No 'native' container for VC-1?

[Nil Einne]

I've been thinking about the VC-1 codec standard in comparison to MPEG4. Am I right that while MPEG4 is a whole suite with the video codecs, audio codecs and container. However with VC-1 is only a video codec. There's no native container for VC-1 nor any audio codec. Microsoft treats ASF and WMA as the container and audio codec but these are closed Microsoft formats and not part of any recognised standard.

[honai]

Am I right that while MPEG4 is a whole suite with the video codecs, audio codecs and container.

No, you aren't.

There's no native container for VC-1 nor any audio codec.

Why would there be an audio codec associated with VC-1?

And please define "native container". The SMPTE standard behind VC-1 defines various transport containers, google.

Microsoft treats ASF and WMA as the container and audio codec but these are closed Microsoft formats

There are various non-Microsoft applications out there which parse and create ASF/WMV files just fine, so they can't be that closed, can they?

And as I wrote, VC-1 is pretty much standardized, going by the specification SMPTE 421M, so I don't quite get what you're aiming at with your post. You might want to rephrase it.

[Nil Einne]

No, you aren't.



Why would there be an audio codec associated with VC-1?

And please define "native container". The SMPTE standard behind VC-1 defines various transport containers, google.



There are various non-Microsoft applications out there which parse and create ASF/WMV files just fine, so they can't be that closed, can they?

And as I wrote, VC-1 is pretty much standardized, going by the specification SMPTE 421M, so I don't quite get what you're aiming at with your post. You might want to rephrase it.

As far as I'm aware, all ASF implementations were reverse engineered (which in some jurisdictions is legally dubious and in any case means you are not guaranteed you got it right or implemented everything) or based on Microsoft's reference docs (which requires you to agree to Microsoft's terms). You can't just take the standard and implement the format like you with the MPEG4 container. Also, Microsoft is free to change the format in whichever way they wish. So all in all ASF is closed and proprietry which is quite different from the MPEG4 container which is a recognised and defined standard.

What I'm trying to get at is this. I know a lot of open source/free software people are very anti WMV files. They consider MPEG4 files better then WMV because MPEG4 is a standard I'm trying to determine if their concerns have merit (obviously Ogg with Theora or Dirac and Vorbis or whatever are the ultimate as they are completely open and believed to be patent unencumbered). From what I can tell they do. WMV files almost always use WMA which is a closed format. They also use ASF which is a closed container. VC-1 itself is a standard but it's the only part of the Microsoft platform that is.

You can of course put VC-1 in AVI or MKV with some other audio codec. But this defeats the purpose of using WMV which is that it works easily for Windows users.

On the other hand with MPEG4 you have a whole standard for audio, video and container. Patent encumbered* yes but you can implement it solely based on the standard without having to reverse engineer Microsoft or anyone's products or agree to Microsoft terms. You can also put MPEG4 ASP or AVC in AVI or MKV as you can with VC-1 (in which case it's no better or worse).

Also, I did in fact search before I asked. But I couldn't and still can't find any information about transport containers for VC-1. All the sources I come across simply talk about ASF. I couldn't find any info on wikipedia either. Could you direct me to some of these sources?

*N.B. Also as ASF and WMA are patent encumbered but have not been formalised as standards, Microsoft can basically do what they want. They can deny whoever they want the right to implemented the formats or charge however much they want or change their minds whenever they want (provided they don't violate existing contracts oif course), i.e. they can basically do what they want. With MPEG4 (also VC-1 of course) as part of the ISO and other standardisation process all patent owners who participate have commited to "negotiate licenses under reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and conditions" (or not exert you rights at all). The patent owners can't suddenly change their minds, they can't discriminate and they can't charge whatever they want.

[honai]

I don't mean to be rude, but from your latest post it seems that the sole purpose of this thread is to vent anti-Microsoft sentiments. I fail to see how anything productive could come out of this, so I politley decline to take any more part in this.

[Selur]

btw. theora (VP3) and if I remember right dirac too is patented technologie but royalty free.

[Nil Einne]

honai, on the contrary, the only reason I'm looking into this is because someone was complaing about WMV and I responded with my understanding. I'm trying to determine how accurate my understanding is.

I don't think many people are aware that VC-1 is just as much a standard as are MPEG4 ASP/AVC which was the main thing I wanted to point out to this group. However I also needed to understand where WMV files (and therefore ASF and WMA) fits into the equation. Then I got to wondering if there was some alternative to ASF for containing VC-1 which would work by default on Windows. I knew that MPEG4 had a standardised native container so I got to wondering if there was such a thing as a standardised native container for VC-1. After some searches and based on my existing understanding I was pretty sure I had it all right but I wanted to verify that I did.

The whole point here is that I'm trying to determine precisely what the differences are between MPEG4 (or MPEG in general) and VC-1 from a standardisation viewpoint. Whether or not you and I agree with the need for standardisation (or openess) there are legitimate reasons why many people regard standardised (and even better open) formats as superiour. Personally I don't really give a rat's ass and I use whatever works best considering predominantly quality. But this isn't about me. I can understand why people see things different and to discuss things with them rationally I need to see things from their POV. In this regard, my opinions are irrelevant.

If you want to know, I use Windows Vista and XP and MS Office at home, I posted this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kX8oYoYy2Gc (because I regarded the media coverage as misleading and unfair to Microsoft even if funny), and I prefer VC-1 to Theora/Dirac (because they are still way too crappy). Indeed I mostly find *nix incredibly frustrating to use. (I do use BSD for a download computer and m0n0wall for a router but that's my only usage of non-MS OSes at the moment) So your accusation is without merit. I'm solely interested in the truth and in correcting misconceptions. But I can't correct misconceptions when I have my own misconceptions which is why I'm trying to make sure I understand things properly.

Indeed I originally tried to avoid going into much detail precisely because I didn't want to come across as ranting and because I don't see why it matters why I want to know. But when you responded in what I found to be a fairly hostile manner and asking me to explain better I felt I had no choice but to explain completely what I'm trying to grasp and why.

Selur, it's true the BBC owns some patents on Dirac and On2 owns some patents on Theora but they've agreed to irrevocably granted royalty free licenses to everyone (well in Theora's case they only granted it to all of humanity so if aliens come along they're SOL). So from this POV you can say they're patent unencumbered (unlike with MPEG and VC-1 where in theory you have to pay royalty fees). Anyway this is all somewhat OT. Indeed this whole tread seems to have gone so hopelessly OT that I don't know if it's salvagable :-(

[honai]

Whether or not you and I agree with the need for standardisation (or openess)

That's your own strawman. No one here argues about open standards. If you had read my initial reply you wouldn't have missed this piece of information:

VC-1 is pretty much standardized, going by the specification SMPTE 421M

Also, you're conflating several terms and issues here. "MPEG-4" referes to a set of standards, including the MPEG-4 transport container and the MPEG-4 video standards, including MPEG-4 part 10, one incarnation of which being AVC.

So asking "what is the difference between MPEG4 and VC-1" is like asking, "what is the difference between tigers and mammals". These kind of questions help no one, and I fail to see the merit of creating a thread that confuses a matter in such a way that it ends up being a complete waste of time for anyone involved.

I'm solely interested in the truth and in correcting misconceptions.

You are not "correcting misconceptions", but simply creating new ones, and further impeding meaningful discussion by simply ignoring replies that clear up your misconceptions.

So what exactly is the point of this thread? I don't get it.

[foxyshadis]

Corrected misconception, then: SMPTE RP227 is a published standard detailing VC-1 within various mpeg systems formats: mp4 (iso base media file), transport (ie, bluray), and program (ie, hd-dvd), as well as asf.

You might consider that rambling is a good way to create even more misconceptions, as people lose track of any point you're trying to get across. Brevity tends to keep topics on track.

[vlada]

Nil Einne
What exactly are you trying to find out? If you want to make a Windows user happy, give him ASF-WMV/WMA. You can store VC-1 to different containers, not only ASF, as foxyshadis already mentioned.

If you want to compare VC-1, compare it to MPEG-4 AVC. VC-1 is just a video compression. Nothing more and nothing less.

I think your first post was completely correct. What you don't understand?

[bond]

Corrected misconception, then: SMPTE RP227 is a published standard detailing VC-1 within various mpeg systems formats: mp4 (iso base media file), transport (ie, bluray), and program (ie, hd-dvd), as well as asf.are you sure about asf? any link to the smpte standard (or a document refering to it) defining vc-1 in asf?

[foxyshadis]

http://neuron2.net/misc/rp227.pdf

It turns out mp4 is standardized in RP2025, unfortunately this one isn't available. As for ASF, I doubt it's in the above so you're probably right that it's still unstandardized.

[bond]

i thought so, as afaik asf is not an open standard by any official standardisation body

[zambelli]

Correct. ASF is just a Microsoft file format.

Back to one of the original questions asked: what format can VC-1 be stored in that it will still play on all Windows systems? The answer is AVI.

Aside from that, the best suited standardized file format for VC-1 distribution would probably be MP4.