VC-1 and H264 [Archive] - Doom9's Forum

benwaggoner

20th July 2007, 08:00

I used the VBScript VC-1 encoder with presets that's popular here, with "fast", "normal", "better", "best" and "insane". I used "better".
Reviewing the settings, it looks like you got:

Complexity = 3 (-v_performance 60)
Lookahead = 30 (-v_lookahead 30)
Loopfilter = On (-v_loopfilter 1)
Motion Search Level = Auto w/ Integer Chroma (-v_mslevel 0)
Motion Search Range = Auto (-v_msrange 0)
Motion Vector Cost = Dynamic (-v_mvcost 1)
B-frames = 1 (-v_bframedist 1)

To get a good quality encode without going crazy on performance, I'd do:

Complexity = 4 (-v_performance 8)
Lookahead = 0 (v_lookahead 0) - not needed with 2-pass encodes
Loopfilter = On (-v_loopfilter 1)
Motion Search Level = Auto w/ True chroma (-v_mslevel 4)
Motion Search Range = Auto (-v_msrange 0)
Motion Vector Cost = Dynamic (-v_mvcost 1)
B-frames = 1 (-v_bframedist 1)
Motion Match Method = Auto (-v_mmatch 0)
DQuant on I & P Frames (-v_dquantoption 2)
Adaptive Deadzone (-v_percopt 2)

and if you're seeing artifacts, use

Overlap filter (-v_overlap 1)

Also, since you're comparing with a quality VBR encode, make sure you're using

2-pass VBR (-v_mode 3)

Note that some of the above settings are for optimizing video quality not PSNR/SSIM, so you should compare the quality of the two encodes visually. And since you already have a H.264 encode at bitrate you like, go ahead and use the same bitrate for the 2-pass VBR VC-1 encode so you're at least controlling one axis of the comparison.

Also remember that your encode time comparison isn't particularly germaine, since you're comparing a 1-pass to a 2-pass encode.

Still, how much RAM is in your machine? The Lookahead parameter doesn't help in a two-pass encode, and can eat up quite a lot of RAM in a HD encode. That could slow you down some.

zambelli

20th July 2007, 23:25

Let's also keep in mind that comparing x264 and WMV9 is just a comparison of two implementations and doesn't represent all H.264 and VC-1 encoders. A codec is only as good as its implementation.

bond

21st July 2007, 06:41

Let's also keep in mind that comparing x264 and WMV9 is just a comparison of two implementations and doesn't represent all H.264 and VC-1 encoders. A codec is only as good as its implementation.i think comparing x264 with wmv9 is ok, as x264 is one of the best h.264 encoders and wmv9 is propably the only (?) vc-1 encoder existing

benwaggoner

21st July 2007, 08:17

There are actuallly diffferent implementations of VC-1 available to the public today. Format SDK 11. Tarari. The version of the codec used in the Inlet products. The non-PSE version of Sonic's CineVision. SMPTE reference code. Telestream's implementation used in FlipFactory, Episode, and Flip4Mac. Main Concept has one. There's some DSP implementations used by folks like VBrick...

And of course we've got newer stuff we've done post FSDK 11. And there's been three major releases of FSDK with VC-1 (9, 9.5, and 11).

Sagittaire

21st July 2007, 09:59

The non-PSE version of Sonic's CineVision use Mainconcept VC1 SDK ...

PuzZLeR

21st July 2007, 11:58

Is this thread about the quality difference between the two, or the long-term support comparison? Or how to encode for stand-alones? All distinct topics.

For stand-alones and H.264, stick with a common denominator of QT compatibility, a standard within a standard, and you won't go wrong, even if it costs a bit more bitrate. However, hardware will eventually catch up with MRFs, B-pyramids, etc in due time, even though they make several decoders choke today.

Don't care what Apple TV and iPod are accepting. These machines have obvious tech limitations, not restrictions on a standard. It's also Apple's way of skimming the market, making us keep buying the "next great exciting" model coming up... In 5 years time my phone will be playing all my encoded clips of today, with all the gravy, and it doesn't even have to be a phone from Apple either...

Personally, I would say that for better support you can't go wrong with an MPEG codec. H.264 is the latest face of MPEG. In fact it *IS* MPEG.

The only reason VC-1 even got this far is because its parade is led by M$, otherwise it would be scratching for a niche market like VP-7 and RV10 are.

H.264 is also an open standard, while VC-1 has proprietary characteristics. There is no "corporation" that owns H.264, and any support it gets is rather genuine, which is plenty. VC-1's support is biased, as is those comments from obvious backers of the big M.

Quality difference? Don't care. Even if VC-1 is "better" quality, which I have yet to see evidence of, it wouldn't be distinguishable enough to beat an MPEG codec.

benwaggoner

21st July 2007, 16:19

H.264 is also an open standard, while VC-1 has proprietary characteristics. There is no "corporation" that owns H.264, and any support it gets is rather genuine, which is plenty. VC-1's support is biased, as is those comments from obvious backers of the big M.
What kind of proprietary characteristics are you thinking of? H.264 and VC-1 are both fully specified by a standards body (ISO or SMPTE) with the usual set of reference encoders and decoders, reference streams, etcetera. And both have similar patent terms, and have patent licensing handled by MPEG-LA.

Quality difference? Don't care. Even if VC-1 is "better" quality, which I have yet to see evidence of, it wouldn't be distinguishable enough to beat an MPEG codec.
Well, there's many flavors of "quality". PQ is one axis. PQ per MIPS is another. Installed base is another - clearly many more of the world's computers can play VC-1 out of the box than H.264.

It's never possible to say any codec is better or worse in the abstract. It's always comparing implementations and scenarios. Clearly there are places where H.264 is better (for example, playback on an iPod for example) and where VC-1 is better (for example, playback on corporate desktops, or in portable devices in software instead of via ASIC).

Tack

21st July 2007, 17:19

What kind of proprietary characteristics are you thinking of?
Past experience has certainly taught me to treat with great skepticism anything that comes from Microsoft, and even more so anything that Microsoft is pushing as a standard. (OOXML is one potent example.)

There is of course the pragmatic issue of platform availability. Can I encode VC-1 on Linux or OS X? (It's not a rhetorical question; I actually don't know, but I suspect not at least on Linux.)

Installed base is another - clearly many more of the world's computers can play VC-1 out of the box than H.264.
Ah yes, clearly. Because Microsoft is less interested in providing a seamless user experience than they are with pushing "standards" on which they have a firm, proprietary grasp.

The out-of-the-box media experience on Windows has always been ridiculously annoying. Certainly if you confine yourself to MS-blessed codecs (WMV, WMA) it's great. MP3 is supported, but only because of the sheer volume and demand. Microsoft missed the boat on MP3's popularity explosion -- not one to make the same mistake twice, VC-1 is Microsoft's answer to h264. I wonder why Windows doesn't support Ogg Vorbis out of the box? Are the licensing costs too high, perhaps?

Should you be unfortunate enough to have a file with an unsupported codec, like those unknown, esoteric, obscure ones such as xvid/divx, AC3, or h264 -- scantly used on the Internet and the AV/HT scene in general, to be sure -- then you are confronted with the ever-helpful dialog that consults MS's servers to download the codec, which I have never once seen actually work.

Ubiquity of VC-1 "on the desktop" is achieved only thanks to Microsoft's desktop monopoly. If you're a content provider and your motives are commercial in nature, then sadly your argument is valid. (I would still argue outweighed by other factors.) But otherwise, as with the case of the original poster, desktop penetration is moot, and in fact I would say the full transparentness of projects like x264 are an utterly compelling reason to embrace h264.

benwaggoner

21st July 2007, 18:18

Past experience has certainly taught me to treat with great skepticism anything that comes from Microsoft, and even more so anything that Microsoft is pushing as a standard. (OOXML is one potent example.)
This is a technical forum - I think it'd be more useful if you could bring up some specific examples of anything you object to in either the standard or the license. Companies like Main Concept have done their own implementation of VC-1 without any involvement from Microsoft without any issues.

As for OOXML, I think most of the criticisms miss the fact that its primary goal is to provide a XML implementation that's backwards compatible to all existing .doc files, which introduces painful complexity. You might argue about whether or not that's worth doing, but for enterprises that want to take their existing past few decades of .doc content and make them searchable in a structured way while preserving the layout precisely, OOXML is a great solution.

There is of course the pragmatic issue of platform availability. Can I encode VC-1 on Linux or OS X? (It's not a rhetorical question; I actually don't know, but I suspect not at least on Linux.)
Sure. Telestream's Episode and Flip4Mac products encode WMV with VC-1 on Mac. Those can plug into other tools, like Compressor and Squeeze.

As for Linux, I think there are some embedded VC-1 solutions using derivatives of the VC-1 Porting Kit (portable C++ implementation we license). And there's some Summer of Code thing going on:

http://wiki.multimedia.cx/index.php?title=FFmpeg_Summer_Of_Code#VC-1

And I'm sure someone's working on xVC1 somewhere, based on the SMPTE reference implementation. Since Microsoft doesn't control either the specification or license, we only hear about projects are they are announced just like everyone else.

The out-of-the-box media experience on Windows has always been ridiculously annoying...
Well, yes, only a very small percentage of users are watching anime fansubs and that kind of stuff, and there are readily available 3rd party players for those who are interested. Given how many formats and codecs there are out there, I hope you can understand why we don't take on the development and particularly test hit of getting everything working. There's an extremely high bar for security and stability for anything bundled with windows.

Shapierian

21st July 2007, 21:43

Well, yes, only a very small percentage of users are watching anime fansubs and that kind of stuff, and there are readily available 3rd party players for those who are interested. Given how many formats and codecs there are out there, I hope you can understand why we don't take on the development and particularly test hit of getting everything working. There's an extremely high bar for security and stability for anything bundled with windows.

But it is kind of funny that Microsoft that produced a reference implementation of MPEG-4 and considering the ubiquity of MPEG-4 that windows doesn't support it out of the box.

PuzZLeR

22nd July 2007, 03:58

Hello Ben,

I know there’s about a dozen other “organizations”, or rather “corporations” behind it, but VC-1, although officially “open standard”, has the, albeit indirect, profitable goals, motives and characteristics of a proprietary format, and this is just another example of M$’s second-mover status – where something of merit is introduced into our mainstream and then the Big M yelps “Me too!” Instead of properly employing its status as the world’s most widely used O/S, where it should warrant some responsibility to embrace a standard, M$ instead leverages its advantage by unleashing something to compete against it unfairly … again. Of course, since (pun intended) Gates holds the gates with his operating system, and regardless of quality, or lack-thereof, from any M$ product, this time disguised, as “the standard”, it will still sadly get a wider-than-deserved attention, especially when it will be “pre-packaged”, and bullied on us with a unilateral premise, with added excuses of some over-abundance of existing codecs - and “an extremely high bar of security”, which apparently includes the standard of H.264 - an implication that it's a "trivial" codec that may also be a "threat".

Yeah, whatever.

Well, Ok, yes, it's a "threat" alright, but we all know what that "threat" to the Big M really is. As for “security” – I would call it INsecurity, a trait commonplace among the bully behavior.

Now instead of enjoying H.264, a common video format standard, widely portable, with high quality/compression that intends to be fluidly compatible universally among all platforms, we have to now put up with another M$ entry for no beneficial reason whatsoever to the industry - an analogy similar to that of a spoiled brat rich kid, living off a stolen heritance, that wants to play too with ONLY his/her crappy toys that the estate’s owner manufactures…

Ben, I do however respect your stance with Microsoft, and appreciate what you’re doing, but you will not be without challenge in this forum. And I won't insult you with fluff either.

But if you’d like to discuss “technical” comparisons in this forum, which may or may not be what this thread is about, as of this writing, the implementations of H.264 clearly outperform those of VC-1 for good reason beyond a head start. I see very little that VC-1 offers other than “faster processing” (such as decoding) – an “issue” that can easily be considered short-term and an “advantage” that will be negligible, and laughable, as hardware further progresses towards the world of HD. The law of diminishing returns will certainly apply to VC-1 as newer methods are developed into the H.264 standard – 4:4:4, lower bitrate encoding, chroma, etc on top of features like CABAC currently – none of which exist, or will exist, with “VC-1” as is.

Actually, I lie. Yes, H.264 does have this VC-1 “advantage”, and impersonation. It’s called BASELINE.

Don’t worry folks. This is one M$ joke that will definitely reveal lucidity and implode and choke and this will be a case based purely on the tangibles of the intangible – pure product features. My vision as a marketing administrator? VC-1 will still be around, and will boast this-and-that to those who will listen, but as H.264 further progresses M$ will lead us into yet ANOTHER new codec to compete… again, this time with their WMMVM4XVMV10VC2-whatever…but this time the general public, unless it’s not already doing it, will just roll back its eyes and sigh…

Thank you... methinks I'm done with this thread...

Geordie, BSc, CompSci, MBA
Finance & Electronic Marketing Concentration
Marketing Administrator

bond

22nd July 2007, 10:20

here (http://www.mpegla.com/index1.cfm)you can check the patents owned by specific companies like microsoft on avc and vc1 and the licensing terms of avc and vc1

as you can see microsoft owns more patents in avc than in vc1 (just counting the amount, not looking into the details)
the licensing terms for avc and vc1 are pretty similar, with vc1 having higher overall caps, so imho for big producers being slightly more expensive
-> therefore i think microsoft might earn on the patent side the same with both formats any maybe even more with avc

this leaves the implemenation side:
all in all vc1 has been imho created because microsoft creates own "standards" as a business model using their strong standing in the os sector (and therefore media player sector) to push this "standard", exlcuding competitors.
in the vc1 case they have been forced by the dvd/bluray bodies to make the prior closed vc1 "standard" an open standard, harming microsoft's tactic of exlcuding competitors but still being better than being not included in hddvd/bluray

in the end in the vc1 case imho it would have been better for the industry, the end customer and propably even microsoft if ms would have pushed avc right from the start, using their os standing to push THEIR avc implementation and not some extra implementation of a different open standard

Wilbert

22nd July 2007, 13:52

As for OOXML, I think most of the criticisms miss the fact that its primary goal is to provide a XML implementation that's backwards compatible to all existing .doc files, which introduces painful complexity. You might argue about whether or not that's worth doing, but for enterprises that want to take their existing past few decades of .doc content and make them searchable in a structured way while preserving the layout precisely, OOXML is a great solution.
OOXML is being pushed as an open standard, which is simply incompatible with being compatible with existing .doc files. You can't have it both ways. However, it's not open (future patents treats, references to older Word versions) nor a standard despite being pushed as one.

If you read what happened in the committee in Portugal (http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2007071812280798#comments):

As you know, it's been reported that both Sun and IBM were told there was no room for them to join the committee in Portugal and so they were not allowed to attend the July 16th meeting. A member of that committee, Rui Seabra, has now published his notes (http://wiki.ansol.org/CT-173-LDD-Meeting-002) from the meeting and given me permission to reproduce them here for you.

Just look at how many participants are affiliated with Microsoft:

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2007071812280798

Or in the committee in the USA:
Microsoft's plan to have its Office Open XML (OOXML) format fast-tracked for approval as an ISO standard hit a snag recently, when the V1, a technical committee that advises the International Committee for Information Technology Standards (INCITS), failed by two votes to gain the necessary two-thirds majority of its 26 voting members to give OOXML the "Approval, with comments" rating. The INCTS is a committee accredited by ANSI that recommends the United States' position on voting for ISO standards. Subsequent motions to pass OOXML as "Disapproval, with comments" and "Abstention, with comments" also failed. Rob Weir, an IBM employee who is a member of the V1 committee, explained the decision on his blog, and noted that 16 out of the 26 voting members joined the committee very late in the game, and almost all of these new partners voted to approve OOXML. Weir noted that some of these new members were companies that were Microsoft corporate partners.
as reported on ars (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070717-office-xml-hits-a-snag-on-the-way-to-iso-standardization.html). I think that Microsoft should be ashamed of itself, but what else is new.

@mods,

Please move this to a different thread if you think this is off topic.

benwaggoner

22nd July 2007, 21:23

Shapierian

23rd July 2007, 03:13

Remember that VC-1 Simple and Main profiles predate H.264 both technically and for license terms. Microsoft (well before my time) went down the codec standard route before with MPEG-4 part 2, which turns out to be a profound disappointment across the industry - it didn't offer that much of a compression advantage over MPEG-2, and the protracted license agreement discussions scared off a lot of adoption. I was involved in many digital media projects that wouldn't even touch MPEG-4 in the late 90's to early 00's because there was going to be a "content fee" that hadn't been fully defined yet.

MPEG-4 Part 2 has been a great success, consider: DivX, XviD, 3viX and QuickTime 6 and offers huge advantages over MPEG-2 otherwise people would have just stuck with MPEG-2 and doom9 wouldn't have XviD and DivX forums.

PuzZLeR

23rd July 2007, 06:11

in the end in the vc1 case imho it would have been better for the industry, the end customer and propably even microsoft if ms would have pushed avc right from the start, using their os standing to push THEIR avc implementation and not some extra implementation of a different open standardRevisiting the thread in case my last post may have made me sound like some communist.

I have NO PROBLEM with M$ wishing to compete in this arena. I should have been clearer on this. I still have issues with the pushing of their implementation using their O/S, even with AVC, but at least it's an embracement of an existing standard that they'd be pushing...

If M$ wanted to instead create a compatible H.264 implementation of their own I, and many others, would have been very welcoming to this. Whether WMV-AVC would have sucked or not, nevertheless, an M$ entry of this nature WOULD have been great for the industry.

My beef is the fact that they went ahead and led a party to create a completely different, and inferior, standard. There is no excuse for this other than their greedy desire for control, and by unfairly using their position with their O/S to give us all the impression that VC-1 is "THE" standard.

And to furthermore force it down our throats packaged with Windows, purposely EXCLUDING H.264 with the excuse, and insult, that it may be unsafe and one of the "too many codecs out there". This will certainly cause alot of friction.

Ben, is that an official Microsoft statement? This is how they treat a standard?

This is one ploy that will not work and will backfire. I think the public is aware of M$ and their crap by now.

And let me remind you that the Zune is NOT an attempt to compete with Apple and its iPod as the traditionalists might think. The Zune emphasis is a means to win more exposure for VC-1. This is a desperate attempt by M$ because VC-1 is getting beaten convincingly. When the iPod pounds Zune, this will set VC-1 further back, where it belongs.

What concerns me most about VC-1 is not that it will beat H.264. It won't. The real nuisance is in the fact that it will not die for a long time. M$ will not let it go and will keep irritating us over and over again, constantly poking at the industry and the dream of fluid compatibility.

VC-1 will surely end up like WMV - still bugging us as an annoying side format floating around that everybody who comes into possession of is always asking in forums how it can be converted to something else...

Manao

23rd July 2007, 07:46

VC-1 was designed for HD and film content from the get-go, while H.264 only really became competitive in that arena relatively late with the addition of High Profile, created after VC-1 beat MPEG-2, and both beat H.264, in the initial DVD Forum HD tests.Technically speaking, H264 main profile is superior to VC1 & MPEG-2 for HD. High profile is, of course, a lot better, because 8x8 transform is really a must for HD stuff, but even so, H264 MP outperforms both codecs.

However, when they did those tests, they may not have used a good h264 encoder. And it's easy to make a H264 encoder less efficient than Mpeg2. Look at ATI's software H264 codec...

So I'm interested in knowing what encoders where used for that DVD Forum HD comparison.

MPEG-4 Part 2 has been a great successNo. For the industry, Mpeg4p2 is a huge failure. The only success for Mpeg4 part 2 is that it's widely used by pirate. That doesn't make it a success :) Finally, mpeg4 part 2 is only ~20% more efficient than Mpeg2. Don't be fooled by the fact that you convert a DVD 9 to a 700MB CD to rate mpeg4's efficiency. DVD9 is an overkill, it has a GOP of 12, and professionnal mpeg2 encoders used for DVD aren't that good.

benwaggoner

23rd July 2007, 18:46

Technically speaking, H264 main profile is superior to VC1 & MPEG-2 for HD. High profile is, of course, a lot better, because 8x8 transform is really a must for HD stuff, but even so, H264 MP outperforms both codecs.
Superior in what sense? That's certianly not my experience, especially for contet with film grain.

Sounds like a promising option for doing some actual head-to-head testing!

Manao

23rd July 2007, 19:15

I must admit I'm mostly used to test TV content ( broadcast ), which is quite a lot more complex than movie, but which also is less grainy.

I must also admit I'm not a grain/noise addict, and that between ringing/blocks and sharp without grain, I'll choose the second any time.

And finally, I've never worked with anything higher than 10 mbps for HD stuff, and it may not be the bitrate at which the test was done.

That said, the encoder definitely matters. If the JM was used for the test ( gods forbid ), I can understand why h264 lost. JM is efficient, but doesn't have a good ratecontrol ( not even average ), and cares only about PSNR - which is completely the opposite of what is needed for keeping grain.

That's why I wanted to know what encoders were used for the comparison.

Shapierian

23rd July 2007, 19:20

No. For the industry, Mpeg4p2 is a huge failure. The only success for Mpeg4 part 2 is that it's widely used by pirate. That doesn't make it a success :) Finally, mpeg4 part 2 is only ~20% more efficient than Mpeg2. Don't be fooled by the fact that you convert a DVD 9 to a 700MB CD to rate mpeg4's efficiency. DVD9 is an overkill, it has a GOP of 12, and professionnal mpeg2 encoders used for DVD aren't that good.

Slide 19 of http://www.ihollywoodforum.com/documents/IPTV/15.ppt shows certainly more than a 20% bitrate reduction.

MPEG-4 was only the current standard for a narrow windows. There weren't many standards between DVD and HD-DVD for MPEG-4 Part 2 to be adopted by. ASP was only finalized in 2002. I'll admit some of the more ambitious profiles of MPEG-4 did fail but certainly not SP/ASP. It also depends on what segment of the industry to which you are are referring. The stated goal of MPEG-4 was for streaming/mobile platforms so it's no surprise it wasn't adopted for broadcast use and the like. For video distributed over the internet: legitimate, illegitimate, or both MPEG-4 has been quite popular.

Manao

23rd July 2007, 19:42

http://www.ihollywoodforum.com/documents/IPTV/15.ppt shows certainly more than a 20% bitrate reduction. It shows 25 to 35% bitrate reduction, and it's a document meant to promote Mpeg4 over Mpeg2, so I think I'll prefer my figures.

Anyway, the document claims a 50-66% bitrate reduction for AVC and it's an overstatement. 50%, perhaps, 66%, never.

For video distributed over the internet: legitimate, illegitimate, or both MPEG-4 has been quite popular.Legitimate ? where ? I can see WMV, VP6, RV, MOV ( h264, sorenson, and sometimes Mpeg4 SP ). But nothing else.

I still stand by my point of view : mpeg4 sp/asp only broke through for illegitimate distribution.

Shapierian

23rd July 2007, 19:59

It shows 25 to 35% bitrate reduction, and it's a document meant to promote Mpeg4 over Mpeg2, so I think I'll prefer my figures.

Anyway, the document claims a 50-66% bitrate reduction for AVC and it's an overstatement. 50%, perhaps, 66%, never.

Legitimate ? where ? I can see WMV, VP6, RV, MOV ( h264, sorenson, and sometimes Mpeg4 SP ). But nothing else.

I still stand by my point of view : mpeg4 sp/asp only broke through for illegitimate distribution.

A lot of the QuickTime6 era stuff is MPEG-4 SP. RV is closely related to MPEG-4 both are derived from H.263. FFMPEG decodes all three with a common decoder.

Also in the internet world, rather than making an interoperable part in the middle of the data flow like in the broadcast world, the video format was the last mile so that's where companies tried to exert control hurting adoption of an open standard. Let's not forget Microsoft distributed 3 broken MPEG4 implementations before admitting they had no longer had interest in the format.

But to get back to the point at hand it was used by a major market player QuickTime (and also minor players Blizzard and Stage6).

It was more popular for illegitimate works but calling it a flop for that would be like calling MP3 a flop. Divx is the MP3 of video, that is by no means a flop.

Microsoft which should have had every market advantage with MPEG-4, being the authors of a reference implementation never actually did anything with it. It didn't fail them, they failed it.

Manao

23rd July 2007, 20:12

And mpeg4 derives from mpeg2, and AVC from ASP, and...

Come on, all those codecs are block based, so of course they are closely related. As for RV, RV10 is more different from ASP, and isn't decoder by the same decoder in ffmpeg ( I checked the code source, the encoder shares some common code, as does most of the encoders in ffmpeg, but not the decoder )

Shapierian

23rd July 2007, 20:35

Sorry about the Real Video thing. I was clearly wrong there but it was used by QuickTime 6.

Even just with illegitimate usage only, MPEG-4 was not a flop. It is the MP3 of video.

benwaggoner

23rd July 2007, 21:28

Even just with illegitimate usage only, MPEG-4 was not a flop. It is the MP3 of video.
Except that it isn't being used significantly my major content producers. .mp4 mainly gets used for user generated content, not commercial publishing, and most of that .mp4 is H.264.

Shapierian

23rd July 2007, 21:49

Except that it isn't being used significantly my major content producers. .mp4 mainly gets used for user generated content, not commercial publishing, and most of that .mp4 is H.264.

When i say MPEG-4, i mean it in the MPEG-4 Part 2 Sense. Very little of the MPEG-4 content I'm talking about even comes in .mp4 (mp4ff). Not a lot of content from commercial publishing is released in mp3 either.

zambelli

29th July 2007, 04:08

First of all, to anyone interested in the "behind the scenes" history of WMV9 and VC-1 development, I recommend you read this AmirM's post on AVSForum: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9931723&&#post9931723

Also, in the interest of full disclosure, I will remind everybody that I do in fact work for Microsoft as an engineer in its video codec group.

@Puzzler:
You seem like a smart guy who can make valid arguments so I'm finding it really puzzling that you insist on using that ridiculous "M$" acronym in your references to Microsoft. I hate to nitpick but it really makes it hard to take your arguments as unbiased. It gives the whole thing a bit of a playground namecalling flavor.

in the vc1 case they have been forced by the dvd/bluray bodies to make the prior closed vc1 "standard" an open standard, harming microsoft's tactic of exlcuding competitors but still being better than being not included in hddvd/bluray
This wasn't exactly a surprise to Microsoft or a challenge to its business model. It's a fact of the media and consumer electronics industry that a technology such as a codec needs to be adopted and governed by an industry organization. Microsoft is certainly not the first company ever to take its proprietary technology and open it up to standardization. Dolby Digital and DTS Coherent Acoustics both came from commercial companies, yet they also both exist as standards adopted by ATSC and ETSI, for example. In fact, let's not forget that even the ubiquitous MPEG-1 Layer 3 format was developed based on patents by Fraunhofer IIS, Thomson, Alcatel-Lucent and others.

My beef is the fact that they went ahead and led a party to create a completely different, and inferior, standard. There is no excuse for this other than their greedy desire for control, and by unfairly using their position with their O/S to give us all the impression that VC-1 is "THE" standard.
Control of what? It's already been established here that Microsoft has little more to gain financially by supporting VC-1 than it does by supporting H.264. It doesn't own VC-1 standardization nor licensing. Microsoft's chief investment into VC-1 right now is into its encoder implementation.

And to furthermore force it down our throats packaged with Windows, purposely EXCLUDING H.264 with the excuse, and insult, that it may be unsafe and one of the "too many codecs out there". This will certainly cause alot of friction.
You're speculating, or at the very least misintepreting Ben's words. H.264 supports wasn't purposely excluded from Windows because the codec is unsafe. Nobody ever said that and it's certainly not true. In fact, I would like to point out that an H.264 decoder - as well as a number of other "industry standard" decoders such as MPEG-2, AAC and AC3 - has been made by Microsoft and has thus far been bundled with the Zune Player, Xbox 360 Dashboard and Xbox 360 HD-DVD unit. The fact that it hasn't yet made it into a standard Windows release has been more a result of tight schedules and strict release guidelines than of some conspiracy plot to thwart H.264 adoption. Vista DXVA 2.0 API, for example, natively supports H.264 decoding HW acceleration. Future releases of Windows are pretty much guaranteed to have some form of H.264 decoder included (though whether simple DirectShow playback of MP4 files will be supported remains at the mercy of the mighty Vista planners whose decisions often baffle even us MS codec folks :confused:).

And let me remind you that the Zune is NOT an attempt to compete with Apple and its iPod as the traditionalists might think. The Zune emphasis is a means to win more exposure for VC-1. This is a desperate attempt by M$ because VC-1 is getting beaten convincingly. When the iPod pounds Zune, this will set VC-1 further back, where it belongs.
And let me remind you that you are now recklessly speculating. I hate to be blunt, but that's a pretty ridiculous statement - which once again doesn't do any favors to your many other valid arguments presented thus far. Do you seriously think Microsoft would've put all its money and resources into producing the Zune only so it could secure support for a codec standard it doesn't own in a market of limited product penetration (just compare the number of portable media player owners to the number of people who own cell phones or PCs)?

What concerns me most about VC-1 is not that it will beat H.264. It won't. The real nuisance is in the fact that it will not die for a long time. M$ will not let it go and will keep irritating us over and over again, constantly poking at the industry and the dream of fluid compatibility.
Right, because if H.264 wins, surely nobody will ever come up with a competing codec solution ever again and everyone will live happily ever after in digital peace and harmony.
Sorry, but in my opinion having multiple codec standards benefits the consumer by urging the codec implementers to continually keep improving their quality and efficiency. There's certainly room in the world for VC-1 AND H.264, just like there's room for Dolby Digital and DTS, MP3 and AAC, ZIP and RAR, etc, etc, etc.

I wonder why Windows doesn't support Ogg Vorbis out of the box? Are the licensing costs too high, perhaps?
No, but the cost to plan, develop, test and support Ogg Vorbis might be. Technology resources might be free, but human resources aren't. And for what? To cover the <1% of user playback scenarios? Sorry. Asking for MP4 and MPEG-4 SP/ASP/AVC support in Windows is a perfectly valid request given the amount of content available and ease of access to it. But Ogg Vorbis? Yeah, not so much.

FWIW, the reason Microsoft removed all 3rd party codecs from its WMP codec download server (back in the old days Indeo, ACELP.net, Voxware, and a bunch of other now obscure codecs were hosted online) was because it couldn't vouch for the security of components whose source code it didn't own. This wasn't entirely without merit - codecs such as Voxware were notorious for having memory leaks and bugs which their parent company never bothered to fix. I'm not saying it was a decision which benefited WMP users, but it certainly wasn't entirely unwarranted.

Even just with illegitimate usage only, MPEG-4 was not a flop. It is the MP3 of video.Except that it isn't being used significantly my major content producers. .mp4 mainly gets used for user generated content, not commercial publishing, and most of that .mp4 is H.264.
Well, I think you both have a point. MPEG-4 SP and ASP have certainly made a significant impact in online video delivery, but compared to MPEG-2, it certainly hasn't had the same impact in the professional video market. MPEG-2 is still the de facto standard for digital broadcasting, archiving, digital tape storage, etc.

Dark Shikari

29th July 2007, 14:09

Right, because if H.264 wins, surely nobody will ever come up with a competing codec solution ever again and everyone will live happily ever after in digital peace and harmony.
Sorry, but in my opinion having multiple codec standards benefits the consumer by urging the codec implementers to continually keep improving their quality and efficiency. There's certainly room in the world for VC-1 AND H.264, just like there's room for Dolby Digital and DTS, MP3 and AAC, ZIP and RAR, etc, etc, etc.
Agreed. Personally I think VC-1 is useless; its only advantage is lower playback processor requirement, which it gets at the cost of a massive loss in quality (or better said, a much higher bitrate required for the same quality). All it has going for it is that its mildly better than MPEG-4 ASP. And with computers constantly getting faster, a lower processor requirement becomes a useless feature in the long-term.

Yet without competition, we'd probably still be using something like VP3. So in that sense, VC-1 for the win.

bond

29th July 2007, 16:49

one of the points of creating an open standard is to push competition. you dont need multiple standards for that...

if technology advances there will be new standards (like h.264 following mpeg-2)

having two comparable standards at the same time does imho more harm to the customer than that it helps, because he needs (to pay for) more tools/patent holders, making it more expensive for him without giving him better quality/performance than in the case of one standard being used by all

additionally i dont see vc1 as being able to keep up with h.264 technically, so all in all i actually support Dark Shikari's opinion of vc-1 being useless

but thats just my opinion :)

DeathTheSheep

30th July 2007, 20:31

VC1, as a standard, is less efficient that AVC ( it lacks CABAC, good intra prediction, reference bframe ).

If I were to disable AVC's CABAC and B-frames, which would take the quality lead then?

Won't baseline AVC decode comparatively fast as VC-1 in this case, assuming good decoders for both?

If so, from a technical standpoint, what's the use of VC-1?

zambelli

30th July 2007, 21:56

If I were to disable AVC's CABAC and B-frames, which would take the quality lead then?
Doesn't that effectively take AVC down to roughly ASP level in terms of efficiency? If that's the case, one would assume VC-1 would then have a clear edge. It'd be interesting to see a real test though.

Won't baseline AVC decode comparatively fast as VC-1 in this case, assuming good decoders for both?
If so, from a technical standpoint, what's the use of VC-1?
To play the devil's advocate: we've all seen great looking MPEG-4 ASP (i.e. XviD) HD encodes at reasonable bitrates and the decoding is lightning fast. So why insist on AVC for HD encoding either? ASP seems to do the trick just fine. ;)

The Avsforum post I linked to in my previous entry talks about some of the design advantages of VC-1 over H.264 in HD encoding. And no, I'm not saying VC-1 is a superior design over H.264 in every way - I'm just saying there are design features of VC-1 that favor HD encoding, for example. Rather than make sweeping "codec X is better than codec Y" statements, I think it's far more appropriate to evaluate every codec in a specific encoding context.

CruNcher

30th July 2007, 23:10

Agreed. Personally I think VC-1 is useless; its only advantage is lower playback processor requirement, which it gets at the cost of a massive loss in quality (or better said, a much higher bitrate required for the same quality). All it has going for it is that its mildly better than MPEG-4 ASP. And with computers constantly getting faster, a lower processor requirement becomes a useless feature in the long-term.

Yet without competition, we'd probably still be using something like VP3. So in that sense, VC-1 for the win.

Eh i don't find it ok sure VP3 isn't better as VC-1 but @ the time it was released it was a match for Mpeg-4 ASP and ON2 allways fought against multi billion dollar companies (and Open Sourced VP3 for Theora) with less resources and does great if you ask me (just look @ the flash deal) it's research is top and now look @ the size of Microsoft Research and Compare it with On2 hehe ;) also Real Video is based on H.264 we all know On2 is based on their realy own researched stuff (they developed Vector and Wavelet based Video Codecs early on) not like Microsoft being Chair of VQEG for H.264 and discussing every tech aspect of it over and over in hundreds of meetings (and finaly stab it in the back).
Btw do you know why Bill Gates has this Vision of the Future and why he writes so cool books about it is because he stands at the first line with MS Research and gathers all his Intel about the Future from them :P it's not our Future he Visionizes it's the Future MS Research creates for him.

And about the Bundle Video Codec stuff with the OS Apple does exactly the same thing with H.264 (it's implemented deep in the OS all the applications can make use of it) don't forget they where major devs and contributed the Container but in all the way they Market it much better then Microsoft and whole Hollywood stands behind them (you never gonna see a PC Notebook in Movies allways those nice IBooks ;) ) that's a hard breed for MS and everything MS does is copying all the way and that badly look for example @ Apples trailer Page and then Compare with Microsofts *rofl*

But Sometimes i really wonder if MS Research is really that great for example the thing with the Xbox 360 and the Dashboard AVC playback thing lol i can only lough about this (why to buy this high tech shit if i can build me a unrestricted player) it's so ridicoulus but that's how Microsoft is restricting restricting and restricting but hey Sony isn't any better :P

PS: WOW (not Vista related) i didn't use the $ ;)

DeathTheSheep

30th July 2007, 23:20

Doesn't that effectively take AVC down to roughly ASP level in terms of efficiency? If that's the case, one would assume VC-1 would then have a clear edge. It'd be interesting to see a real test though.
I'd assume so at first, too, but...
There are claims by some members of this board (Sagittaire) that x264 at some of its lowest or fastest quality settings decisively outperforms XviD at its slowest and best.
You're right, it would be very interesting to see if these claims hold, and if Baseline AVC (the stuff I was talking about) is as good as max-quality XviD. :)

Then, if the results validate that hypothesis, we can set up a test against forms of VC-1.

CruNcher

30th July 2007, 23:49

DeathTheSheep in terms of Detail Preservation i can confirm this allready with the early on implementations like RV9/10 and later x264 it really preserves more details even at lowest settings and that is because of the much better implemented Qpel and partitions (not talking about 8x8 transform (FreXt) wich takes it another step above).
For x264 subme 1 allready outperforms ASP in terms of detail preservation for example XviD with vhq4 (you can enhance Detail Preservation see my EDP build but it still doesn't gets against H.264) and qpel can't stand against it you have much finer texture preservation best visible on skin textures.
and then you just have to add the facts that H.264 has no moving walls effect and ringing is almost non existant for low bitrate and then you have a winner (for low bitrate) it wont change for High Bitrate much at least the Detail Preservation wouldn't.

zambelli

31st July 2007, 01:12

Cruncher, I always feel like I'm going to run out of breath when reading your posts. :rolleyes:
ON2 allways fought against multi billion dollar companies (and Open Sourced VP3 for Theora) with less resources and does great if you ask me (just look @ the flash deal) it's research is top and now look @ the size of Microsoft Research and Compare it with On2 hehe ;)
Compare what to what? What is the size of On2's codec team? What is the size of Microsoft's codec team? I know the answer to that second question - but I'm curious if you do, since you seem to be comparing one against the other. Not sure how though.

FYI, while MS Research (http://research.microsoft.com/research/detail.aspx?id=8) has indeed contributed ideas to Microsoft codec development over the years, vast majority of the audio and video codec development is done by the codec product team in Redmond, WA. The same team also develops audio and video DSPs such as the ones found in Vista and WMP. While it's easy to think of Microsoft as one bottomless pool of people and cash, one has to understand that individual product teams within Microsoft are always finite in their resources.

everything MS does is copying all the way and that badly look for example @ Apples trailer Page and then Compare with Microsofts *rofl*
Point taken. That's just a classic case of MS being unable to get its PR act together. ;)
But Sometimes i really wonder if MS Research is really that great for example the thing with the Xbox 360 and the Dashboard AVC playback thing lol i can only lough about this (why to buy this high tech shit if i can build me a unrestricted player) it's so ridicoulus but that's how Microsoft is restricting restricting and restricting but hey Sony isn't any better :P
Not sure why you're making a connection between MS Research and Xbox Dashboard. One has nothing to do with the other. What is your complaint about Dashboard AVC playback anyway?

Dark Shikari

31st July 2007, 02:15

Eh i don't find it ok sure VP3 isn't better as VC-1 but @ the time it was released it was a match for Mpeg-4 ASP
Do people actually know when VC-1 was officially released as a completed standard?

(Hint: Long after H.264...)

Golgot13

31st July 2007, 12:16

(Hint: Long after H.264...)

The license and patent price for VC1 was available and (exactly) same
few month after H264 (4 months after the H264 final version of patent/license price...)

Golgot13

CruNcher

31st July 2007, 12:34

@Dark Shikari
yes i know that but that wasn't my point my poin't was that VP7 would have been existed anyways but you compare VP3 with VC-1 that's strange and even if VC-1 wouldn't exist VP7 would as it is a direct contender to H.264 and VC-1 is just Microsofts specialy modified version of H.264 (with research they hold back in the H.264 dev process) so the point is without VC-1 we wouldn't stuck with VP3 (as you said H.264 was long before VC-1) ;)

@zambelli

Compare what to what? What is the size of On2's codec team? What is the size of Microsoft's codec team? I know the answer to that second question - but I'm curious if you do, since you seem to be comparing one against the other. Not sure how though.

you right i don't know how big the Windows Media Video codec dev team of Microsoft is but for sure the Mother company has more resources to spend then On2
but that's also not the point the point is how smart are the guys in each of both teams :P very good example is CoreAVC (1 main dev beets the whole R&D of Elecard/Mainconcept Cyberlink/Intervideo and even races Nvidia and Atis First Generation Hardware acelleration away and that in under 2 weeks of development i find this quiet funny don't you ;) ).
And what does Microsoft to compensate such things and that since years they buy other innovative companies with such brains in them like (Seadragon,iview)

Not sure why you're making a connection between MS Research and Xbox Dashboard. One has nothing to do with the other. What is your complaint about Dashboard AVC playback anyway?

Because i estimate with such a big R&D behind your backs
it would be no problem to code a very efficient AVC Dashboard Decoder that can make use of the full power of the Xbox 360 multicores (a system Microsoft even designed) to playback 1080p @ higher bitrates then 15 Mbps or 10 what you say in your faq is the maximum and this 4 GB limit (lol)

AVC:

A: Video Bitrate: 10 Mbps with resolutions of 1920 x 1080 at 30fps. See the question about max bit rate, resolution, and frames per second.

AVC/ASP/SP
A: The maximum file size for an MPEG-4 Part 2 and H.264 file that can be played is 4 GB. However, Windows Media Player 11 and the Zune software do support streaming WMV files greater than 4 GB.

Those restrictions sound to me like you haven't your own Design under Controll and are sorry to say (blind) to improve it
it really sounds ridicoulus for what the Power this Machine has and o wonder is able to playback HD-DVD bitrates 30 Mbps from the HD-DVD Player or are these values only for DVD-Drive playback (this i could understand) but nothing is mentioned of HDD or DVD drive in this faq so @ the moment Sonys PS3 seemes less restricted in Video Playback Power then the Xbox 360 to me sad sad ;)

Why do you think people create firmware hacks or try to run Linux, yes lifting such restrictions is the answer, because the Power of these machines allows more and to see that the Vendor that creates them doesn't make fully use of them is hurting some people (you can call them Home Researchers ;) ).

Ah and yes

VC-1

A: Video Bitrate: 15 Mbps with resolutions of 1920 x 1080 at 30fps. See the question about max bit rate, resolution, and frames per second.

Big marketing gag hey look VC-1 can be playbacked with 5 Mbits more then AVC it's less Decoding Complex on our *rofl* highend (Mobile) Decoding Machine o come on this is so ridicoulus

Dark Shikari

31st July 2007, 12:48

The license and patent price for VC1 was available and (exactly) same
few month after H264 (4 months after the H264 final version of patent/license price...)

Golgot13
But VC-1 was designed as a competitor to MPEG-4 ASP, not AVC... it came a little late did it not? :p

benwaggoner

31st July 2007, 17:25

But VC-1 was designed as a competitor to MPEG-4 ASP, not AVC... it came a little late did it not?
It was designed to be a good codec, not to beat any particular existing standard :).

You can think of the design goal of VC-1 to be the best possible compression efficiency, including for HD scenarios, with appropriate performance to both PC and ASIC decoding.

benwaggoner

31st July 2007, 17:28

Agreed. Personally I think VC-1 is useless; its only advantage is lower playback processor requirement, which it gets at the cost of a massive loss in quality (or better said, a much higher bitrate required for the same quality).
Okay, challenge accepted :). Make a "massively" better clip with the same parameters as the 2 Mbps 720p clip on my blog:

http://on10.net/Blogs/benwagg/elephants-dream-720p--2-mbps/

Let me know when your comparative clip is avaliable.

Golgot13

31st July 2007, 22:02

Let me know when your comparative clip is avaliable.

I hope that Manao or Sagitaire can make a good "encoding" answer.
And I hope that the Ateme team (good developper) can answer too by a nice encoding file...

Golgot13

vsv

31st July 2007, 22:15

Okay, challenge accepted :). Make a "massively" better clip with the same parameters as the 2 Mbps 720p clip on my blog:

http://on10.net/Blogs/benwagg/elephants-dream-720p--2-mbps/

Let me know when your comparative clip is avaliable.

Ben, you can find on this forum trailer of Batman Begins 1920x1080(816) encoded two years ago in h264 (ateme) at 3Mbps.
Elephant Dreams coded by x264 720p24 2Mbps may be better than vc1;)

benwaggoner

31st July 2007, 22:17

I hope that Manao or Sagitaire can make a good "encoding" answer.
And I hope that the Ateme team (good developper) can answer too by a nice encoding file...

Okay. Of course, the longer it takes, the better our encoder will get in the interim...

The version everyone is working with is over a year old at this point, and there's no reason to expect we aren't advancing as fast as x264 :).

jmnk

31st July 2007, 23:10

Ben, you can find on this forum trailer of Batman Begins 1920x1080(816) encoded two years ago in h264 (ateme) at 3Mbps.
Elephant Dreams coded by x264 720p24 2Mbps may be better than vc1;)
Would you happen to have a valid link to this encode? I found one from 2005 here http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=656787#post656787 (which I think it is what you are referring to) - but the link seems to be no longer valid?

DeathTheSheep

31st July 2007, 23:30

The version everyone is working with is over a year old at this point, and there's no reason to expect we aren't advancing as fast as x264 :)

Mind providing an updated encoder (preferably simple exe) so we can actually test it against the "new guys?" Thanks in advance. :cool:

Sagittaire

1st August 2007, 00:38

Okay, challenge accepted :). Make a "massively" better clip with the same parameters as the 2 Mbps 720p clip on my blog:

http://on10.net/Blogs/benwagg/elephants-dream-720p--2-mbps/

Let me know when your comparative clip is avaliable.

Well I can make that quickly with x264 at 720p. But you don't use the best possible VC1 implementation here.

- Your encoding have major blocking problem in high motion part.
- Your encoding have major problem with fade scene because WMV9 AP don't use adaptative bframe and bframe in fade scene produce bad result.

I think that VC1 can produce very better result at 2 Mbps.

Tack

1st August 2007, 02:02

Let me know when your comparative clip is avaliable.From which version of Elephant's Dream did you create your encode? So that people are working from the same source.

Also, aside from peak bitrate which has some rationale, why should the same settings (e.g. number of B-frames) be used?

Sagittaire

1st August 2007, 08:43

From which version of Elephant's Dream did you create your encode? So that people are working from the same source.

Source is the 1080p RGB uncompressed Master with YV12 (rec 709?) color matrix convertion

Also, aside from peak bitrate which has some rationale, why should the same settings (e.g. number of B-frames) be used?

Average bitrate at 1863 Kbps for video. Peak bitrate at 8000 Kbps with large buffer. Well I think that here Rate Control is unrestricted with these parameters.

Here the AVC/AAC/MP4 encoding (http://jfl1974.free.fr/HDDVD/Elephant's%20Dream%20720p%202M.mp4)
1280x720x24 AVC at 1863 Kbps
5.1, 48 Khz, 16 bits AAC at 128 Kbps

For example no problem for the first scene (fade scene). Less blocking for high motion. More Sharp too I think. It's really quick encoding with x264 with classic profil and without particular optimisation.

Tack

1st August 2007, 13:12

Source is the 1080p RGB uncompressed Master with YV12 (rec 709?) color matrix convertion
Where can I download that? The only thing I've been able to find is 22G worth of individual png files. Which would clearly be the highest quality source to work from, but 22G is a large chunk of my monthly bandwidth quota to use up. :)

... looking at the "HD 1080p24 Challenge" thread I see this is indeed the source you worked from. :)

Sagittaire

1st August 2007, 13:22

Where can I download that? The only thing I've been able to find is 22G worth of individual png files. Which would clearly be the highest quality source to work from, but 22G is a large chunk of my monthly bandwidth quota to use up. :)

PNG source is the good source ...

benwaggoner

1st August 2007, 16:04

Well I can make that quickly with x264 at 720p. But you don't use the best possible VC1 implementation here.

- Your encoding have major blocking problem in high motion part.
- Your encoding have major problem with fade scene because WMV9 AP don't use adaptative bframe and bframe in fade scene produce bad result.

I think that VC1 can produce very better result at 2 Mbps.
Yeah, I just used the released codec since it was mainly as a tutorial about using the registry keys with it.

Assuming some good H.264 versions pop up, I'll go back and do a new one with the new codec.

benwaggoner

1st August 2007, 16:06

From which version of Elephant's Dream did you create your encode? So that people are working from the same source.
I started from the PNG sequence,and converted to a Lagarith YV12 AVI in 709 using After Effects in 32-bit floating point.

Also, aside from peak bitrate which has some rationale, why should the same settings (e.g. number of B-frames) be used?
Oh, use your optimal B-frames and everything else, I just want the same average/peak.

Sagittaire

1st August 2007, 16:16

Assuming some good H.264 versions pop up, I'll go back and do a new one with the new codec.

Better to make that for my challenge at 1080p ... ???

DeathTheSheep

1st August 2007, 16:20

I'll go back and do a new one with the new codec.
Again with this new codec no one can use? How is it a fair testing environment without all candidates available? How do we even know the results aren't "doctored" or specifically tailored to this source clip?

Provide the codec you used please, benwaggoner.

benwaggoner

1st August 2007, 16:28

Better to make that for my challenge at 1080p ... ???
Sorry, just reading through posts backwards in my hotel room :).

I'm travelling today, but I'll download it tomorrow

benwaggoner

1st August 2007, 16:38

Again with this new codec no one can use? How is it a fair testing environment without all candidates available? How do we even know the results aren't "doctored" or specifically tailored to this source clip?

Provide the codec you used please, benwaggoner.
I obviously can't release an in-progress binary if that's what you're asking :).

The codec will be included in commercial products before long, so you'll be able to get your hands on it.

Also, for codecs, the real conformance point is the bitstream, right? Even if it isn't clear how a clip was made, it's still a valid test.

But I understand your concern, and will provide as many details as I can. And you can feel free to ignore it if you wish :).

Golgot13

1st August 2007, 17:12

Assuming some good H.264 versions pop up, I'll go back and do a new one with the new codec.

Hi Ben,

are you sure you can do better with VC1 ?

I read your weblink, you're " an expert in video compression ".
If you read the H264 specification, you would understand that H264 with CABAC
(and specific quantize matrix for High Profil) is really better codec than VC1.

All TV will use (and use) H264 codec to braodcast HD channel.
I don't see any TV (for HD) which broadcast or broadcasted in VC1
(except Swisscom which use VC1 for SD IPTV, alone ?).
In USA: there are Echostar, Direct TV, Voom; in Europe: Sky, CanalSatellite,...
which use H264 codec. And the last H264 codec implementation challenge during
"le Tour de France" in France (DVB-T broadcast, in some cities, by France Television)
showed that the Harmonic encoder is the better (1920x1088 50i at 7-9Mbps !!!).
Lot of (I think all) professional broadcast manufacturer make H264 HD encoder
and someone have VC1 encoder (to show or start at NAB2005).

H264 is more efficient than VC1.

Golgot13

PuzZLeR

6th August 2007, 20:45

:)BUMP!:)

Yup. Can't let this thread die just yet. Too important! I have a question for the two reps from Microsoft.

First of all:
@Puzzler:
You seem like a smart guy who can make valid arguments so I'm finding it really puzzling that you insist on using that ridiculous "M$" acronym in your references to Microsoft. I hate to nitpick but it really makes it hard to take your arguments as unbiased. It gives the whole thing a bit of a playground namecalling flavor.Agreed. Furthermore it was childish, stupid and unprofessional of me. My apologies.

However, even though you and Ben are perfect gentlemen, and I've been very impressed, unfortunately that's the only thing I agree with you.

I still say that VC-1 is not beneficial at all to the industry - basically there for Microsoft's profitable objectives. Yes, it's an "open standard" but it was initially implemented for competitive reasons, not to improve upon an existing standard. Even as an "open standard" Microsoft still stands to gain through branding, positioning and leverage with VC-1. It's not hard to see this as a marketer.

No, there's no room for VC-1 and H.264, only for headaches. Yes, there's multiformats of others, but for a reason - called progress. VC-1 is NOT progress - it's fragmentation. AAC is progress over MP3, MP3 was progress over huge CD file sizes, MPEG-2 was progress over MPEG-1, etc.

But I have one question if you can answer it. If VC-1 is truly an "open standard" that MS has "no control" over, can you at least convince me that they are not biased towards it?

Never mind what they package with Windows for now, but if Microsoft is truly respectful of standards, truly being a good sumaritan out there, then why don't they also create an implementation for H.264 and package that too with Windows?

Is there any reason why they are not going to go ahead with "WMV-AVC"? It is, after all, a standard, something that should be ingrained in an operating system at least, and would redeem them somewhat if they truly don't have profitable intentions, or market leverage, with VC-1.

How about their version of H.264 for Zune? I still say Zune's position is for "format" - an indirectly profitable strategy for MS, much more so than "selling portables"...

So, if they have the right intentions with respect to standards, and the "MS MO" isn't stealing, or anything else untoward, and according to you apparently have the capabilities of making great codecs, what's stopping Microsoft from embracing this wonderful standard of H.264/AVC, maybe even creating a wonderful version of it as well, and packaging that too with VC-1 in Windows?

You say there's a place for both of them right?

Prove it.

benwaggoner

6th August 2007, 23:53

But I have one question if you can answer it. If VC-1 is truly an "open standard" that MS has "no control" over, can you at least convince me that they are not biased towards it?
Which they? Of course we're biased towards it :). But not in any way that would preclude emperical analysis.

Never mind what they package with Windows for now, but if Microsoft is truly respectful of standards, truly being a good sumaritan out there, then why don't they also create an implementation for H.264 and package that too with Windows?
We do have H.264 included for products like Zune and Xbox 360. But there's a really high bar to include anything in Windows, especially due to test cost (that's a WHOLE lot of fuzz testing, performance tuning, etcetera).

Is there any reason why they are not going to go ahead with "WMV-AVC"? It is, after all, a standard, something that should be ingrained in an operating system at least, and would redeem them somewhat if they truly don't have profitable intentions, or market leverage, with VC-1.
VC-1 was designed to be the codec we wanted for the PC ecosystem. Still, consumers who want to play back H.264 content in a myriad of profiles and file formats seem to have no trouble doing so on Windows.

Also, we certainly would like to have our VC-1 efforts be profitable. But that's true for everyone selling H.264 solutions as well.

How about their version of H.264 for Zune? I still say Zune's position is for "format" - an indirectly profitable strategy for MS, much more so than "selling portables"...
You overestimate how importing digital media formats themselves are to Microsoft if you think we'd engage on something as big as the Zune with THAT as the primary goal!

foxyshadis

7th August 2007, 00:14

I don't see why the two split apart instead of merging into AVC HP. I realize that back when MS went back to the drawing board to hash out VC-1, H.264 hadn't yet settled on a high profile, but once it did it incorporated most aspects of VC-1. The main things it didn't were 2-tap chroma & 4-tap luma qpel and 1-pixel inloop. By combining 8x8 dct, lowered inloop strength, encoder-side grain retention tweaks (such as deadzone in x264), and CAVLC, H.264 can become nearly identical to VC-1 - and, despite the performance claims, actually perform significantly better on existing encoders & decoders. The existing WMV9 implementation might competely blow the reference JM software out of the water, and optimized VC-1 implementations might exist someday, but compared to all of the existing commercial implementations of H.264, it remains second-best on both quality and speed.

Licensing costs seem to trump hardware encoding and decoding costs, anyway, making dual formats a very unattractive proposition. Although the standard is here to stay, it seems like you've entrenched into a position that will leave you permanently playing runner-up, outside of initial successes of pushing it for HD-DVD clients. You probably would have had even greater success building an advanced H.264 encoding system instead. But I guess you have your investments sunk and can't very well pull out now, which is understandable. It just sucks that the market will be more fragmented now.

akupenguin

7th August 2007, 02:49

The main things it didn't were 2-tap chroma
H264 and VC1 have identical chroma mc, except that VC1's mvs are rounded to qpel while H264 uses 8thpel.

PuzZLeR

8th August 2007, 23:36

Thanks for your response Ben.

It’s a shame really. I think the industry would have been very welcoming of an MS version of H.264/AVC. All current implementations of H.264, whether professional, consumer or OSS, such as Ateme, MC or x264, as good as they are today, could only benefit with something like "WMV-AVC"…

In fact, the whole industry could have benefited…

Sure they can do their own thing if they want, such as Apple does with "QT compatibility", Nero does with "Nero Digital", etc., even maybe create a special ASF container for it, whatever, but as long as they embrace an existing standard, it's all good...

Instead, Microsoft decides to create an outwardly different vector space entirely, one maybe only they could compete in probably, and henceforth segregate the talent pool, instead of using their position in O/S to ensure one combined powerhouse of referencing, and consolidated, resources.

Shame. All in the name of greed...

benwaggoner

9th August 2007, 00:13

It’s a shame really. I think the industry would have been very welcoming of an MS version of H.264/AVC. All current implementations of H.264, whether professional, consumer or OSS, such as Ateme, MC or x264, as good as they are today, could only benefit with something like "WMV-AVC"…

In fact, the whole industry could have benefited…

Sure they can do their own thing if they want, such as Apple does with "QT compatibility", Nero does with "Nero Digital", etc., even maybe create a special ASF container for it, whatever, but as long as they embrace an existing standard, it's all good...

Instead, Microsoft decides to create an outwardly different vector space entirely, one maybe only they could compete in probably, and henceforth segregate the talent pool, instead of using their position in O/S to ensure one combined powerhouse of referencing, and consolidated, resources.

Shame. All in the name of greed...
It's hardly greed (codec licensing is a rounding error at best for revenue for a compay like Microsoft).

We've had our Windows Media stategy for years, and a big installed base of players to support. Introducing a new codec implementation would force another, painful, multi-year cycle of upgrades to get everyone up to speed. At best, it'd take a year or two before we could have more customers using a new codec, meaning we'd have to split our development and test resources during that period. And H.264 in ASF is a whole new format with 0 installed base to support for authoring, hosting, and playback.

Given VC-1 and H.264 are roughly in parity right now, it seems like we'd wind up hurting our customer more than helping them but adopting a whole new codec.

Plus we promised when WM9 was released that we'd stick with those core codecs for at least five years.

Golgot13

9th August 2007, 00:31

Plus we promised when WM9 was released that we'd stick with those core codecs for at least five years.

Nice so the codec will finish soon ;) (WMV9 release 2003).

To my mind, VC1 (and WM9) is a codec transition because it can play on "old" PC
(less than 3.4Ghz or Dual Core CPU).
I know Wm9 is not only VC1, but when I studied I worked on MPEG format (MPEG4 part2).
But there were and are nice developement and base to futur use :
MPEG7 (= index and tag data) and MPEG21 ( = "open" DRM).
And it is not finish for video codec, I have some friend who work on MPEG4 SVC
(there is nothing like SVC from MS today).

Golgot13

benwaggoner

9th August 2007, 01:30

Nice so the codec will finish soon ;) (WMV9 release 2003).
"At least" :). There's plenty of room for improvements within VC-1 still.

To my mind, VC1 (and WM9) is a codec transition because it can play on "old" PC (less than 3.4Ghz or Dual Core CPU). I know Wm9 is not only VC1, but when I studied I worked on MPEG format (MPEG4 part2). But there were and are nice developement and base to futur use: MPEG7 (= index and tag data) and MPEG21 ( = "open" DRM).
And it is not finish for video codec, I have some friend who work on MPEG4 SVC (there is nothing like SVC from MS today).
Ah, scalable codecs. So entrancing, but somehow always ~3 years out from being really competitive.

I imagine we could have something great there in ~3 years as well :).

As for MPEG-7, that's pretty agnostic about format, despite the name. We could certianly get VC-1 and WMV working with it if useful. Note there's already a VC-1 in MPEG-4 spec.

PuzZLeR

9th August 2007, 02:55

"At least" :). There's plenty of room for improvements within VC-1 still.AGREED!Note there's already a VC-1 in MPEG-4 spec.MPEG-4 ASP? (Along with DivX, Xvid, ffmpeg, Nero Digital (ASP), QT6, ...).

benwaggoner

9th August 2007, 03:22

MPEG-4 ASP? (Along with DivX, Xvid, ffmpeg, Nero Digital (ASP), QT6, ...).
I mean MPEG-4 systems. So the VC-1 codec in a .mp4 file.

Of course, it wouldn't be compatible with any existing players, and it's not like any of the innovative things around the MPEG-4 file format (e.g. BIFS) ever came to fruitiion.

Golgot13

9th August 2007, 15:41

I mean MPEG-4 systems. So the VC-1 codec in a .mp4 file.

Nice :)
I will try to play VC1 on MP4 file on some STB.
But I don't know any tool which can mux VC1 on MP4
(and VC1 on other container, except one professional for TS...)

May be Kurtnoise can change YAMB to accept VC1.

Of course, it wouldn't be compatible with any existing players.

Not sure, some hardware players may play it.

Golgot13

benwaggoner

9th August 2007, 18:56

Nice :)
I will try to play VC1 on MP4 file on some STB.
But I don't know any tool which can mux VC1 on MP4
(and VC1 on other container, except one professional for TS...)

May be Kurtnoise can change YAMB to accept VC1.

Not sure, some hardware players may play it.

Let me know what you find out. The spec is only a few months old, so I'm not sure if there are shipping products using it yet. But some software that can do VC-1 and demux MPEG-4 might just work.

Golgot13

9th August 2007, 20:39

Let me know what you find out.

I try to find a way to test VC1 HD DVD stream (quality) on HD TV
(without mux a HD DVD...).
And I can test the VC1 quality display on different hardware chipset familly
(because we will have HD DVD player with other chipset than Broadcom familly)

Golgot13

bobololo

9th August 2007, 20:48

And the last H264 codec implementation challenge during "le Tour de France" in France (DVB-T broadcast, in some cities, by France Television) showed that the Harmonic encoder is the better (1920x1088 50i at 7-9Mbps !!!).

Hin Hin, you should check at this (http://www.ateme.com/press/pr_Tour_de_France_2007_07.htm) (English (http://www.ateme.com/press/pr_Tour_de_France_en_2007_07.htm)).

:)

Beside I would agree with you regarding the actual fact that H.264 offers more features than VC-1 and therefore implies theorically more efficiency. However the lack of industry support for VC-1 isn't only caused by technical reasons in my opinion. If the whole TV industry would have adopted VC-1 instead of H.264, I'm pretty sure that we could have now pretty decent implementation of VC-1 encoders.

Now comparing H.264 vs VC-1 isn't really revelant. The real point is to compare implementations. As an example I can say that some broadcast MPEG-2 encoders can outperform x264 at TV contents encoding. Does that mean that MPEG-2 is better than H.264 ? Absolutely not of course :) And I don't even mention that implementations are improving with time.

Finally all can be said is that at the present time the best implementation of standard "A" is better than the best implementation of standard "B" for the application "C".

Make you own choice for "A", "B" and "C" ;)

Golgot13

9th August 2007, 23:05

Hin Hin, you should check at this (http://www.ateme.com/press/pr_Tour_de_France_2007_07.htm) (English (http://www.ateme.com/press/pr_Tour_de_France_en_2007_07.htm)).

:)

:D, I recorded some stream at this test, I understood there were 3 differents encoders.
How I can find the stream from Kyrion ? (except with quality display, ?).

Beside I would agree with you regarding the actual fact that H.264 offers more features than VC-1 and therefore implies theorically more efficiency. However the lack of industry support for VC-1 isn't only caused by technical reasons in my opinion.

I'm not agree because at NAB2004-NAB2005, lot of company would to support VC1.
And we can see the implementation of some big one (eg TandBerg ). Between NAB2005-NAB2006,
lot of companies stop development and choose to continue with H264 standard
(TV, IPTV ISP, mobile providers, ...). I think it was when the industry tested this two codec.
I know there were some test of DVB VC1 broadcasting with Fathom card (by TPS in 2005-2006).

If the whole TV industry would have adopted VC-1 instead of H.264, I'm pretty sure that we could have now pretty decent implementation of VC-1 encoders.

Remember that some H264 DVB were afraid some TV broadcaster: eg Canalsat in France.
Industry choose H264 when they saw only a part (old H264 encoder support up MP@L4)
You work on company which know this (we see only some broadcasting test
not a true broadcasting offer; Hello at Mr Castaing, thank at him about explain of H264 market).

Now comparing H.264 vs VC-1 isn't really revelant. The real point is to compare implementations. As an example I can say that some broadcast MPEG-2 encoders can outperform x264 at TV contents encoding. Does that mean that MPEG-2 is better than H.264 ? Absolutely not of course :) And I don't even mention that implementations are improving with time.

You are right about "a implementation" of one standard A is better than another implementation of standard B
don't mean that A is better than B. But some company use this to said his standard is better.
And to my mind the "best" implementation of one standard can reveal if it is better
when it compare with the "best" implementation of another one, after some year of maturity (2-3 years)

And some option of H264 are really the best (CABAC, specific matrix of quantifizer in HP, size of block,...).

bobololo

10th August 2007, 00:05

:D, I recorded some stream at this test, I understood there were 3 differents encoders.
How I can find the stream from Kyrion ? (except with quality display, ?).

Absolutly, there were 3 encoders participating to the test as explained here (http://www.tdf.fr/tv/tvhd/le-tour-de-france-en-hd-sur-la-tnt/). Basically the setup was HD 1 = Ateme (8 mbps), and HD 2/3 = Tandberg / SA at higher bitrate. But to be honest, the contribution signal was far from perfect. The feeds from the motorcycles had a really limited bandwidth hence a big part of the artefacts you can see on HD 1/2/3 came from the contribution feed signal unfortunately. Though helicopter and arrival views were way better.

I'm not agree because at NAB2004-NAB2005, lot of company would to support VC1.
And we can see the implementation of some big one (eg TandBerg ). Between NAB2005-NAB2006,
lot of companies stop development and choose to continue with H264 standard
(TV, IPTV ISP, mobile providers, ...). I think it was when the industry tested this two codec.
I know there were some test of DVB VC1 broadcasting with Fathom card (by TPS in 2005-2006).

What is wonderful with show like NAB or IBC is that you can demonstrate anything and especially things you don't have ;) Actually by the time were VC-1 had still an opportunity to be adopted by the broadcast industry, it was mandatory for all manufacturers to insure the broadcasters that they were ready to provide VC-1 capable equipments. Even if encoder developers certainly made some VC-1 vs H.264 evaluation, I really doubt they pushed the work on VC-1 implementation very far to get a relevant idea of the standard performance against H.264. Bear in mind that it takes really long time to exploit all the subtleties of a standard. As an example, we've still a lot to do with H.264 before having the feeling that we can't improve significantly :)
Btw we hadn't developed a VC-1 encoder to compare it against our H.264 implementation ;). We moved to H.264 because it was a global "agreement" of the industry for this standard which was probably the best choice since H.264 has a higher potential than VC-1.

zachdms

10th August 2007, 00:13

I of course work for Microsoft too, and always only speak for myself.

Certainly if you confine yourself to MS-blessed codecs (WMV, WMA) it's great. MP3 is supported, but only because of the sheer volume and demand. Microsoft missed the boat on MP3's popularity explosionThat's not particularly true. Microsoft worked with FHG to get everyone an ACM-compatible implementation, and the popular-back-then (pre-LAME) "Radium" version was in fact that very Microsoft-packaged-via-the-NetShow-project FhG MP3 Pro ACM encoder. NetShow 2.0 (now known as the Windows Media project) was one of the first mainstream applications to have pretty full support for MP3, and for years (remember this is back in 1997 or earlier) it was actually recommended by numerous sites that you download the NetShow encoder simply to get the ACM/VFW FhG codec it included.

So: refer to the Wikipedia article on MP3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mp3#Internet) for dates and "rise to popularity" of MP3. (I'd done internal searches for MP3 popularity/usage about that time, which about match those results.) MP3 wasn't really very popular at that time - it simply provided for the NetShow team a better encoding solution than MSNAudio, Voxware, and some of the other current better solutions. But dealing with third party vendors isn't particularly awesome all the time (refer to Zambelli's comments on Voxware, with the note that I loved everyone I worked with from FhG), and early WMA codecs were already showing demonstrably better quality versus then-current MP3 implementations, so -- Microsoft largely moved forward to WMA from MP3 back in 1997-98 or so. And FhG was on campus way way previous to WinAMP 1.0 -the finalization date for the codec in RTM NetShow 2 is 06/11/1997 .

So: Microsoft (via NetShow) actually helped drive MP3's popularity explosion. Since NetShow 2.0 / FHG ACM predates LAME (http://www.rjamorim.com/rrw/lame.html), and
I don't recall if WinAMP even included an encoder at that point - if they didn't, then the options for MP3 fans were likely either the Microsoft-derived MP3 codec (available via purchase or via "Radium") or l3enc.

So I don't know. I'm pretty firmly of the belief that Microsoft's foray here pretty directly laid the groundwork for popularization of MP3. :)

you are confronted with the ever-helpful dialog that consults MS's servers to download the codec, which I have never once seen actually work.Zambelli covered this already. Rather a nightmare. http://wmplugins.com is kind of the new better solution in that space, but it's still a murky dangerous area. It actually worked pretty well before AVI fragmented, but was initially scoped as solely being for Windows Media (nee NetShow) codecs anyways.

foxyshadis

10th August 2007, 05:47

Winamp didn't package an encoder for years, but its first 3rd party plugin was an l3enc wrapper, like most software (aside from the payware Xing) until mpegEnc, a recompile of the ISO reference code. Its descendants BladeEnc and early Lame, as well as Xing, had quite horrible quality compared to FhG, so it's a good thing Microsoft had the foresight to give us that. Particularly since hardly anything else supplied the codec. At least until Radium got to it. Likely FhG would have had the higher quality of lame if they hadn't taken research toward mp3pro/aac+, but they went in a direction better for their industry as a whole. :p

Golgot13

10th August 2007, 08:19

Even if encoder developers certainly made some VC-1 vs H.264 evaluation, I really doubt they pushed the work on VC-1 implementation very far to get a relevant idea of the standard performance against H.264. Bear in mind that it takes really long time to exploit all the subtleties of a standard. As an example, we've still a lot to do with H.264 before having the feeling that we can't improve significantly :)
Btw we hadn't developed a VC-1 encoder to compare it against our H.264 implementation ;). We moved to H.264 because it was a global "agreement" of the industry for this standard which was probably the best choice since H.264 has a higher potential than VC-1.

:eek::eek:
We will see, if it true we will have more VC1 broadcast system next year because MS have lot of developper
to show the capability of VC1. And the industry will change of way to develop more VC1 encoder.
Sure at next IBC there will be nothing, but in 2008 at NAB or IBC there will be,may be, something ?
(sure I will ask Ben and MS team about it on NAB :D).

Sharktooth

10th August 2007, 12:53

Dark Shikari

10th August 2007, 13:18

I cant understand all this. VC-1 is good but it's late. I mean h.264 is clearly a better choice. MS just missed the train when they had the opportunity to have a better codec than DXN. Now they still claim VC-1 is comparable to h.264 and we all know it isnt true. Even if it was true why should anyone use VC-1 when there are already strong h.264 implementations (encoders, hardware, etc.)?
They're both part of the BD and HDDVD specs too... so, I cant undestand the whole VC-1 thing...
Its simple: Microsoft always needs to get their dirty hands in anything. Their method:

1. Create new standard or extend existing standard. The new Microsoft standard need not be any better. It might be, but it usually isn't.

2. Promote new standard at the expense of the more popular, possibly better one.

3. ???

4. Profit!

froggy1

10th August 2007, 13:26

1. Create new "standard" or extend existing standard. The new Microsoft standard need not be any better. It might be, but it usually isn't.

there, corrected that one for you ;)

Golgot13

10th August 2007, 13:35

I cant understand all this. VC-1 is good but it's late. I mean h.264 is clearly a better choice. MS just missed the train when they had the opportunity to have a better codec than DXN. Now they still claim VC-1 is comparable to h.264 and we all know it isnt true. Even if it was true why should anyone use VC-1 when there are already strong h.264 implementations (encoders, hardware, etc.)?
They're both part of the BD and HDDVD specs too... so, I cant undestand the whole VC-1 thing...

I agree with you, H264 is the better choice (after lot of my "professional" tests...).

froggy1

10th August 2007, 13:49

3. ???

3. kill competition

second correction :D

Golgot13

10th August 2007, 13:54

@ Dark Shikari

This thread is to discuss about the video quality between H264 and VC1.
I prefer to see some metric result and to have some comment of it that
to have some speculation about the MS politic on market.

MS, now, develop some new technology and it is good to have more competitor
to have the best standard and best tool to use it.

Some people can think that I don't like MS: it is not true, I don't like to listen:
"VC1 is the better than H264" or "VC1 is the best codec for High Definition video".
In 2003-2004, MS introduce the WMVHD on market and I was surprice by the video quality
which can play on lot of PC (don't need to buy a Cray calculator to play it). :p

Today, I only want that MS show us that VC1 is better than H264.
Because the first and last test of Sagitaire show that H264 win.

Dark Shikari

10th August 2007, 14:02

Today, I only want that MS show us that VC1 is better than H264.
Because the first and last test of Sagitaire show that H264 win.
Microsoft can't. Because by definition, VC-1 is inferior to H.264.

Simply looking at the specs of each shows that VC-1 offers inferior compression, independent of any implementations.

That VC-1 is inferior to H.264 on raw compression capability is not disputed by anyone reputable, as far as I know.

Golgot13

10th August 2007, 14:20

Simply looking at the specs of each shows that VC-1 offers inferior compression, independent of any implementations.

I agree.

That VC-1 is inferior to H.264 on raw compression capability is not disputed by anyone reputable, as far as I know.

Be carefull see the post of "Bobololo" (I like this name, it is same that gologolo...dans la case).
If you compare last development MPEG2 encoder at the first MPEG2 encoder (at the end of
1990's or beginning of 2000's), you will understand that it is "possible" to have a "nice" result
in VC1 than in H264.

The challenge is to compare "today" (after post of bolobolo) the quality of VC1 and H264
for HD DVD and BD use (and more).

To my mind, I sure H264 is better in all configuration of video than VC1.
But if MS can prouve that VC1 is better, I could say that I'm mistaken.

Sharktooth

10th August 2007, 14:24

Golgot13

10th August 2007, 15:25

If we compare the standards, h.264 is superior.

You know that I agree with this point. I want to see the result of encoded file
from MS to say H264, x264 implementation, need to be optimized. Remember
that MS sometime (when they buy some company or not ;) ) do good implementation.

But when I see that MS need more than one week to make a encoding,
"I sure the challenge is finished" : H264 is the best codec, and VC1 (from PEP) is little better
than MPEG2 from best encoder.

Only wait a file reponse of MS (or a challenge with another source to show same result).

CruNcher

10th August 2007, 23:07

As bobololo said, it's a matter of implementations.
If we compare the standards, h.264 is superior.
If we compare implementations, things could change depending on the encoders used. Exploiting the potentials of a standard isnt an easy task and VC-1 is loosing even more ground since it's newer than h.264 and it has actually less support.

Ehh nothing is proven about what Microsoft Claims are and those are superior Visual Quality (HVS) over H.264 for Real Film Source with a much better Grain Preservation and less Energy need (Decoding) then H.264 with FreXt.
Nothing of this has been Proven here on the side of H.264 (x.264) just that SSIM and PSNR are better nothing more.
FreXt came because Hollywood didn't liked the Artificial look of the Codec (in their StEM HD-DVD,Blu-Ray tests) and later Thomson came up with FGT/FGM so the question is did FreXt also failed in the Studios Visual tests against VC-1 and the compensation for that was to create another way to preserve Grain and so FGM/FGT was born ? the history and development let it look like this in my eyes.
For me X.264 doesn't seem to be optimized HVS wise but more on Metrics SSIM/PSNR as aku works alot with those i remember when i saw a visual glitch in x.264 in 2006 and later Alex implemented Deadzones @ this time Atemes implementation didn't had those flickering blocks problem so this makes me think about if X.264 is really (mature enough) the right implementation to test Visual Quality agains't VC-1 also aku said it was never his intention to create a high quality source encoder just one that's nicely for backup purposes.
The Scene i tested back @ that time was sky with moving noise (that coused block flickering even with the lossless mode) so deadzones fixed that when setting it low enough (for high bitrates) VC-1 uses an adaptive deadzone approach, wouldn't it be possible to use it also for X.264 instead of the manual deadzone setting i mean we could scale it with the bitrate we just had todo some Visual tests and find out how it scales best (to preserve as much detail noise/grain as possible) i think ?.

foxyshadis

11th August 2007, 00:11

@ Dark Shikari

This thread is to discuss about the video quality between H264 and VC1.
I prefer to see some metric result and to have some comment of it that
to have some speculation about the MS politic on market.

Let's just have this be the rant thread, since obviously there's a deep-seated need for one, and hopefully keep the challenge threads cleaner for it.

1. Create new standard or extend existing standard. The new Microsoft standard need not be any better. It might be, but it usually isn't.

I don't know. WMA was irrefutably better than MP3 below 192, though just as good at half the bitrate was quite an... enthusiastic claim to make. It was better than realaudio and all of the other competing formats, Vorbis was years from coming into its own, and mp3pro had serious licensing issues preventing widespread adoption until it became HE-AAC. And they actually did get quite a bit of support for the format, even if PlaysForSure has just been a perpetual disaster.

So besides WMV (a small evolution of mpeg-4 asp, rather than a revolution) and WMV3 (a tangent off mpeg-4 avc) are there any formats they try to muscle onto us when the existing formats were good enough for everyone?

(Active Directory and PKI don't count here, but even so most server components follow standards - to some degree - or have been around before there were standards in the domain.)

Dark Shikari

11th August 2007, 00:36

Let's just have this be the rant thread, since obviously there's a deep-seated need for one, and hopefully keep the challenge threads cleaner for it.

I don't know. WMA was irrefutably better than MP3 below 192, though just as good at half the bitrate was quite an... enthusiastic claim to make. It was better than realaudio and all of the other competing formats, Vorbis was years from coming into its own, and mp3pro had serious licensing issues preventing widespread adoption until it became HE-AAC. And they actually did get quite a bit of support for the format, even if PlaysForSure has just been a perpetual disaster.

So besides WMV (a small evolution of mpeg-4 asp, rather than a revolution) and WMV3 (a tangent off mpeg-4 avc) are there any formats they try to muscle onto us when the existing formats were good enough for everyone?

(Active Directory and PKI don't count here, but even so most server components follow standards - to some degree - or have been around before there were standards in the domain.)
OpenXML (which is not really open at all)
Internet Explorer's proprietary HTML extensions and incompatibilities
ActiveX
and basically any other Microsoft format or API that you can think of was originally an attempt to create a new standard when one wasn't needed.

Microsoft's attitude towards competing formats is to rip them off and/or "improve" them, copyright/patent the improvements, and then force the old version out of use.

Read up on "Embrace, extend, and extinguish" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace%2C_extend_and_extinguish):

Embrace, extend and extinguish, also known as "Embrace, extend, and exterminate," is a phrase that the U.S. Department of Justice alleged was used internally by Microsoft to describe their strategy for entering product categories involving widely used standards, extending those standards with proprietary capabilities, and then using those differences to disadvantage its competitors.

Golgot13

11th August 2007, 11:00

@Dark Shikari

You're right for some informations that some (I hope lot of) people know.
But this thread is to compare HD DVD and BD codec. We want to know
(or we want to show) which codec is the better "today" (I sure tomorrow too).

I listen that some journalists read this forum (I know that lot of HD authorers and compressionists
read this forum ;) ), I hope they will write the true about video codec...

I hope to see HD DVD in H264 in title market. But the video studio
(like Warner, Universal or Studio Canal) must to open eyes, brain....

Golgot13

CruNcher

11th August 2007, 12:12

@Golgot13
How often again Hollywood Studios rated on Visual Quality and the H.264 implementation they chose @ the time of their STEm tests wasn't tweaked for that (and sadly to say X.264 isn't tweaked for it either really yet) and so the first impression for them was VC-1 does better fit their Visual needs (it was allready tweaked for the HD-DVD purpose and preserving Film Grain by Microsoft Engineers), now we have to prof that a H.264 encoder can be tweaked for optimum Grain Preservation and not SSIM/PSNR results are important Visual (Blind tests) are more. S
ince i did XviD PSNR Lab and all the Visual tests with it (long time ago) i lost my interest in Metrics they aren't efficient enough in such fine Scenarios as HVS tweaking they can give you a clue about the overal quality and are nice to find bugs sure (Rate Controll) but they never gona replace blind tests and also SSIM is far from being perfect on the Motion Aspect your SSIM results are nice but they don't say much in numbers about the look and feel of the final encode (actually it does currently SSIM prefers the blurry look over the sharp detailed one you can clearly see this with inloop deblocking it gets more artificial the higher an SSIM likes it ;) ), and with this Source (as good as i find that it's openly available) we can't proof much. I would even go so far and say a Grainy Blu-Ray Mpeg-2 Source would be better for this then this Animation Source (and i also have allready 1 Source in target but i still need to test some stuff) :P

Golgot13

11th August 2007, 12:46

@Golgot13
How often again Hollywood Studios rated on Visual Quality and the H.264 implementation they chose @ the time of their STEm tests wasn't tweaked for that.

Yes, old implementation: Toshiba, Panasonic and Sony H264 encoder
(it's like to compare Intel H264 with Ateme).

Sonic Encoder is optimized for Film Grain when Mainconcept develop a good new SDK:
CineVision 2.0 is "good" to be compare with CineVision PSE (PEP 1.06 core)
available only this year, 3-4 months ago, so no tested by this studio.

@CruNcher: I recommand you to go at next Ceatec to see good H264 uses (HD DVD and Bluray
which use last H264 encoder; you will see may be UHD from NHK and Ateme in H264 not VC1).

Here with test the quality of codec, for this we need measure tool not subjective result.
Bobololo "said" at some show (or private test for authoring/video house):
"you can demonstrate anything and especially things"
You need a nice place, nice food, nice person,...=> after everything is beautifull.

CruNcher

11th August 2007, 13:05

@Golgot
Yes i know Atemes implementation and look & feel very well i beta tested it (found some bugs) and made the sugestion for a adaptive deblocking back then and i liked it @ that time the most of all dunno how it advanced as i have no acess to it @ the moment but it should be very very far from the others now @ that time it was allready more advanced (look & feel wise) then any other implementation (x.264, elecard) and even NeroDigital should have reached my old beta encoder now im surely gonna check this sometime, but for the moment i think of how to improve the look & feel of x.264 and especialy how it will compare to the look & feel of XviD 2.0 AVC when it's being released, so maybe it makes no sense todo this now but just wait first.

Golgot13

11th August 2007, 13:39

@ CruNcher

Last year, professional H264 encoders (except Mainconcept familly and Ateme) were not
optimized to give the best possibility of H264 standard.

If you have access at some solutions, you can try to encode at 10Mbps, you will be surprise
by the quality (can not be compared with x264).

Open Source accelerate the development of optimization because the community is high (thanks
lot of at schools, universities, teachers and students who give time and best solution code)
and x264 is one of this development.

CruNcher

11th August 2007, 14:50

Sagittaire

11th August 2007, 15:43

Since i did XviD PSNR Lab and all the Visual tests with it (long time ago) i lost my interest in Metrics they aren't efficient enough in such fine Scenarios as HVS tweaking they can give you a clue about the overal quality and are nice to find bugs sure (Rate Controll) but they never gona replace blind tests and also SSIM is far from being perfect on the Motion Aspect your SSIM results are nice but they don't say much in numbers about the look and feel of the final encode (actually it does currently SSIM prefers the blurry look over the sharp detailed one you can clearly see this with inloop deblocking it gets more artificial the higher an SSIM likes it ), and with this Source (as good as i find that it's openly available) we can't proof much. I would even go so far and say a Grainy Blu-Ray Mpeg-2 Source would be better for this then this Animation Source (and i also have allready 1 Source in target but i still need to test some stuff) :P

1) In my memory your delta for OPSNR was something like 0.2 or 0.3 dB. With this little difference you can't conclude. But if you have 2 dB for delda then all the possible HVS optimimisation can't reduce the visual difference. You must use PSNR and the other metric with good confidence threshold and 0.5 dB is not a good confidence threshold.

2) The optimal inloop setting for PSNR is 0,0. The optimal setting for SSIM is -2,-2. I don't see test to prove that SSIM prefere blur over sharp. SSIM prefere simply source convergence and SSIM can detect blur.

3) The best BD source available are AVC encoding at very high bitrate (35 Mbps). "Casino royale" source has incredible grain retention level. "Pirate des caraibes" is actually the reference stream for the BD fan.

arfster

11th August 2007, 15:59

Yes, as you say in the Bluray world the best discs are AVC at gigantic bitrates. However, oddly enough at lower (HDDVD) bitrates AVC seems to struggle a little compared to VC1. Rather the opposite of what seems to be the case here.

I guess it might be just the compression tools need to be absolutely top notch to compress heavily down <20mbit, where with Bluray peaks up to 50mbit in PotC it doesn't matter so much.

Sagittaire

11th August 2007, 16:06

Yes, as you say in the Bluray world the best discs are AVC at gigantic bitrates. However, oddly enough at lower (HDDVD) bitrates AVC seems to struggle a little compared to VC1. Rather the opposite of what seems to be the case here.

HDDVD don't use H264 at this time. Anyway I make HDDVD9 backup with BD50 "casino royale" source for test the quality. An I have a very good quality and good grain retention level. x264 can keep very well the big grain but it's really more difficult for small grain. You must use particular filter in pre-process to help x264 with grain retention.

arfster

11th August 2007, 16:10

HDDVD don't use H264 at this time.

Not many, but there are some - I have Equilibrium and Babel for example, and there are more coming out all the time.

Golgot13

11th August 2007, 18:07

Not many, but there are some - I have Equilibrium and Babel for example, and there are more coming out all the time.

If some people read my post about VC1 and H264 (on doom9 and AVS),
you saw my little reflection between this 2 formats:

VC1 is the best codec for BluRay because it need more bitrate to give nicely picture and use a little part of CPU.
H264 is the best codec for HD DVD because the space is limited (video in AVC and all audio in lossless codec).

CruNcher

11th August 2007, 18:45

Some scenes of Casino Royale have been shoot digital (HDCAM) and the grain looks different (artificialy added) then with the Analog shooted scenes that are Digital Intermidiate some scenes have no grain @ all (effect shoots) :P
Don't think it's good to test with that and also it is H.264 that would give an advantage to H.264 codecs recompressing it.

Golgot13

11th August 2007, 18:48

Some scenes of Casino Royale have been shoot digital (HDCAM).

HDCAM is a very bad format !!!!
Lot of informations are lose with HDCAM support (not HDCAM SR).

CruNcher

11th August 2007, 19:00

Yep the most impressive source i saw the last times now (now you gonna lough) but that was "Herbie Fully loaded"
Imho Disney does the best Digital Intermidiate @ the moment of all Studios :P (so it doesn't wonder me that Pirates looks as good or better)

http://img207.imageshack.us/my.php?image=snapshot20060806011746oj1.png compressed (720p) from a compressed source (HDTV Mpeg-2 1080i) (lol)
http://img207.imageshack.us/my.php?image=snapshot20060806012724nq1.png (can't wait for the Blu-Ray)
http://img206.imageshack.us/my.php?image=snapshot20060806011226sb5.png (can't even imagine how this looks uncompressed but the Blu-Ray AVC should come near it)

Golgot13

11th August 2007, 19:11

Imho Disney does the best Digital Intermidiate @ the moment of all Studios :P (so it doesn't wonder me that Pirates looks as good or better)

Disney use H264 for BD Titles, and it is a Hollywood Studio which choose H264 and not VC1 :D

CruNcher

11th August 2007, 19:52

hehe yeah but Disneys Transfers have no grain they are cristal clear (You could say New Age Hollywood away from the Grain into the Digital era) ;)
alot of studios and Directors wan't the possibility to simulate that Grainy old unreal Hollywood look (Universal,Warner, MGM and Sony) especialy for their old Blockbusters think about Blade Runner as Cristal Clear as Disneys transfers hmmm ;) for the new Generation that doesn't know the Movie it would be cool but for the old Generation it would look strange) :P and artisticly that's fine Disney is one of the Studios that doesn't wan't this old Grainy Hollywood look anymore most probably because they come from Comics and the look in their Company was allways cristal clear and never Grainy and this Philosophy they bring to Blu-Ray and that's for sure why they use H.264 optimal non Grainy transfers and you can see especialy the younger Generation likes that rating every Disney Blu-Ray with 5 stars :P
All their Transfers seem to be ultra compressable and it makes no real difference what source their Digital Intermidiate Process seems to kill any noise/grain and without that it's clear that H.264 will win for them over VC-1 then the SSIM/PSNR results of Sagittaire make sense again in that case so you never gonna see Disney useing VC-1 :)
on the 14th August Premiere HD is gonna Broadcast "Herbie Fully Loaded" in H.264 this will for sure top the 1080i Mpeg-2 Broadcast, won't also be that far away from the Blu-Ray but the Blu-Ray jesus should top everything (Pirates not it has much more colors bright sunshine scenes watter everywhere and great actors :P) we gonna see.

bobololo

11th August 2007, 23:02

Yep Golgot but we shouldn't forget that Fenrir left to Ateme and took all his knowledge with him improving their encoder with a biger team (very specialized) and even that aku and all the others do big here improving x264 fenrir is missing only that's why Ateme could overun x264 so fast, but it was fenrirs decission todo so now we have to get back on track.

Please Cruncher, don't claim things you absolutely don't know about. Fenrir has obviously contributed to our H.264 encoder but it would be unfair for all other contributors from ateme to associated the progress of our implementation to the key person of Fenrir.

You know, when Fenrir joined us (may 2004) we were already working on our 2nd generation of AVC encoder which was already more advanced than x264. Only 2 months later we started our first beta program based on this 2G encoder which development started long before Fenrir arrival.

If *you* remember correct, by that time the development of x264 was more of less stalled. Fenrir hadn't have much time to spend into it and he was the only active developer. x264 features was not so advanced by that time (the RDO was only brought by aku later) and most of the people were still backing xvid "supremacy" ;) This is only in mid-2004 (according to x264 repository) that x264 got back to life through a bunch of fresh commits from aku. Curiously this corresponded to the same time frame when we led the first beta test of our encoder. A naive person would have say that the reports from the beta had generated enough interest to make oss devs have their hands on H.264 standard following our track ;)

aku would say now: "Don't talk so much CruNcher code" ;) anyway if you compare x264 resource wise vs Ateme and Mainconcept/Elecard x264 does pretty good

And I 100% agree with Aku, you definitely speak too much ;) And especially about things you really don't know. I can insure you that you're far to understand and imagine the resources and constraints we could have along all the different project we're dealing with. So please stop propagating erroneous ideas.

CruNcher

12th August 2007, 02:06

Please Cruncher, don't claim things you absolutely don't know about. Fenrir has obviously contributed to our H.264 encoder but it would be unfair for all other contributors from ateme to associated the progress of our implementation to the key person of Fenrir.

Sorry if it sounds to you like i discredit the achivements the other devs brought to the Ateme Encoder that was absolutely not my intention the same also not on X264s side, that's why i wrote "with a biger team (very specialized)" <- this was actually thought as honouring the whole teams (every single person including your) achivements for the Ateme Encoder then to discredit them, and i think you know me (virtual) good enough that i wouldn't do anything else then that in this case :)

x264 features was not so advanced by that time (the RDO was only brought by aku later)

Yes i know this very well :)

and most of the people were still backing xvid "supremacy" ;)

At that time it was a close race (and at high bitrates it still is) ;)

And I 100% agree with Aku, you definitely speak too much And especially about things you really don't know. I can insure you that you're far to understand and imagine the resources and constraints we could have along all the different project we're dealing with. So please stop propagating erroneous ideas.

Yes true i don't know how resources being managed @ Ateme so sorry for speculateing here that was indeed not right forget that sentence about (if you compare...) but it's not 100% wrong as your advancements in this area proof that you steadily working on the Encoder don't ya ? (btw i never made it to crash nvidias display driver with playing back Video but with a stream by bobor from Luxe HD i get a BlueScreen with any player) Luxe HD useing the Ateme Hardware Encoder don't they ? (LUXETV.HD.Eutelsat.W3A.7E.10jul.2007-crash.ts)

zambelli

13th August 2007, 00:36

Open Source accelerate the development of optimization because the community is high (thanks
lot of at schools, universities, teachers and students who give time and best solution code)
and x264 is one of this development.
Like I've said many times before, I would LOVE to see an open-source encoder project for VC-1. If we can all at least agree that VC-1 specification is capable of producing better implementations than MPEG-4 ASP, it's hard to explain why there's such strong community support for XviD MPEG-4 ASP development but absolutely none for VC-1 development. Given that most HD-DVD titles are VC-1 encoded (and would thus naturally lend themselves better to VC-1 re-encodes), you'd think enough people would be interested in developing a VC-1 encoder superior to Microsoft's WMV9 to serve their HD-DVD backup interests. But I suppose it's always easier to just complain and go with the pack than actually sit down and write new code.

Sagittaire

13th August 2007, 01:00

Like I've said many times before, I would LOVE to see an open-source encoder project for VC-1. If we can all at least agree that VC-1 specification is capable of producing better implementations than MPEG-4 ASP, it's hard to explain why there's such strong community support for XviD MPEG-4 ASP development but absolutely none for VC-1 development. Given that most HD-DVD titles are VC-1 encoded (and would thus naturally lend themselves better to VC-1 re-encodes), you'd think enough people would be interested in developing a VC-1 encoder superior to Microsoft's WMV9 to serve their HD-DVD backup interests. But I suppose it's always easier to just complain and go with the pack than actually sit down and write new code.

Well I think that for many developper VC1 = MicroSoft and MS is not really popular in the Open Source world. It's strange because MPEG is not really a philantropic organisation.

zambelli

13th August 2007, 01:40

Well I think that for many developper VC1 = MicroSoft and MS is not really popular in the Open Source world. It's strange because MPEG is not really a philantropic organisation.
Thank you, I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees the paradox of it. Too many people forget that it's mostly representative of corporations (many of them more powerful than MS in the media industry) that sit on MPEG commitees. The idea that MPEG-4 is somehow more "open" and "free" (!!!) than VC-1 is just absurd.

burfadel

13th August 2007, 02:00

There may be a time when x264 and xvid AVC merge. In the free AVC codec world, only one will survive, and I think that may be the xvid implementation as they already have the name behind them. If this does happen, since both are open source they can pool their knowledge and code :)

Dark Shikari

13th August 2007, 02:34

Thank you, I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees the paradox of it. Too many people forget that it's mostly representative of corporations (many of them more powerful than MS in the media industry) that sit on MPEG commitees. The idea that MPEG-4 is somehow more "open" and "free" (!!!) than VC-1 is just absurd.
The difference is that MPEG has a long history and is supported by many many corporations whose main agenda in creating MPEG-4 is to make their standard as widely used as possible, for the benefit of everyone involved. This means that no single company is monopolizing it all.

VC-1 is created by Microsoft to benefit Microsoft and nobody else.

foxyshadis

13th August 2007, 03:30

The patent distribution would belie that. We know you don't like or trust microsoft, you've said as much, but until you can come up with some kind of proof that microsoft is acting any differently than all the other media companies looking to pad their bottom line ("the common good" does not exist for corporations), or that Microsoft is preventing 3rd party implementations, don't start a baseless flamewar.

I was wondering again, after seeing the snow thread, why Microsoft hadn't created a range coding alternative to CABAC in advanced profile. You'd get almost all of the benefit with less than half the cost. Then it truly would rival h.264 all the way down, no compromises, and still be able to trumpet reduced performance requirements.

Dark Shikari

13th August 2007, 03:51

I was wondering again, after seeing the snow thread, why Microsoft hadn't created a range coding alternative to CABAC in advanced profile. You'd get almost all of the benefit with less than half the cost. Then it truly would rival h.264 all the way down, no compromises, and still be able to trumpet reduced performance requirements.
Considering in my lower bitrate tests (--crf 25 to 35 ) H.264 outperforms VC-1 by as much as 50%, adding a CABAC-like encoder to VC-1 isn't nearly enough.

H.264's multiple reference frames, improved inter and intra prediction, and many of the features that make it relatively slow to decode compared to VC-1, even without CABAC, are the same features that make it so superior.

At high bitrates the entropy encoder becomes much more important relative to the other encoder features, of course.

akupenguin

13th August 2007, 04:10

At high bitrates the entropy encoder becomes much more important relative to the other encoder features, of course.
My experiments disagree. CABAC is most important at low bitrates. There's also a peak at lossless (because frext lossless skips dct, and cabac adapts to such drastically different coefficient distribution better than cavlc's fixed vlc tables do.) But CABAC is least important at low QPs other than 0.

graph 1: average of all the mpeg standard cif clips (http://akuvian.org/src/x264/entropy_mpegcif_avg.png).
graph 1b: the individual clips that were averaged. (http://akuvian.org/src/x264/entropy_mpegcif.png)
graph 2: animated content (I don't remember exactly what sources). (http://akuvian.org/src/x264/entropy_anime.png)

Dark Shikari

13th August 2007, 04:23

My experiments disagree. CABAC is most important at low bitrates. There's also a peak at lossless (because frext lossless skips dct, and cabac adapts to such drastically different coefficient distribution better than cavlc's fixed vlc tables do.) But CABAC is least important at low QPs other than 0.

graph 1: average of all the mpeg standard cif clips (http://akuvian.org/src/x264/entropy_mpegcif_avg.png).
graph 1b: the individual clips that were averaged. (http://akuvian.org/src/x264/entropy_mpegcif.png)
graph 2: animated content (I don't remember exactly what sources). (http://akuvian.org/src/x264/entropy_anime.png)
Well of the various features, CABAC is the most important I would agree; it makes a pretty solid 15% difference in almost any case, more than any other single feature.

What I mean is that at, say, HD-DVD bitrates, H.264 might have a 25% advantage over VC-1. 15% is CABAC and 10% is other prediction improvements. At, say, 1000 kbps for 720p, there might be a 50% advantage... 15% is still due to CABAC, and 35% is due to other predictive improvements. In other words, CABAC's improvement is relatively constant regardless of bitrate, while other improvements are much more obvious at lower bitrates.

RDO does seem to improve CABAC's efficiency considerably, as does trellis.

Golgot13

13th August 2007, 09:22

Like I've said many times before, I would LOVE to see an open-source encoder project for VC-1.

Simple give some source at community or good school (I'm french so: Ecole Central Paris, ENSIMAG,...).
I sure you will surprise by the quality of VC1 codec and speed encoding process after that.

If we can all at least agree that VC-1 specification is capable of producing better implementations than MPEG-4 ASP.

Simple to prove this: now you have ED movie just make the best encoding of this MOVIE !!!
I do not understand why you or Ben can not make encoding (no more that one night on your presonal computer),
I angry about that...
I think it is nice to have another video (movie with grain) to "finalize" this "SUMMER challenge" (I will ask
for others H264 professional solutions to be include on "MSU Codec comparison" with HD DVD restriction).

it's hard to explain why there's such strong community support for XviD MPEG-4 ASP development but absolutely none for VC-1 development. Given that most HD-DVD titles are VC-1 encoded (and would thus naturally lend themselves better to VC-1 re-encodes), you'd think enough people would be interested in developing a VC-1 encoder superior to Microsoft's WMV9 to serve their HD-DVD backup interests. But I suppose it's always easier to just complain and go with the pack than actually sit down and write new code.

Only one way to open your VC1 development:
- Give some source (vc1_enc.exe is nice and have more option that PEP)
- Participate at MSU codec comparison

Regards,

Golgot13

Golgot13

13th August 2007, 09:25

The idea that MPEG-4 is somehow more "open" and "free" (!!!) than VC-1 is just absurd.

I agree, but some people study this format at school/university.
They finish the development many years after and they give source...

bond

13th August 2007, 19:20

i for myself cant explain why hollywood studios choose vc-1 for their movies, while for hdtv avc is used

the only reason for that i can come up with is that m$ bought themselves into hollywood, trying to push their encoder by being cheap (becoming more expensive later on of course once everything used in the studios is designed to work with vc-1)

Golgot13

13th August 2007, 20:07

i for myself cant explain why hollywood studios choose vc-1 for their movies, while for hdtv avc is used

Simple for hollywood studios:
When a company come with software which worked and gave for free, you use it.
And about HD DVD, the Advanced Content is a format from MS (please Bond don't use $)
so which company know well this format.
If I'm a company and MS come with all, a solution, to make new HD format (HD DVD)
=> Sure I will say yes :D (it's a problem of money, because I win time and I buy little software)

About HDTV:
all broadcaster must to buy hardware and they have to pay the bandwidth.
So to don't lost lot of money, they use the best solution to broadcast more channel
on same bandwidth. Today the best solution is H264 codec

Last, I will support VC1 if some people can show me that it is the best format vs H264.
And I think I will need to wait next generation of MS codec (but SVC is nice format and not finish)

zambelli

14th August 2007, 11:42

Simple give some source at community or good school (I'm french so: Ecole Central Paris, ENSIMAG,...). I sure you will surprise by the quality of VC1 codec and speed encoding process after that.
A reference VC-1 encoder that Microsoft provided to SMPTE is available from the SMPTE store. The VC-1 standard defines how to decode VC-1, but there's no standard way of writing the encoder. Searching the Internet for VC-1 code can reveal some interesting documentations, such as MultimediaWiki (http://wiki.multimedia.cx/index.php?title=VC-1), Kostya's VC-1 blog (http://codecs.multimedia.cx/?cat=8) and VC-1 Transforms code (http://codecs.multimedia.cx/wp-content/vc1itrans.c).
I would guess a lot of the ratecontrol and motion estimation code could probably be borrowed from existing open-source encoder projects.

I do not understand why you or Ben can not make encoding (no more that one night on your presonal computer),
I angry about that...
You're angry because I don't have free time? Sounds like I should be the one angry about that.

Only one way to open your VC1 development:
- Give some source (vc1_enc.exe is nice and have more option that PEP)
It's not easy for Microsoft to give out source code, but in this case it's probably not even necessary. Just like x264 was written from scratch, a new VC-1 encoder could be written from scratch too. The spec and test materials can be obtained from SMPTE.
- Participate at MSU codec comparison
I talked to MSU about it several weeks ago. They aren't able to expand the scope of their free public codec comparison to include non-H.264 codecs at this moment.

Golgot13

14th August 2007, 12:12

A reference VC-1 encoder that Microsoft provided to SMPTE is available from the SMPTE store. The VC-1 standard defines how to decode VC-1, but there's no standard way of writing the encoder. Searching the Internet for VC-1 code can reveal some interesting documentations, such as MultimediaWiki (http://wiki.multimedia.cx/index.php?title=VC-1), Kostya's VC-1 blog (http://codecs.multimedia.cx/?cat=8) and VC-1 Transforms code (http://codecs.multimedia.cx/wp-content/vc1itrans.c).

Nice, but the open-source community "scratch" some standard because they "believe" it.
And when we know the story about MPEG standard (MPEG1, MPEG2, MPEG3->MPEG2 TS)
we understand it is nice to develop some encoder or decoder. It will be same for H264 (today) and MPEG4 SVC(futur).

You're angry because I don't have free time? Sounds like I should be the one angry about that.

Yes and no, I'm not agree when you say something if you can not prove it (it is not the best preset, or it is not PEP or it is not a good video example).
If you take all time, since the begin of test, of post reply and answer you had the necessary time to make the encoding...
I understand that like me you answer on your free time (after work or in pause/smoking time) or after work
so it's easy to launch a encoding process at night to have the file at morning...

It's not easy for Microsoft to give out source code, but in this case it's probably not even necessary. Just like x264 was written from scratch, a new VC-1 encoder could be written from scratch too. The spec and test materials can be obtained from SMPTE.

Yes, but the open-source community believe at H264 so they develop quickly something
(ask some school or university, there is lot of student project for H264 or MPEG format but nothing, I think, for VC1).
I'm sure we will see some encoder from open-source release because Zune, video network box but not quickly
than H264 or MPEG2.

I talked to MSU about it several weeks ago. They aren't able to expand the scope of their free public codec comparison to include non-H.264 codecs at this moment.

Yes, I remember it was before to see that H264 from x264 is better than VC1 from PEP.
But I don't like to listen some people (now MS will not say than VC1 is better than H264, I hope) or video magazines
who/which say VC1 is the better codec on HD format (now with your politic when some people read that the movie is in VC1,
they think it's the best quality).

We can make a "little" analogy with OS system. :p

zambelli

14th August 2007, 12:44

Yes and no, I'm not agree when you say something if you can not prove it (it is not the best preset, or it is not PEP or it is not a good video example).
Prove what? I don't think I've made any statements here that have been controversial. Are you under the impression that I suggested the results were flawed and biased in favor of x264? Check the thread, I never said anything like that. I provided feedback to Sagittaire about VC-1 encoding settings, that's all, as I wanted to ensure he was getting the most out of PEP. In fact, I've gone out of my way to suggest improvements to the comparison that wouldn't even necessarily benefit VC-1 (see my comments about post-processing settings). I'm not sure what exactly it is that I'm supposed to be proving.

so it's easy to launch a encoding process at night to have the file at morning...
... yeah, and then you gotta set up an .avs script to calculate PSNR & SSIM, let that run for an hour or more, inspect the results, go back and re-tune the settings, kick off another encode, and repeat until happy. This stuff is time-consuming. As much as I like doing it, I've got 10 other similar tasks that I need to be doing first for the people who pay my bills.

(ask some school or university, there is lot of student project for H264 or MPEG format but nothing, I think, for VC1).
A good idea and a point well made. :thanks:

But I don't like to listen some people (now MS will not say than VC1 is better than H264, I hope)
Because x264 scored a higher SSIM score on Doom9 forums? :rolleyes:
or video magazines who/which say VC1 is the better codec on HD format (now with your politic when some people read that the movie is in VC1, they think it's the best quality).
The 34 people who bought HD-DVDs this year think so, yes. :)

VC-1 and H.264 are close enough in terms of efficiency that most of the time the quality of an HD-DVD/BluRay release depends 90% on the quality of the transfer, the preprocessing workflow and the bitrate available on the disc. There are plenty of reference HD-DVDs out there encoded with VC-1 that show what the codec is capable of. It's not like anyone is making that stuff up; all one has to do is rent any of the recommended reference HD-DVDs (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=856119) and see for themselves.

Golgot13

14th August 2007, 13:10

Prove what? I don't think I've made any statements here that have been controversial.

When I said you, I think at You, Zambelli, and Ben.

In fact, I've gone out of my way to suggest improvements to the comparison that wouldn't even necessarily benefit VC-1 (see my comments about post-processing settings). I'm not sure what exactly it is that I'm supposed to be proving.

But the challenge is to test encoder only.
I and many person on this forum are open for every suggestion.

... yeah, and then you gotta set up an .avs script to calculate PSNR & SSIM, let that run for an hour or more, inspect the results, go back and re-tune the settings, kick off another encode, and repeat until happy. This stuff is time-consuming.

Yes, but in 2 week, I think you can give more than one night (3 nights are enough).

As much as I like doing it, I've got 10 other similar tasks that I need to be doing first for the people who pay my bills.

Yes, it's same for me :rolleyes:
But MS use on "Professional Training", "Consumer Show" and "Journalist comment" the web forum, this and others,
to affirm something (like HD DVD is appreciate; people like/love VC1,...). I can post some powerpoint file from MS :p
And, I think, you (MS team) are encoraged to go on web forum to show "the best (for MS) way".:rolleyes:

A good idea and a point well made. :thanks:

Thank you, it will be nice if you can give something at students (because they don't have lot of money...).

Because x264 scored a higher SSIM score on Doom9 forums? :rolleyes:

At first, Sagitaire said he use SSIM2 (like Inventive Software with 500kps on other thread...).
If you not agree say it, and show the result with SSIM (you can download file to make it).

The 34 people who bought HD-DVDs this year think so, yes. :)

Yes, but there is not lot of H264 HD title (except BD). But I listen than Warner will use H264
some studio house finalize purchase of H264 solution (BD and HD DVD).

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=856119 and see for themselves.

I think the moderator on this forum are PRO MS (agree with you). And there is lot MS people
(I don't see Amir here on doom9, ?).

cannuck

14th August 2007, 16:36

benwaggoner

14th August 2007, 16:43

Great comparative study of H.264, Flash, WMV, and M$'s implementation of VC-1.Conclusion: "So, clearly there's little reason to switch from Flash or QuickTime to WMV." And H.264 in general comes out on top!

http://www.streamingmedia.com/article.asp?id=9659&page=1&c=8
Sure, codecs have only rarely been different enough to override questions around the broader platform ecosystems.

The more interesting data point is how much VC-1 improved relative to the other codecs since last year's test.

In terms of M$'s business ethics - just jump over to Groklaw and check out what M$ is doing in terms of SCO, OOXML versus ODF, and Linux.

http://www.groklaw.net/
Probably not for this forum, but feel free to propose a better format for maintaining full backwards compatibility with a couple decades of .doc files within XML :).

zambelli

14th August 2007, 19:48

I and many person on this forum are open for every suggestion.
Are you? How about this suggestion: Stop interpolating this challenge to mean that one codec is better than another. And don't deny you said it in those words exactly, because there are posts of yours like this one (http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=1955775&SiteID=1) that prove otherwise. This is exclusively a metrics challenge, as Sagittaire himself has stated. While it certainly has a value and there's good data to be gathered from it, it's absolutely absurd to take *one* metrics challenge to make a conclusion on which codec is universally better. You complained just a few posts ago about Microsoft's wording in an article where VC-1 is claimed to be 2-3 times more efficient than MPEG-2 (and while I agree they used clumsy wording, notice that plotting PSNR against bitrate is a completely different test than what this challenge is about), yet you're doing exactly the same thing every day.

Yes, but in 2 week, I think you can give more than one night (3 nights are enough).
To do what? I'm sorry, I didn't realize I was on your schedule to prove something.

At first, Sagitaire said he use SSIM2 (like Inventive Software with 500kps on other thread...).
If you not agree say it, and show the result with SSIM (you can download file to make it).
:confused: You must've missed my point entirely. I wasn't talking about the difference between SSIM and SSIM w/ Lumimask=2 at all.

I think the moderator on this forum are PRO MS (agree with you). And there is lot MS people
(I don't see Amir here on doom9, ?).
Did you stop to consider that maybe it's not the moderator that's pro-MS, but that it's you who's anti-MS? I think your posts paint a very clear picture for anybody who visits the forum.

And for the record, Ben and I are the only people from the MS codec team active on this forum. Others from MS might be reading, but only Ben and I are writing.

Golgot, if you don't have anything constructive to add anymore except jabs at MS, I think we're done talking here.

Golgot13

14th August 2007, 23:02

Golgot, if you don't have anything constructive to add anymore except jabs at MS, I think we're done talking here.

:confused: Exactly like you on this challenge.

About web link, it's to show this challenge :D
If you're not agree you can try to prove than VC1 is better or can do better.

You have access at VC1 encoder (same I can on Sonic PSE but we use it all day in my work),
you can make some preset or test, but you do notthing only suggest about preset for PEP. :devil:

Sharktooth

15th August 2007, 16:28

He did it... and he posted the stream... made with an unreleased software (ok, i trust him on the fact the new version was only about dquant optimizations) but still the scores are widely inferior when compared to x264.
Someone, including me, do not trust metric tests results when difference between scores is too low, but such a difference (49.11db PSNR vs 47.62db PSNR and 94.18 SSIM vs 92.70 SSIM) in favour of x264 was quite explicative and does not even need any comments.
My "guess" is some commercial h.264 solutions (ateme, mainconcept...) could get even better results than x264, and i also believe some good MPEG-4 ASP encoders can be directly comparable to VC-1 in terms of metrics and maybe even perceived quality.

benwaggoner

15th August 2007, 16:47

He did it... and he posted the stream... made with an unreleased software (ok, i trust him on the fact the new version was only about dquant optimizations) but still the scores are widely inferior when compared to x264.
My guess is some commercial solutions (ateme, mainconcept...) could get better results than x264...
Better results in the objective scores? Before you talk about "better" in the abstract, we should do some viewing of the actual clip.

We'll also share a version that uses DQuant, because it'll look subjectively better, in particular on LCD and similar displays with elevated blacks, even though it'll score worse on the metrics.

Sharktooth

15th August 2007, 17:05

"better" in a metric test comparison means better scores... dont you agree?:p
i've edited the previous post so it's more clear...

CruNcher

15th August 2007, 17:22

Jesus what does this here become, everyone calm down :P
ok fact is that x264 has not been made for the purpose of where this test is heading towards and Microsofts (tweaking) goes, so it is absolutely unfair (from Microsoft) to compare it HVS wise in that case x264 needs still some time to be ready for that comparision and other solutions should be compared here vs Microsofts VC-1 claims.
Atemes and Elecard/Mainconcept it's time for them to show what their H.264 implementations are capable of (they allready show it in the broadcast and studio sector tough but dunno wich HD-DVD/Blu-Ray is mastered with their research results).
@ Beenwaggoner i think if you release that Source you talked about, everyone (of those companies) would be happy to show of their Encoding results here (they know their implementations the best) in terms of HVS Quality and Metric Results constrained to HD-DVD.

benwaggoner

15th August 2007, 17:23

"better" in a metric test comparison means better scores... dont you agree?:p
i've edited the previous post so it's more clear...
Sure, this test is this test. I just want to point out that one shouldn't overgeneralize from this test to broader assumptions about visual quality across all scenarios, since we're not testing visual quality directly.

Trahald

15th August 2007, 17:33

What would be good at this point is a 'by eye' test. setup a blind test (single blind in no particular order) and allow voting. although hosting 1gb files may be rough (all contestant files would need to be on same server to keep test blind).. might have to go with screen shots?

CruNcher

15th August 2007, 17:52

The result is clear Trahald it would prove that H.264 is better suited in terms of Compression vs VC-1 giving the same visual quality @ lower filesizes (thus being more decoding complex) for this Animation Sceneario as i said earlier it shouldn't suprise everyone that Disney supports H.264 on Blu-Ray they have cristal clear transfers compared to other Studios and H.264 benefits for their purpose big time.
For the other Sceneario Film/Grain x264 is not suited yet and it was never optimized extensively for that purpose here solutions from Ateme and Mainconcept/Elecard should be taken into consideration first. And if you wan't to go 1 step behind FreXt (FGM/FGT) x264 is no canditate yet to be tested, because simply it isn't integrated yet.
Btw thx for your great work on the HRD patch without this such a test wouldn't be even possible with x264 :)

Golgot13

15th August 2007, 18:06

it shouldn't suprise everyone that Disney supports H.264 on Blu-Ray they have cristal clear transfers compared to other Studios and H.264 benefits for their purpose big time.

At high bitrate, VC1 and H264 are very similar (same for MPEG2). The PSNR difference decrease...

Disney use H264 solution from CinemaCraft because it is easy and quick to use it.
The speed encoding of this solution is fast (much faster than PEP/CineVision PSE:
@ Sagitaire, CC-HDe use all processor core not like PEP).

Sharktooth

16th August 2007, 02:51

uhm... i searched the web for mainconcept h.264encoder info and didnt find anything about FGM. btw i dont own it so i cant confirm.
the only encoder with an early implementation of FGM i know about is the ateme h.264 encoder i beta tested some time ago...

crypto

16th August 2007, 19:47

@CruNcher
BTW. The Herbie transfer shows grain. The mpeg-2 encoding simply cannot preserve it. I made a comparison shot from the H.264 transfer (http://dvbportal.dyn1.de/forum/gallery/2_16_08_07_7_52_34.png) under the same conditions (bicubic downsize 720p + compression). Have a look at the darker parts of the facade in the bachground.

CruNcher

16th August 2007, 20:25

Yes that seems to be real grain from the kodak print indeed but its very faint compared to other transfers another screen please :D can't wait for the Blu-Ray :P that face how many details

honai

16th August 2007, 21:00

The result is clear Trahald it would prove that H.264 is better suited in terms of Compression vs VC-1 giving the same visual quality @ lower filesizes

I envy the rare gift of foresight bestowed upon you. Us mere mortals rather rely on actual data and scientific evidence, as in actually conducting a double-blind test before we draw such conclusions.

crypto

16th August 2007, 21:05

Yes that seems to be real grain from the kodak print indeed but its very faint compared to other transfers another screen please :D can't wait for the Blu-Ray :P that face how many details
I totally agree :D

zambelli

17th August 2007, 03:14

Disney use H264 solution from CinemaCraft because it is easy and quick to use it.
The speed encoding of this solution is fast (much faster than PEP/CineVision PSE:
@ Sagitaire, CC-HDe use all processor core not like PEP).
You do know that most pro places are running PEP (PSE) on 16- and 32-blade servers, and not on a single machine, right?

Golgot13

17th August 2007, 09:32

You do know that most pro places are running PEP (PSE) on 16- and 32-blade servers, and not on a single machine, right?

Yes, you're right. PEP is the best VC1 tool and most companies use it because they received for free.
PEP can use network encoding process, disadvantage for CC-HDe (use by Disney).

But CC-HDe need only 2 or 3 time viideo process (1hour of video need no more than 3hours).
And about network encoding process, Sony BAE-VA700 H.264/AVC Encoder can do it:
http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/products/bluprint.asp?page=otherencoders
Some US house studios, which work with you (MS), will receive soon Sony AVC encoder.

Sagittaire

17th August 2007, 10:01

You do know that most pro places are running PEP (PSE) on 16- and 32-blade servers, and not on a single machine, right?

Well I think that for encoding at 1080p and 30 Mbps with H264 for BD, simple core 2 Q at 3.0 Ghz can make real time encoding. Use best search setting (insane RDO, insane ME) is useless in this case. Moreover massive paralleling encoding is not a really good way to obtain an optimal rate control quality.

Sharktooth

17th August 2007, 16:00

cannuck

17th August 2007, 16:26

Probably not for this forum, but feel free to propose a better format for maintaining full backwards compatibility with a couple decades of .doc files within XML

I brought up M$'s ethics; because, it seems that folks in this forum are very, very, very supportive of Open Source software (and maybe Linux OS as well). And would be very very upset if Open Source software was killed off and/or Linux was killed off!

And if one spends some time reading the various articles on Groklaw about M$ and Open Source software - one can get a good picture of what M$ is doing. Today's entry is a good one about M$ and XML.

Official objections regarding the way matters were handled in Switzerland at the recent vote over whether or not to approve MS-OOXML as an ISO standard have just been filed [PDF] by Free Software Foundation Europe. FSFE is asking that the outcome be declared invalid, and if not, it threatens legal action. There is also now an official appeal by the Swiss Internet User Group (SIUG).

http://www.groklaw.net/

benwaggoner

17th August 2007, 17:59

I brought up M$'s ethics; because, it seems that folks in this forum are very, very, very supportive of Open Source software (and maybe Linux OS as well). And would be very very upset if Open Source software was killed off and/or Linux was killed off!
In the context of this forum, we'd welcome your efforts on an open-source implementatio of VC-1 playback or encoding.

It's not a codec we control in any meaningful way - licensing is handled by MPEG-LA like MPEG-2 and H.264, and the standard is controlled by SMPTE.

If you think open source is a better way to develop video codecs, go for it!

cannuck

17th August 2007, 19:07

In the context of this forum,

I am sure that part of the context of this forum (and any other forum) is a concerned about the ethics of any corporation involved with products that in some way touch the forum.

Groklaw brings up, on a regular basis, serious question abouts M$'s behaviour; with people alleging that M$'s behaviour amounts to a orchestrated effort to weaken and/or to wipe M$'s Open Source competitors (all Open Source?) off the planet.

benwaggoner

17th August 2007, 20:27

I am sure that part of the context of this forum (and any other forum) is a concerned about the ethics of any corporation involved with products that in some way touch the forum.

Groklaw brings up, on a regular basis, serious question abouts M$'s behaviour; with people alleging that M$'s behaviour amounts to a orchestrated effort to weaken and/or to wipe M$'s Open Source competitors (all Open Source?) off the planet.
Well, how about you call my bluff and contribute to or support an open-source VC-1 implementation :). That'd sure show us!

Really, VC-1 is a technology we created, but don't control. You don't hear Google complaining about having to use AJAX, do you?

virus

17th August 2007, 23:16

It's not a codec we control in any meaningful way - licensing is handled by MPEG-LA like MPEG-2 and H.264, and the standard is controlled by SMPTE.

And the related patents are owned by...? the Tooth Fairy?

If you think open source is a better way to develop video codecs, go for it!

LOL.

So you're saying that FOSS developers should support VC-1, a format where Microsoft has an huge competitive advantage over the rest of the industry (you had the codec ready - or almost ready - before even submitting the standard, so the rest of the competiton had still to start from scratch while you were ready to market) and thus help Microsoft make more and more money (by bolstering a market segment where they're already leaders)?

Money which your executives will in turn spend to fund horrors like SCO or Mindcraft or that Alexis de Tocqueville Institution, or putting up some "Get The Facts" FUD campaign, or even that ridiculous "Linux breaks 235 of our patents, but we won't tell you which ones" crap?

Man, you must be kidding. FOSS developers should cooperate with a company which aims at hurting FOSS in every possible way, up to and including straight lies? Let me LOL.
Maybe you really believed at your CEO's keynotes about "Microsoft's vision for interoperability" like if it was actually true, but I guess FOSS people are smarter than that, and won't buy it.

Let's leave VC-1 at those who are content to hear the "we have no intentions to sue, for now" mantra, and maybe support ISO standards developed by a large group of companies of various size, and thus where competition (real competition, I mean) existed from day one.

Sharktooth

18th August 2007, 16:03

M$ is looking for someone wich produces an OS VC-1 encoder for free so companies can develop VC-1 encoders easily. In other words they're trying to take advantage of the OSS community to earn more money thru patents.
I dont think it will happen though... ;)

CruNcher

18th August 2007, 16:09

@all
some updates on my grain preservation testing im @ qp 24 now and still grain is their in H.264 (Main Profile) :) (Blu-Ray Mpeg-2 as source) gonna post screens as soon as i found the end seems near the 30 grain preservation isn't possible anymore (test ongoing, changed some standard X.264 RC settings also, later more :) ) my target is DVD5 (but i doub't i gonna reach that seeing the current results hmmm (no resize no nothing yet, even no cropping plain input, so still some bits to save somewhere if necessary also high profile still available as option ;) ), not without post processing tough, but hey im since the beginning a low bitrate encoder so let's try to reach it somehow ;) ).
I hope VC-1 can do even better @ ben and zambelli some settings for maximum grain preservation from a (Max: 27 mbit AVG: 20 mbit) source for the consumer encoder would be fine, thx :D

PS: Processing speed @ the moment is roughly @ 5 fps (1080p) on my 2.4 Ghz Singlecore system now :)

Sagittaire

18th August 2007, 16:22

@all
some updates on my grain preservation testing im @ qp 24 now and still grain is their in H.264 (Main Profile) :) (Blu-Ray Mpeg-2 as source) gonna post screens as soon as i found the end seems near the 30 grain preservation isn't possible anymore.
I hope VC-1 can do even better @ ben and zambelli some settings for maximum grain preservation from a (Max: 27 mbit AVG: 20 mbit) source for the consumer encoder would be fine, thx :D

Try with Elecard/Mainconcept implementation ... you have a very good optimisation for grain preservation. If you want grain preservation with x264 you must use particular profil and use particular filtering (fine grain filtering, dark noise filtering).

@REM >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
@REM >> HDDVD 1080p
@REM >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

x264.exe --threads 1 --thread-input --keyint 14 --min-keyint 2 --vbv-maxrate 21000 --vbv-init 1.0 --vbv-bufsize 14745 --mvrange 511 --level 4.1 --bframe 1 --bime --weightb --ref 1 --mixed-refs --direct auto --deblock -2:-2 --bitrate 8500 --pass 1 --stats "x264_stat.log" --qcomp 0.75 --ipratio 1.10 --pbratio 1.10 --partitions "all" --8x8dct --me "hex" --subme 5 --aud --nal-hrd --pulldown 32 --sar 1:1 --cqmfile Sagittaire.cfg --deadzone-intra 6 --deadzone-inter 6 --aq-strength 0.25 --aq-sensitivity 5 --progress -o 1080p_1.264 xxx.avs

x264.exe --threads 1 --thread-input --keyint 14 --min-keyint 2 --vbv-maxrate 21000 --vbv-init 1.0 --vbv-bufsize 14745 --mvrange 511 --level 4.1 --bframe 1 --bime --weightb --ref 3 --mixed-refs --direct auto --deblock -2:-2 --bitrate 8500 --pass 3 --stats "x264_stat.log" --qcomp 0.75 --ipratio 1.10 --pbratio 1.10 --partitions "all" --8x8dct --me "hex" --subme 6 --no-fast-pskip --no-dct-decimate --trellis 0 --aud --nal-hrd --pulldown 32 --sar 1:1 --cqmfile Sagittaire.cfg --deadzone-intra 6 --deadzone-inter 6 --aq-strength 0.25 --aq-sensitivity 5 --progress -o 1080p_2.264 xxx.avs

x264.exe --threads 1 --thread-input --keyint 14 --min-keyint 2 --vbv-maxrate 21000 --vbv-init 1.0 --vbv-bufsize 14745 --mvrange 511 --level 4.1 --bframe 1 --bime --weightb --ref 3 --mixed-refs --direct auto --deblock -2:-2 --bitrate 8500 --pass 3 --stats "x264_stat.log" --qcomp 0.75 --ipratio 1.10 --pbratio 1.10 --partitions "all" --8x8dct --me "umh" --subme 7 --no-fast-pskip --no-dct-decimate --trellis 0 --aud --nal-hrd --pulldown 32 --sar 1:1 --cqmfile Sagittaire.cfg --deadzone-intra 6 --deadzone-inter 6 --aq-strength 0.25 --aq-sensitivity 5 --progress -o 1080p_3.264 xxx.avs

CruNcher

18th August 2007, 16:52

Inventive Software

18th August 2007, 17:26

Regarding the tit-for-tat discussion about MS' so-called "tactics" with releasing WMV9 then submitting a standard that then subsequently got accepted by both the MPEG-LA and SMPTE (I LOL BTW at the idea that MS would wait for an FOSS implementation so that they could make more money from the people who generate deviants from it, because the FOSS codec is crappier than MS' codec), just bear in mind that it's a new standard, still being fully understood, and that MS may have the best codec implementation for now, but give it time and libavcodec will have a better decoder for ya. For free. ;)

Their H.264 decoder is a good example, piss-poor in the early stages, as you'd expect with a theoretical piece of code, but once it garnered attention, it gained speed (and quality) like a freight train and is one of the best implementations of an H.264 decoder, only really lacking multi-threading. Only took, what, 3 years? ;)

virus

18th August 2007, 18:59

just bear in mind that it's a new standard, still being fully understood, and that MS may have the best codec implementation for now, but give it time and libavcodec will have a better decoder for ya. For free. ;)

And your point is?
I'm getting a hard time figuring out what a decoder in libavcodec has to do with a call to develop a FOSS encoder. And the fact that it'd be free, what does it have to do with concern about patent-related litigations as well as the nonsense of supporting one's own worst enemy? By the way, the price tag for having such code (a VC-1 encoder) in a free system might be much higher than "free" for those who distribute it.

You just seem to pile up arguments unrelated to the point.

Sagittaire

18th August 2007, 19:01

@Sagittaire
this is for now unconstrained gonna post HD-DVD results in the HD-DVD thread tough ;) i now hit the 8 mbit mark PQ is still clear but slowly motion coused interferences are visible (grain is still preserved enough) :)

dont change anything for search setting:

x264.exe --threads 1 --thread-input --bframe 1 --bime --weightb --ref 5 --mixed-refs --direct auto --deblock -2:-2 --bitrate 8500 --pass 3 --stats "x264_stat.log" --qcomp 0.75 --ipratio 1.10 --pbratio 1.10 --partitions "all" --8x8dct --me "hex" --subme 6 --no-fast-pskip --no-dct-decimate --trellis 0 --cqmfile Sagittaire.cfg --deadzone-intra 6 --deadzone-inter 6 --aq-strength 0.25 --aq-sensitivity 5 --progress -o yyy.264 xxx.avs

Use CQM
Don't use brdo
Use lower deadzone
Use lower inloop strength
Don't use trellis

And use filtering in dark zone and for really fine grain. Anyway Mainconcept/Elecard with grain optimisation will be always better than x264 (with all possible optimized setting) for grain preservation.

CruNcher

18th August 2007, 21:13

yeah but it won't help anyways my target was 3 mbit :P but without post processing it's undoable even with the highest compression factor that takes 12x the runtime to encode (but even if it would give good results it would be still unaceptable as it would be totaly out of balance then) it won't work out :P
So with up to 6 mbit with 3x the runtime for encoding, i could preserve the grain without useing rdo settings, but very low settings actually still Main Profile, everything under that is dreaming (with allready lossy compressed grainy source as base) ;), now that will be the mark for VC-1 to conquer 1080p 6 Mbit + grain preservation for 3h runtime, my target is also not 3 passes but 1 ;)

Sagittaire

18th August 2007, 22:03

yeah but it won't help anyways my target was 3 mbit :P but without post processing it's undoable even with the highest compression factor that takes 12x the runtime to encode it won't work out :P but impressive up to 6 mbit with 3x the runtime for encoding, i could preserve the grain without really useing rdo settings but very low settings actually still Main Profile, everything under that is dreaming (with compressed grainy source as base) ;), now that will be the mark for VC-1 to conquer 1080p 6 Mbit + grain preservation for 3h runtime, my target is also not 3 passes but 1 ;)

1) Grain is a killer for entropy and for bitrate. You can't preserve grain with very low bitrate (high quantizer). RDO is not really usefull for grain preservation.

2) Replace simply --bitrate 8500 --pass 3 by crf mode if you want 1 pass ... lol

3) VC1 and XviD produce similar result for grain preservation. Try with XviD at your bitrate level. VC1 can't preserve grain in general case at 6 Mbps for 1080p encoding.

In fact grain/noise is very difficult for all the codec and the structural advantage for H264 can't really help in this case. If you want preserve grain at very low bitrate the only way is H264 implementation with FGM.

CruNcher

19th August 2007, 11:01

ehh the complete grain doesn't need to be preserved @ all only a small amount is enough to belive it is grain (don't forget we doing lossy stuff here) and it's not added @ the decoding level but some leftofs of the original lossy Film Grain Layer so it looks more natural to the viewer (motion and apearance) (im a full HVS guy with lossy codecs and very low bitrate achivements i make trades there, else i would encode lossless but as you maybe allready heared 1000 times from me those tradeoffs have to be balanced based on multiple factors :P and 1 of them is definetly the encoding time for me, even if for most people it isn't)

here a compare screen of the 6 Mbit result (i frame) (@ 8.5 mbit it should be preserved almost transparently) (compression factor 3x) (but don't forget my target was 3 mbit) ;)
i took a scene where you can see splotches and problems from the transfer itself, also those are preserved (the Layer above the Film Grain Layer and as i said a small amount of the original lossy Film Grain Layer under it)

http://s2.directupload.net/images/070819/U546J34C.png

VC-1 has to top this result

as you can see the Film Grain Layer is still pretty good preserved (not fully intact tough, in motion it looks pretty good)

In fact grain/noise is very difficult for all the codec and the structural advantage for H264 can't really help in this case. If you want preserve grain at very low bitrate the only way is H264 implementation with FGM.
Also this takes some time at least Atemes version needs more encoding time (denoise and then renoise) for 1080p it takes long and would hurt the balance again badly, but sure @ the moment the most efficient, but i doesn't search for the most efficient but most balanced way :P, and i know what im doing Sagittaire i asked for VC-1 settings not H.264 ;)

Sharktooth

19th August 2007, 14:19

what's the quantizer value of the encoded frame?

CruNcher

19th August 2007, 14:36

Sagittaire

19th August 2007, 14:52

it's 28 higher is problematic as then the grain gets destroyed even HVS wise for the motion and 12x encoding is a no go for me (It doesn't help that much anyways) :P
for the 3 mbit DVD5 target i know i will endup @ 1440x1080p or even 720p for sure allready

Well I can certainely produce really better result with H264. You have a small sample (30 sec)? The most important for noisy source is not the codec itself but certainely more the pre-process. Moreover x264 is not the best implementation for grain preservation. If you want grain preservation with high speed Mainconcept/Elecard implementation is definitively a better way. VC1 use for exemple internal pre-process filter (dark noise filter, denoising) for better grain preservation.

CruNcher

19th August 2007, 16:03

btw be carefull with deadzones in x264 it can destroy (deconverts) the Motion blur of the Film camera (oversharping) ass seen above or on the other side blur your results --deadzone-intra 6 blurs to much (less filesize sure but suboptimal with the standard flat matrix) :( we need an adaptive deadzones like VC-1 has it great advantage HVS wise for High Motion to blur everything out *g* (extreme example) (only very fast action scenes) and to save bits for (longer more important) low motion scenes (notes that for his ongoing (HVS) HD encoder tweaking) :) another not so extreme option adaptive it on the qp range ofcourse :P, both for sure could also be done segmentatialy in our world called "zones" (actually alot of new stuff to test and balance out for x264) :)

akupenguin

20th August 2007, 00:13

CruNcher

20th August 2007, 02:22

Compared to what? --deadzone-intra 6 is higher bitrate and less blurry per qp than the default 11.

Yep sorry blur was wrong strange might be that i was in the wrong position to the LCD when looking @ it :d but clearly it can be seen that --deadzone-intra 0 allready oversharpens or might this be QPEL ?

cmdline = x264 --qp 28 --qpmin 28 --qpmax 28 --ipratio 1 --pbratio 1 --min-keyint 1 --keyint 1 --no-fast-pskip --no-dct-decimate --bframes 0 --no-deblock --subme 2 --me dia --partitions "i4x4" --deadzone-intra x <- btw try this without --no-deblock ;) funny thing CoreAVC plays this back without problems most of the other decoder show strange blocks and luma changes in the black area with inloop on :P

Source
http://s3.directupload.net/images/070820/MUek8U5p.png

--deadzone-intra 0
http://s1.directupload.net/images/070820/tPc67O7n.png

--deadzone-intra 1
http://s2.directupload.net/images/070820/PkQCxbF2.png

--deadzone-intra 2
http://s1.directupload.net/images/070820/9OU7y7CH.png

--deadzone-intra 3
http://s1.directupload.net/images/070820/ATuUWzzk.png

--deadzone-intra 4
http://s3.directupload.net/images/070820/pf4wE4XA.png

--deadzone-intra 5
http://s2.directupload.net/images/070820/y4lg9dPV.png

--deadzone-intra 6
http://s2.directupload.net/images/070820/sM62rjj9.png

--deadzone-intra 11
http://s1.directupload.net/images/070820/k59J4JSn.png

Sharktooth

20th August 2007, 02:29

the pic encoded with deadzone-intra 0 looks best to my eyes even if the bitrate is clearly too low
however there are artifacts on the source too... so it's definatly a bad source :)

zambelli

20th August 2007, 02:31

And the related patents are owned by...? the Tooth Fairy?
Check your facts before you go accusing others of FUD. There are 16 companies in the VC-1 patent pool which covers 125 different patents. 2 of these are owned by Microsoft.

On the flipside, Microsoft also owns patents in H.264: http://www.mpegla.com/news/n_03-11-17_avc.html

Maybe you should read this article by The Register (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/04/14/microsoft_vc-1_codec_analysis/) to gain a better understanding of how much exactly Microsoft is expected to "profit" from VC-1 patents and licensing. Note that the article isn't particularly favorable towards VC-1 either.

"The license may in fact only be a license by which Microsoft can pay everyone else fees. There are no less than 16 separate companies that are deemed to have patents that are essential for VC-1 to work, the latest addition to the 15 company list that was first issued last August, being Korean number three handset maker, Pantech Curitel.

Between them they speak for 125 separate patents that are listed in the license, and a total of two of these are allocated to Microsoft. Every other supplier of essential technology including Daewoo, France Telecom, société anonyme (which presumably includes patents from close associates of France Telecom also) Fujitsu, Philips, LG, Matsushita, Mitsubishi, NTT Pantech Curitel, Samsung, Sharp, Sony, Telenor, Toshiba JVC, have more patents at stake that Microsoft (except for two of the above) and many of them have many more."

So you're saying that FOSS developers should support VC-1, a format where Microsoft has an huge competitive advantage over the rest of the industry (you had the codec ready - or almost ready - before even submitting the standard, so the rest of the competiton had still to start from scratch while you were ready to market) and thus help Microsoft make more and more money (by bolstering a market segment where they're already leaders)?
If Microsoft had kept WMV9 proprietary and never opened it up for standardization, would that have made you happier? I sincerely doubt it. Microsoft took a huge financial hit by standardizing WMV9, from letting other companies claim patents in its codec, to making its own released codec subject to a 3rd party's licensing demands. That doesn't exactly sound like a "huge competetive advantage".

Let's leave VC-1 at those who are content to hear the "we have no intentions to sue, for now" mantra, and maybe support ISO standards developed by a large group of companies of various size, and thus where competition (real competition, I mean) existed from day one.
I think your view of the world is a bit naive. Do you think those companies in the ISO and ITU standardization committees are there for fun? Software is a business. ALL those companies are looking to make money. So if you think you're "sticking it to The Man" by boycotting VC-1 or Microsoft, I would like to thank you for your continued support of H.264 on behalf of Fujitsu, LG, Matsushita, Mitsubishi, Motorola, Nokia, Philips, Samsung, Sony, Toshiba, JVC - and last but certainly not least, Microsoft. I'm sure the proceeds of H.264 licensing are all going towards finding a cure for AIDS and building shelters for puppies.

CruNcher

20th August 2007, 02:43

@Sharktooth
then look @ this same settings --deadzone-intra 0 difference is just prestige matrix and qp 34

http://s1.directupload.net/images/070820/smimDD4A.png

is it my lcd position again or do you also see a chroma difference
here ?

Sharktooth EQM AVC-HR qp 32
http://s1.directupload.net/images/070820/C23ywXvT.png

hmm the prestige seems to suck up green right ?

Maximum SSIM
Prestige Matrix = 0.9999871
Flat Matrix = 0.9999856
EQM AVC-HR = 0.9992338

Sharktooth

20th August 2007, 14:03

There's indeed a chroma difference in some areas.
ill try to improve EQM AVC-HR coz it looks better and less blocky to my eyes even if the SSIM is lower.

virus

20th August 2007, 15:43

Check your facts before you go accusing others of FUD. There are 16 companies in the VC-1 patent pool which covers 125 different patents. 2 of these are owned by Microsoft.

Been there, done that. All of that has been known for ages. The point is that Microsoft owns patents in VC-1, not that it owns them all. That's enough to trigger litigation based on those patents.

On the flipside, Microsoft also owns patents in H.264

Indeed, and that's already a risk for FOSS-based systems. And one of the main reasons for not adding further risk to an already risky situation. Especially since VC-1 is not a breakthrough advancement over H.264 by any means.

Maybe you should read

Been there, done that. I've read that well before you gracefully pointed me to it, thanks for your assistance.

If Microsoft had kept WMV9 proprietary and never opened it up for standardization, would that have made you happier? I sincerely doubt it.

Nobody is taking issue with opening up the standard here.
Again, you're making points unrelated to the issues.

Microsoft took a huge financial hit by standardizing WMV9, from letting other companies claim patents in its codec, to making its own released codec subject to a 3rd party's licensing demands.

"Its" codec? You mean Microsoft's codec?
You've just pointed me to articles to show that Microsoft owns just a fraction of the technology they've always claimed as their own... what "hit" are you talking about? Unless by "hit" you mean "dividing the license fees with those who own the technology".

In other words: doing it the right way is a financial hit? So you're saying Microsoft should have kept it secret and keep the other owners' money for themselves? That's a curious stance to say the least.

That doesn't exactly sound like a "huge competetive advantage".

However, my point about the competitive advantage was about the number of existing implementations, as well as the process of development of the standard itself. The difference between MPEG standards and VC-1 in both those areas is staggering, expecially in the latter.

Software is a business. ALL those companies are looking to make money.

Agreed, the world is a bitch, isn't it?

However, I'd like to point out one of the main differences between Microsoft and other patent holders, including the likes of IBM, Motorola, Nokia, Philips and other giants which are "there for the money" exactly as Microsoft. And that difference has to do with FOSS, which is what is discussed here (I remember someone calling for a free software implementation of a VC-1 encoder, and that wasn't me).

I've never heard Motorola's executives say something on the likes of "Get your money and let's go to court!" (Craig Mundie, MS executive, during an Open Source convention).
I've never heard IBM's executives describing Linux as a "cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it touches" (Steve Ballmer, MS executive).
I've also never heard Nokia's executives claim that FOSS violates 235 of their patents and refraining to rule out the possibility to sue even users for royalties (Ballmer & co., that's from 2007)
And I'm not aware of "LG, Matsushita, Mitsubishi, NTT Pantech Curitel, Samsung, Sharp" and the other lithany of patent holders you've pointed out giving funds to SCO (check [url=http://news.com.com/Fact+and+fiction+in+the+Microsoft-SCO+relationship/2100-7344_3-5450515.html]here (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/04/14/microsoft_vc-1_codec_analysis/) for a quite honest analysis of what was true and what was not - there's so much material on that). Nor to explicitly design licenses to prevent implementation by FOSS projects, as happened to CIFS and apparently to .NET too.

And I could go on again and again, embarrassing leaked memos, harsh interviews, implied threats, and a lot of straight FUD (some of it mentioned in my previous post). A partial account of some of that is collected here (http://eupat.ffii.org/players/microsoft).

Nice, heh? Microsoft among all patent holders aggressively portraits itself (yeah, no gun pointed to Steve Ballmer's head, apparently) as FOSS' worst danger and my vision of the world would be naive? LOL. Now it's my time to invite you to check the facts.
Let me repeat it straight: FOSS should stay away from everything that smells Microsoft, and may even remotely help them make money (yes, even if it's 2/125 of the total pie, it's still money, and they're all out for the money, no?).
And no, I don't need the companies to spend them for curing AIDS or whatnot, it'd be enough to avoid funding the possibile annihilation of many FOSS projects and related companies.

Some of that crap is already in - mainly for interoperability purposes, and sadly x264 is part of the risk, but heck, as I pointed out, VC-1 and H.264 are *different* and at least in H.264's case, it's perhaps a worthy risk. Or maybe not.
But man, Microsoft really deserves nothing from FOSS developers. No help, no collaboration, no code, nothing. They're the MPAA/RIAA of software: "you own a computer, so you're (ab)using our IP. Pay up or you're stealing money."

Sharktooth

20th August 2007, 15:57

we all know what the $ stands for in Micro$oft... that's why i hope an OS VC-1 codec will never be implemented at least until M$ releases the sources under the GPL (and not the stupid M$-PL M$ is trying to push for OSI approval...) of a reference encoder/decoder.
"Sometimes you should get your hands dirty if no one wants to make the dirty job for you" (a revisited version of "users must pay for what they get":p)...

akupenguin

20th August 2007, 16:02

it can be seen that --deadzone-intra 0 allready oversharpens or might this be QPEL ?
Quite possible. Deadzone 0 means that coefficients are equally likely to be rounded up or down. If an AC coefficient is rounded up, you get ringing. With default deadzone, coefficients are usually rounded down.

is it my lcd position again or do you also see a chroma difference here ?
There should be a chroma difference. Prestige doesn't modify the chroma matrices, so prestige@qp34 quantizes chroma more than default@qp28.
--chroma-qp-offset -6 to compensate (for appropriate values of 6).

CruNcher

20th August 2007, 22:00

Thx for the usefull info aku hmm would it be possible to only use Hpel instead of Qpel with a lower subme then 1 --subme 0 ist still free could you make it the Hpel only mode :)

cmdline = x264 --qp 28 --qpmin 28 --qpmax 28 --ipratio 1 --pbratio 1 --min-keyint 1 --keyint 1 --no-fast-pskip --no-dct-decimate --bframes 0 --no-deblock --subme 2 --me dia --partitions "i4x4" --deadzone-intra x <- btw try this without --no-deblock funny thing CoreAVC plays this back without problems most of the other decoder show strange blocks and luma changes in the black area with inloop on :P

And wich decoders are correct those who show this strange errors (luma changes, blocks) or those who seem to ignore this ?, libavcodec shows the problems btw, and what about makeing x264 commandline a little more error prone to this i have to agree "crazy settings combinations" so such problems (incompatible bitstreams) can't be created at all by the user, i know you don't wan't to make this a 1 click encoder but some error proness i think sometimes should be in and some crazy stuff the user shouldn't be able todo ;)

akupenguin

21st August 2007, 06:40

When submitting bug reports, minimize the complexity of the commandline. In this case, your command is equivalent to "x264 --qp 28 --ipratio 1 --keyint 1".

"error prone" is not the term you're looking for. You mean "error resilient" or "idiot proof".

I can't reproduce any flickering the the black mattes of my clips. Please post your source and encoded video.
I do see flickering in the non-black areas of my clips. That's directly caused by intra-only compression. All intra-only codecs suffer from similar problems, though h264 is slightly worse than most (in perceived flicker per psnr, not necessarily per bitrate) due to the directional intra prediction.

CruNcher

21st August 2007, 10:52

hmm it's gone could have been also a problem with fffmpegsource that is now fixed (compiler problem) sorry (but it's funny to know that CoreAVC was not affected by this but all the other decoder :P were going crazy.

cannuck

21st August 2007, 15:09

I think your view of the world is a bit naive. @zambelli

Speaking of "world view"; when one decides on whether or not to use/buy a brand product from a corporation; the ethics of a corporation comes into play for most people. "Blood Diamonds" is a good example of the latter.

Microsoft has it's fingers in a number of "pies"; likely hundreds of pies. And the VC-1 it just one of Microsoft's pies.

And if ... if one of Microsoft's pies is to destroy, minimize or control the entire (not just a video codec!!) Open Source, Linux, and FOSS "industries" ; then that would cause anyone to wonder whether or not to use/buy any Microsoft product.

Again, judging by the info on the above, posted about Microsoft on Groklaw; one has to wonder.

Dark Shikari

21st August 2007, 15:27

@zambelli

Speaking of "world view"; when one decides on whether or not to use/buy a brand product from a corporation; the ethics of a corporation comes into play for most people. "Blood Diamonds" is a good example of the latter.

Microsoft has it's fingers in a number of "pies"; likely hundreds of pies. And the VC-1 it just one of Microsoft's pies.

And if ... if one of Microsoft's pies is to destroy, minimize or control the entire (not just a video codec!!) Open Source, Linux, and FOSS "industries" ; then that would cause anyone to wonder whether or not to use/buy any Microsoft product.

Again, judging by the info on the above, posted about Microsoft on Groklaw; one has to wonder.http://mshiltonj.com/software_wars/current/current.png

I can't find VC-1 on the map though.

Sharktooth

21st August 2007, 15:34

uhm... maybe the map it's not up to date or even "incomplete"... :)

Dark Shikari

21st August 2007, 15:57

uhm... maybe the map it's not up to date or even "incomplete"... :)I know it was a joke :p

Sagittaire

21st August 2007, 16:32

and HDDVD vs BD, VC1 vs H264, XboX vs PS3 ...

Sharktooth

21st August 2007, 16:37

Sincerely, i prefer both HD-DVD and Xbox360 over BD and PS3 but yes, it's another battlefield... :)

crypto

21st August 2007, 18:41

and Silverlight vs. Flash...

BTW. Flash 9 will have H.264.

Which brings us back on track: VC-1 vs H.264

Sharktooth

21st August 2007, 19:37

SilverCrap(tm) doesnt work on Opera too...

cannuck

21st August 2007, 21:22

BTW. Flash 9 will have H.264.

Will?? Flash Does Have H.264!! :)

http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/flashplayer9/

CruNcher

21st August 2007, 21:39

Sincerely, i prefer both HD-DVD and Xbox360 over BD and PS3 but yes, it's another battlefield... :)

You really seem to underestimate this, it means for the future who will controll our livingrooms and you can decide now by buying either Sony - Asia / Microsoft - America it's war and you can chose your prefered side you wan't to colaborate with ;)

cannuck

21st August 2007, 22:07

who will control

Well that's the 64,000 Question.

Tokyo has 7,000,0000 cell phone users now watching TV on their cell phones (7,000,000 signed up in one year?).

Digital TV stations can now broadcast direct to cell phones (no cell service provider required).

And iTunes has proven that a Disc is redundant when it comes to music.

Plus IBM got a CPU cooking at 500 GHZ and say will be 1000 GHZ soon.

So what's next! "Dinosaurs" will be extinct soon. ;)

cannuck

21st August 2007, 22:18

The 7,000,000 in Tokyo might be 700,000 (I'll check)

The Digtal TV station direct to cell phone uses H.264/AAC/DMB ! ;)

zambelli

22nd August 2007, 07:24

Been there, done that. All of that has been known for ages. The point is that Microsoft owns patents in VC-1, not that it owns them all. That's enough to trigger litigation based on those patents.
Your comment certainly didn't sound like you knew that. Ben pointed out that VC-1 is in the same licensing boat as MPEG-2 and MPEG-4, which you then apparently dismissed and redirected attention to patent ownership. Why? There's no difference there either, as the article shows, so why mention it?
Indeed, and that's already a risk for FOSS-based systems. And one of the main reasons for not adding further risk to an already risky situation. Especially since VC-1 is not a breakthrough advancement over H.264 by any means.
Pretty much every FOSS codec implementation puts FOSS into a risky situation, so why draw the line at VC-1? If you really drew a line at every technology ever touched by Microsoft, you wouldn't get very far in computing.

Nobody is taking issue with opening up the standard here. Again, you're making points unrelated to the issues.
I'm making points unrelated to the issues? Your post contains an entire paragraph about Microsoft corporate ethics that's way beyond scope of this thread. Are you having a discussion with me or Steve Ballmer?
In other words: doing it the right way is a financial hit? So you're saying Microsoft should have kept it secret and keep the other owners' money for themselves? That's a curious stance to say the least.
No, I'm precisely saying the opposite: Microsoft did do the right thing by standardizing the codec, and it did it at a financial loss, not profit.
However, my point about the competitive advantage was about the number of existing implementations, as well as the process of development of the standard itself. The difference between MPEG standards and VC-1 in both those areas is staggering, expecially in the latter.
But doesn't standardizing a proprietary codec in fact take away the competetive advantage in the short term?
And I could go on again and again, embarrassing leaked memos, harsh interviews, implied threats, and a lot of straight FUD (some of it mentioned in my previous post). A partial account of some of that is collected here (http://eupat.ffii.org/players/microsoft).
Not everything that's posted on the Internet is necessarily true. For example, that article contains this statement:

"In 2000, Microsoft forced a free sofware project to abandon support for its patented video streaming format ASF." (Clearly a reference to VirtualDub.)

"Forced"? Microsoft hardly forced Avery Lee to drop ASF support. No lawyers were ever involved, no threats were ever made, and it's doubtful that the patent claim was anything more than a rogue action of an individual. If you don't believe me, ask Avery about how exactly that whole thing went down. I'd take with a huge grain of salt any article that's based on hear-say.
Let me repeat it straight: FOSS should stay away from everything that smells Microsoft, and may even remotely help them make money (yes, even if it's 2/125 of the total pie, it's still money, and they're all out for the money, no?).
If that's not a naive, then it's certainly an impractical attitude.
But man, Microsoft really deserves nothing from FOSS developers. No help, no collaboration, no code, nothing. They're the MPAA/RIAA of software: "you own a computer, so you're (ab)using our IP. Pay up or you're stealing money."
You should probably tell that to the millions of FOSS developers who use and prefer the Windows platform, tools and products. I think you're taking a very hardline stance in a world where extreme points of view don't go very far. I personally don't see FOSS and Microsoft as opposing or mutually exclusive forces because I think both can contribute to the quality and depth of a PC ecosystem, and we've certainly seen many examples of that particularly in the video software niche.

virus

22nd August 2007, 16:42

Why? There's no difference there either, as the article shows, so why mention it?

No futher comments here, I've already explained this very clearly in my previous post.

Pretty much every FOSS codec implementation puts FOSS into a risky situation, so why draw the line at VC-1?

Already explained that extensively, too.

If you really drew a line at every technology ever touched by Microsoft, you wouldn't get very far in computing.

"Touched" is maybe not the right word. Microsoft has "touched" a lot of stuff, including unpatented (and unpatentable) stuff. They've also touched stuff patented by someone else. It's more about stuff that Microsoft owns, which I think it's much less than everything - especially if parts of it get challenged. The actual borders are kinda unknown.

But when in doubt, I guess a "if possible, keep it out unless it gives a great benefit" policy is reasonable. Bundling a VC-1 encoder IMHO doesn't give "great benefit", but enables Microsoft to say "hey, you're infringing upon 237 patents, not 235!". In other words, risky stuff should be kept to a minimum.

Your post contains an entire paragraph about Microsoft corporate ethics that's way beyond scope of this thread.

So, what you don't like to hear is "beyond the scope of the thread".
This really doesn't deserve any further comments...

No, I'm precisely saying the opposite: Microsoft did do the right thing by standardizing the codec, and it did it at a financial loss, not profit.

And I repeat that you don't normally call it a "loss" when you have to return money you don't own. They had no right to keep all the license fees in the first place, so calling "financial loss" the restoration of legality is arguable at least.

But doesn't standardizing a proprietary codec in fact take away the competetive advantage in the short term?

Maybe it will, but I doubt about the short term. The process will likely take longer time with VC-1, since VC-1 almost popped out of nowhere.
Instead, MPEG standards are the fruit of an open development process which lasted years, involving open academic research, open sessions within the group(s) which develop it, freely-available documents describing the rationale behind the implementation and the choices made.
Had VC-1 been developed in a truly open manner from day one, I'd have had no grounds to speak about "competitive advantage from a single vendor".

Not everything that's posted on the Internet is necessarily true.

True, but pointing out an inaccuracy over dozens of allegations (most of which are straight quotes from public speeches and interviews) doesn't make the rest of the "evidence" less true.
There are hundreds of articles pointing out facts, can you confute them all? Are you really trying to writing them all off as "hear-say"?

If that's not a naive, then it's certainly an impractical attitude.

Yeah, it's difficult to refrain from patented code. Especially since the patent system allows to patent extremely trivial stuff. As well as to patent interfaces, which is another hurdle to overcome.
Again: this a general problem that touches all the industry, however it's mainly Microsoft who likes the "you're stealing our IP" mantra, while other companies don't seem to have this attitude.

You should probably tell that to the millions of FOSS developers who use and prefer the Windows platform, tools and products. I think you're taking a very hardline stance in a world where extreme points of view don't go very far.

I cannot decide for other people and dictate them what they must do. This is corporate behaviour, and contrary to the free software ethics.
What I can do is to make my opinion be heard and some facts been pointed out, even if "outside the scope of the thread".

Just a note: if I look around, I see that a lot of FOSS projects, probably the large majority of them (many thousands), aren't developed using Windows tools nor Windows itself.
Maybe they run under Windows, but that's a different thing. It's the very nature of FOSS that lets people make them run under the platform they want. No barriers. And no stupid patents too.

I personally don't see FOSS and Microsoft as opposing or mutually exclusive forces because I think both can contribute to the quality and depth of a PC ecosystem, and we've certainly seen many examples of that particularly in the video software niche.

Beautiful words. Now, if Microsoft's executives would actually believe in them... but sadly that's not the case. Looks like they prefer patent litigation, vendor lock-in, and other disgusting practices.

I'll repeat my stance again: it's Microsoft who chose this route, not the FOSS community. They chose it many years ago, perhaps when they recognized FOSS as something that could have potentially reduced their annual net worth - refueling a 40-meters yacht is costly, we know.
(and that's a very wrong judgement, btw. Some companies are making a ton of money with FOSS in a perfectly legal and ethically coherent way.)

But now Microsoft comes here talking about FOSS and "encouraging" it. Am I the only one who sees this as total nonsense (or self-contradiction)?