11 codecs are more recent and higher quality anyway, so we haven't been recommending using the Beta 1 anyway.

We're working on how to make the technologies previewed in Studio Edition widely available, but don't have any more details to share just now.

[crypto]

Thanks for the info and good to know that there is more to come.

[moon1234]

Sorry, half of the campus in on vacation, and the other half is without power.

Simply, the current build timed out, and we didn't have a new build to release. The v11 codecs are more recent and higher quality anyway, so we haven't been recommending using the Beta 1 anyway.

We're working on how to make the technologies previewed in Studio Edition widely available, but don't have any more details to share just now.

I used studio edition quite a lot just for its easy batching capabilities. We have a fairly large matter in litigation right now where depositions are being video'd to DVD. The DVD's are then ripped, re-encoded and then streamed for in-house and offsite counsel review. This is a very time intensive process. Being able to easily batch process much of the video with Studio Edition was very nice. I know I could do this on the command line, but I liked the GUI.

Now, Studio Edition will not even run. It says it is expired and to get a new version. I am now forced to manually encode with the Windows Media Encoder, one file at a time. I frame serve with Avisynth and convert AC3 to WAV first with BeSweet. This can all be very time intensive, but it is necessary to do it manually as each court reporter seems to use slightly different equipment. All of them seem to have some sort or "problem" with the video that needs fixing in post processing.

One tool that I have been hoping SOMEONE would develop would be the ability to convert a .csv file into a SIML complaint caption file that could be embedded in ASF or standalone on a Windows Media Server and served with a .wsx script. Being able to include synchronized text from the deposition transcript as captions would be sweet. It would save a lot on Trial Presentation software and also benefit any reviewer who would not need to have a copy of the transcript in front of them.

Again these are just my wishes based on what I use the software for everyday.

[benwaggoner]

I used studio edition quite a lot just for its easy batching capabilities. We have a fairly large matter in litigation right now where depositions are being video'd to DVD. The DVD's are then ripped, re-encoded and then streamed for in-house and offsite counsel review. This is a very time intensive process. Being able to easily batch process much of the video with Studio Edition was very nice. I know I could do this on the command line, but I liked the GUI.
There are lots of commercial products that will do batch encoding of Windows Media content. For DVD to WMV, I've had good luck with Canopus ProCoder, which is fast, and can read an unencrypted .vob file directly as a source file.

While we provide some tools around Windows Media, the bulk of Windows Media content is produced using tools built on our SDKs.

One tool that I have been hoping SOMEONE would develop would be the ability to convert a .csv file into a SIML complaint caption file that could be embedded in ASF or standalone on a Windows Media Server and served with a .wsx script. Being able to include synchronized text from the deposition transcript as captions would be sweet. It would save a lot on Trial Presentation software and also benefit any reviewer who would not need to have a copy of the transcript in front of them.
Have you checked out WPF/E:

http://www.microsoft.com/wpfe/

Among other things, it will support real-time rich media overlayed on top of WMV files.

The Windows Media format supports captioning data, but Windows Media Player itself doesn't play those back. But a number of companies have build custom players on top of our Player SDK that do real-time captioning.

Again these are just my wishes based on what I use the software for everyday.
Sounds like great stuff to have in the market.

I don't know that Microsoft would be providing you the exact tools you need, but we're already providing the technology third parties could use to build them.

[moon1234]

Yes direct playback of captions is already supported. Please see http://www.webaim.org/techniques/captions/windows/

It is sad to see a good tool like Windows Media Studio Edition dropped from development. MS had a lot of good press from this at NAB 2006 and then quietly killed the project. Now we hear the "Buy a third party product" tag line.

[benwaggoner]

Yes direct playback of captions is already supported. Please see http://www.webaim.org/techniques/captions/windows/
Awesome, thanks. I love finding out other people have already done the hard work :).

It is sad to see a good tool like Windows Media Studio Edition dropped from development. MS had a lot of good press from this at NAB 2006 and then quietly killed the project. Now we hear the "Buy a third party product" tag line.
Yeah, I was pretty sad about it too. But given a fixed amount of engineering resources, I think we're better off making a great codec that any software vendor can use, instead of having to spread ourselves thin trying to support every scenario.

Expect to see a variety of products doing everything that Studio Edition tried to do, but a lot better, and a lot more other stuff as well.