Where can I find VC-1 decoder?

[bond]

True that. WMV is a great codec because of its Windows compatibility and the wide variety of encoders for itwide variety of encoders? i only count one: the one from microsoft ;)

[siddharthagandhi]

Microsoft's

Nic's

Stoik

Windows Movie Maker

theres more too, but those are the only ones i have used

[bond]

those are all using the same codec

[siddharthagandhi]

Yea, well, I'm trying to point out that if you don't like the interface or options in one you can try out another, and mostly all are freeware...

[zambelli]

Just one more: Since the Advanced Profile that I currently use isn't VC-1 compliant, and a VC-1 compliant Advanced Profile codec is going to be released, will this Advanced Profile be much better than the current Main and Simple Profiles. Like, say if I encode at Level 0 (2 mbps bitrate) in the advanced profile VC-1 compliant codec, will it's quality/compression ratio generally be better than the current main and simple profile 2 mbps encodings?
I can answer that question with a confident YES. Based on my own tests (just to be clear that this not some marketing spin), WVC1 produces better image quality than WMV9 at the same Q setting (for 1pVBR) or bitrate. This is with default setting, no tweaks.

What I'm really trying to find out is am I waiting for a major codec improvement in VC-1 advanced profile or will it be the same thing as the current WMV9, just with higher bitrates for HD encoding...
No, you can definitely expect better quality, even at low res encodes.

WMV on the other hand, isn't as sharp as H.264, and same color areas (im doing video game recordings, in this case I'm referring to the walls of Blood Gulch) are blurred often. As of now, WMV gives competition, but doesnt beat H.264. I don't know about VC-1, but according to what Zambelli said it might be just as good.
Well, of course old WMV9 will get beat out by new H.264. WMV9 is more closely aligned with H.263 as far as codec generations go. H.264 is the next generation.

Heck, while I'm at it, I'll ask some few more. The Microsoft web site says that you can encode VC-1 from Windows Media Encoder x64 edition, but in this forum you said that it was not the actual WVC1 codec, it was the same thing I use in advanced profile nic's wm encoder (WMVA). Or am I miscomprehending what you said?
Yeah, it's kind of difficult to understand, let alone explain. The easiest way to differentiate is by FourCC codes:
WMV3 - WMV v9, also known as VC-1 Simple & Main Profile
WVC1 - WMV Advanced Profile, aka VC-1 Advanced Profile
WMVA - WMV Advanced Profile, non-VC1 compliant in 32-bit version, BUT VC-1 compliant in 64-bit version. Tricky, eh? Sorry, I wasn't involved in that decision. :)

Because the WMVA story is a bit complicated, it's no wonder a new 4CC code makes more sense. :)

At this point in time who has access to this WVC1 codec besides Microsoft?
As far as I understand, WVC1 is and will always be Microsoft's codec. VC-1, on the other hand, can be implemented by anybody who wants to implement the SMPTE codec standard. It might be called Bubba's Video Codec and carry the 4cc code of BBVC, but theoretically its decoder should be fully compatible with the WVC1 decoder because they're both implementations of the same codec standard. Think of how Nero's decoder is fully compatible with ffdshow's decoder as far as H.264 video goes.

I googled WVC1 codec and there was a download link for a decoder...
You didn't need to google - I posted it myself in this thread. :) It's been up on Microsoft's codec download server for a while. It gets triggered automatically if you use WMP to play any WVC1 codec.
Coding the decoder according to spec is easy. Coding the encoder is the difficult part. Look how long it took the MPEG-2 encoder devs to get it right. :)

[zambelli]

I think this goes back to the one and only comparison between MPEG-2, WMV and H.264 done many years ago by the DVD Forum:
WMV at 7.7Mbps beat MPEG-2 at 24Mbps (D-VHS) twice. H.264 was always the last. A lot has changed since.
You know, that's a very good point. Time makes a huge difference. Give any dev a year to focus on development and you can expect improvements in any given codec. There are million ways to spin studies and make them go in your favor. All you have to do to prove "Codec A is better than Codec B" is to take an old or poor implementation of Codec B and compare against it. Technically, you'd be correct because if you follow the standard, Codec B is the same codec regardless of revision or implementation. So "Codec A is better than Codec B" statement can be true even if you are spinning it by tweaking the scenario.
The truth is that any codec comparison is valid for about a month... And then it's outdated.

[zambelli]

One more question to add onto the list (lol): In Windows Media Encoder I see two profiles: Windows Media 9, and Windows Media 9 advanced profile. The advanced profile is WMVA rite? Then how do i distinguish between the simple and main profiles if there is only one profile?
Don't worry too much about distinguishing between Simple and Main. Like I said before, the profile designation has more to do with decoding performance/quality than with the actual encode itself. Just remember that WMV9 is Simple/Main, while WMVA/WVC1 is Advanced.
To a VC-1 compliant decoder, these things should look all the same.

As for distinguishing between WMVA and WVC1... That will be taken care of by setup packages when WVC1 hits the public. WMVA will in vast majority of cases be replaced by WVC1.

And what is this Windows Media 9 Image profile...and there also Image v2...[
Photostory codecs. It's pretty cool, you should check it out: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/digitalphotography/photostory/default.mspx. I'm not sure it's actually possible to encode to it from WME. It probably just shows up because it's a valid encoder DMO.

In Nic's encoder I also see Windows Media 9 Screen....what are all of these
Screen capture codec. Because screen captures usually require smaller bit depth and framerates, this codec is optimized to store screen captures in JPEG-like file sizes. Just try it out using WME's screen capture wizard and you'll see what I mean.

And also, is there any way that I can "fake" a 64 bit OS in order to install or use Windows Media Encoder x64, or install that on my 32 bit OS....i know its probably not possible but is there some hack or something like that?
Not that I'm aware of. And honestly, probably not worth it. The performance gain in such a scenario would be... well, most likely non-existant (64-bit programs running in a 32-bit virtual wrapper for 64-bit hardware? Forget about any perf benefits!) and the WMVA codec will soon be superceded with WVC1 anyway. Unless you need VC-1 AP right *now*, I advise you to just wait a few more weeks.

[bond]

Yeah, it's kind of difficult to understand, let alone explain. The easiest way to differentiate is by FourCC codes:
WMV3 - WMV v9, also known as VC-1 Simple & Main Profile
WVC1 - WMV Advanced Profile, aka VC-1 Advanced Profile
WMVA - WMV Advanced Profile, non-VC1 compliant i assume those are simply different profiles (meaning different codec features) supported by the same encoder, right? like x264 supports baseline, main and high profile features

i mean i somehow doubt microsoft rewrote a totally new encoder from scratch for supporting the additional features of the vc-1 advanced profile?

[Sagittaire]

forgot your own results???
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=105763

my own tests also show me that wmv9 has a hard time beating even the best asp codecs (xvid) at 1cd bitrates, not to speak of the best avc codecs...

i think wmv has been created as competitor to mpeg-4 asp and realvideo at a time avc wasnt finalized
it of course uses better technologies than asp which means it can theoretically be better than asp but i doubt m$' implementation atm is (except maybe at ultralow bitrates or ultrahigh bitrates)

well unfortunaly my sempron is 32 bits CPU and I can't test latest WMV9 64 bits version but simply very old wmv9 32 bits version ...

IMO VC-1 standard is potentially better than MPEG4 ASP standard : perhaps that this new MS version can prove that ... ???

@ zambelli

Not possible to test CLI beta version. First WMV8 version was beta CLI version for example ...

Ateme or Elecard propose beta evaluation version (for beta tester only) ...

Why not MS with this free VC-1 codec version ... ???

[siddharthagandhi]

Thanks for clearing this all up. By the way, I did do screen captures in Windows Media Encoder, and the file sizes and quality is amazingly great, except there are some color problems. The desktop background (the Windows XP Home Island and Blue Sea picture) is distorted in its color. This happens in several other places as well. I jacked up the bitrate on the screen capture to no avail.

Also, I already downloaded your codec, but it shows that I already have the codec installed on my system. Did I get it from Windows Media 10? Or Windows Media Encoder? How did it get on my system (whats the most liikley way)?

[diogen]

...I advise you to just wait a few more weeks.That is the closest I heard wrt a time frame of the new WME hitting the street.
I guess it will be around the time HD-DVD players/movies show up on the retailer shelves.
Thanks, zambelli. I hope my logic is right.:)

I also hope the license remains the same and it will be free.

Diogen.

[zambelli]

Not possible to test CLI beta version. First WMV8 version was beta CLI version for example ... Ateme or Elecard propose beta evaluation version (for beta tester only) ... Why not MS with this free VC-1 codec version ... ???
It's pretty difficult releasing anything at a big corporation like Microsoft. You need approval and agreement from dev, test, marketing, customer support, etc.
Ironically, a beta is often more difficult to release than a final release because it requires you to have a clear plan of how you're going to support the beta (who's going to track customer feedback? who's going to file the bugs? who's going to investigate them?) and you need to schedule human resources to spend time on improving the product post-beta to show there was actually a reason for releasing the beta.

Anyway... There'll be a WVC1 encoder soon for everyone to play with. I can't say how soon because we haven't even agreed on the date yet, but it will be in the near future.

[zambelli]

Thanks for clearing this all up. By the way, I did do screen captures in Windows Media Encoder, and the file sizes and quality is amazingly great, except there are some color problems. The desktop background (the Windows XP Home Island and Blue Sea picture) is distorted in its color. This happens in several other places as well. I jacked up the bitrate on the screen capture to no avail.
I've no idea how WM Screen codec is implemented, but I wouldn't be surprised if it did color bit depth reduction in order to achieve better compressability. It's intended for capturing low-motion, low-color stuff like presentations, online classes, etc.

Also, I already downloaded your codec, but it shows that I already have the codec installed on my system. Did I get it from Windows Media 10? Or Windows Media Encoder? How did it get on my system (whats the most liikley way)?
Is it named wvc1dmod.dll? You must've gotten it from WMP because that's currently the only delivery vehicle for it. The only question is how you managed to find a piece of WVC1 content that would've triggered the codec download. I haven't seen any online myself yet.

[zambelli]

That is the closest I heard wrt a time frame of the new WME hitting the street.
You misinterpreted the information. I didn't mention anything about a new encoder app. I only said a WVC1 codec encoder DMO would be available soon. :)

[siddharthagandhi]

Yes it is named that. And this was before I downloaded the WMVHD files....I have no idea where I got it.

Btw what does DMO stand for?

[siddharthagandhi]

Also, about the codec. I copy and pasted the file you provided and it said "do you want to replace"...so the file already exists.

[diogen]

>>> Btw what does DMO stand for?
DMO= DirectX Media Object (I think).

>>> Yes it is named that. And this was before I downloaded
>>> the WMVHD files....I have no idea where I got it.
Could it be you installed the SDK 9.5?

Diogen.

[siddharthagandhi]

What is a SDK 9.5?

I don't recall installing anything like that...

[diogen]

>>> What is a SDK 9.5?
http://msdn.microsoft.com/windowsmedia/downloads/default.aspx

Diogen.

[zambelli]

>>> What is a SDK 9.5?
http://msdn.microsoft.com/windowsmedia/downloads/default.aspx
SDK9.5 doesn't come with a WVC1 decoder. The decoder is only available from the codec download server for now (codec download triggered automatically in WMP). The next SDK to include a WVC1 decoder will be v11.