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

[zambelli]

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

[Valeron]

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

Thx

[zambelli]

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

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

[acidsex]

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

[CruNcher]

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

[Sirber]

VFW? or the big GUI?

[Valeron]

VFW? or the big GUI?

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

[acidsex]

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

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

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

[acidsex]

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

[Elias]

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

[Valeron]

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

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

[Elias]

What's DMO?

[Valeron]

What's DMO?

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

[Elias]

Is DMO the new vfw? Can VirtualDub use DMO?

[Valeron]

Is DMO the new vfw? Can VirtualDub use DMO?

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

[bond]

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

[guada 2]

Hello zambelli;

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

And i have a small question:

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


Thank you to clarify.

Bye.

[guada 2]

apparently, they are all identical. :confused:

very very strange, But why?

[Valeron]

@bond:

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

[Valeron]

Hello zambelli;

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

And i have a small question:

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


Thank you to clarify.

Bye.

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

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

[bond]

@bond:

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

[acidsex]

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

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

Anyone know what gives?

[Valeron]

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

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

[zambelli]

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

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

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

[acidsex]

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

[bond]

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

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

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

[Doom9]

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

[Elias]

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

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

[Doom9]

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

[bond]

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

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

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

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

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

[stephanV]

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

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

[bond]

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

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

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

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

[Elias]

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

[stephanV]

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

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

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

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

[vlada]

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

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

[vlada]

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

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

[bond]

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

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

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

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


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

[Elias]

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

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

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

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

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

[bond]

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

[Elias]

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

[Sagittaire]

direct link please ... !!!

[stephanV]

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

I said MPEG1 was a wide supported format...

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

[vlada]

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

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

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

[IvS]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[zambelli]

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

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

[zambelli]

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


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

[zambelli]

you are pretty sure? you are wrong :p

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


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

[zambelli]

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

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

[Sgt_Strider]

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

[vlada]

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

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

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

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

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