Welcome to Doom9's Forum, THE in-place to be for everyone interested in DVD conversion. Before you start posting please read the forum rules. By posting to this forum you agree to abide by the rules. |
22nd July 2007, 13:52 | #21 | Link | |||
Moderator
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 6,364
|
Quote:
If you read what happened in the committee in Portugal: Quote:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...07071812280798 Or in the committee in the USA: Quote:
@mods, Please move this to a different thread if you think this is off topic. |
|||
22nd July 2007, 21:23 | #22 | Link | |
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,752
|
Quote:
More germain to today, there are some real technical advantages to VC-1, particularly in decode complexity and ability to retain fine detail like film grain. Comparing a device like the iPod (H.264 baseline) and the Zune (VC-1 Main Profile), better decode complexity means power-constrained devices can use a superior profile, and deliver better quality at a given bitrate. 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. |
|
23rd July 2007, 03:13 | #23 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 40
|
Quote:
|
|
23rd July 2007, 06:11 | #24 | Link | |
WiLD CaRD
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toronto Canada
Posts: 258
|
Quote:
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... Last edited by PuzZLeR; 23rd July 2007 at 06:46. |
|
23rd July 2007, 07:46 | #25 | Link | ||
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: France
Posts: 2,856
|
Quote:
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. Quote:
__________________
|
||
23rd July 2007, 18:46 | #26 | Link | |
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,752
|
Quote:
Sounds like a promising option for doing some actual head-to-head testing! |
|
23rd July 2007, 19:15 | #27 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: France
Posts: 2,856
|
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.
__________________
|
23rd July 2007, 19:20 | #28 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 40
|
Quote:
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. |
|
23rd July 2007, 19:42 | #29 | Link | ||
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: France
Posts: 2,856
|
Quote:
Anyway, the document claims a 50-66% bitrate reduction for AVC and it's an overstatement. 50%, perhaps, 66%, never. Quote:
I still stand by my point of view : mpeg4 sp/asp only broke through for illegitimate distribution.
__________________
|
||
23rd July 2007, 19:59 | #30 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 40
|
Quote:
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. Last edited by Shapierian; 23rd July 2007 at 20:19. |
|
23rd July 2007, 20:12 | #31 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: France
Posts: 2,856
|
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 )
__________________
|
29th July 2007, 04:08 | #35 | Link | ||||||||
Doom9ing since 2001
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Seattle, WA, USA
Posts: 2,002
|
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/showt...&&#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. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||||
29th July 2007, 14:09 | #36 | Link | |
x264 developer
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 8,666
|
Quote:
Yet without competition, we'd probably still be using something like VP3. So in that sense, VC-1 for the win. |
|
29th July 2007, 16:49 | #37 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 9,770
|
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
__________________
Between the weak and the strong one it is the freedom which oppresses and the law that liberates (Jean Jacques Rousseau) I know, that I know nothing (Socrates) MPEG-4 ASP FAQ | AVC/H.264 FAQ | AAC FAQ | MP4 FAQ | MP4Menu stores DVD Menus in MP4 (guide) Ogg Theora | Ogg Vorbis use WM9 today and get Micro$oft controlling the A/V market tomorrow for free |
30th July 2007, 20:31 | #38 | Link | |
<The VFW Sheep of Death>
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Deathly pasture of VFW
Posts: 1,149
|
Quote:
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?
__________________
Recommended all-in-one stop for x264/GCC needs on Windows: Komisar x264 builds! |
|
30th July 2007, 21:56 | #39 | Link | ||
Doom9ing since 2001
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Seattle, WA, USA
Posts: 2,002
|
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
||
30th July 2007, 23:10 | #40 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Germany
Posts: 4,926
|
Quote:
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 $
__________________
all my compares are riddles so please try to decipher them yourselves :) It is about Time Join the Revolution NOW before it is to Late ! http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=168004 Last edited by CruNcher; 30th July 2007 at 23:39. |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|