VC-1 formally approved by SMPTE! [Archive] - Page 3

Golgot13

20th April 2006, 21:53

Will there be a way for us to encode to VC-1 and retain the AC3 audio without using VCM in a AVI container?

Yes, I think it will be possible because there is lot of software that support it (VLC, Media Classic with directqhow filter,...)

What I mean is will Microsoft provide us with the tools to create HD-DVD/BR compliant streams (*.es)? or will a HD-DVD player be able to play VC-1 encoded in a AVI container with AC3 audio?

Niet (No), now there is no software "public" from Microsoft.
But Sonic or Inlet have this tool. I tested some tools from Inlet, nice but it's not free.

Golgot13

foxyshadis

20th April 2006, 22:13

People use 1-cd encodes still because 1. not everyone has a dvd burner and 2. many of the tools and faqs still floating around have people resize and filter the hell out of it (especially anime), which ends up looking unnatural but not overly blocky or ringy, and because they've already filtered it by the time they get to encoding, they see that raising the bitrate barely improves quality, plus the postprocessing that people use to watch it on computer hides whatever there is.

This was necessary back in the old divx3 and early divx5/xvid days, when doing that was the only way to get barely vhs quality on a cd, but times have changed and most of that information is long outdated.

zambelli

20th April 2006, 22:17

Will there be a way for us to encode to VC-1 and retain the AC3 audio without using VCM in a AVI container?
If you're talking about AC3 in ASF, I don't think any Microsoft encoding tool will support that (it's simply not on top of the priority list) any time soon, but there's nothing stopping any skilled developer from making that tool. All the necessary APIs are very well documented.

Also, since VC-1 is designed to be transport independent, I think it should be theoretically be possible to write a ASF2AVI converter for VC-1 streams. Although I imagine you'd run into the standard AVI issues, like B-frame storage.

What I mean is will Microsoft provide us with the tools to create HD-DVD/BR compliant streams (*.es)? or will a HD-DVD player be able to play VC-1 encoded in a AVI container with AC3 audio?
The latter is definitely not in the spec, so the answer to that is NO. But once again, I'm sure someone will eventually make players that play VC-1 and H.264 from MP4, AVI, MPEG-TS, etc. But officially: no.

As for tools... The current tools are only available to studio customers that Microsoft is supporting. I don't know if or when any of those tools might be made public.

One thing to understand is that at this point VC-1 is in the same boat as MPEG-4 as far as tool development goes: anyone who wants to make tools can make them. Microsoft does not own VC-1. Microsoft only owns WMV.

siddharthagandhi

20th April 2006, 23:43

Yes, I agree with foxyshadis. I don't have a DVD burner, and so I distribute all my videos on cd. I don't distribute big files though, only up to half hour clips. That's why I get a lot of benefit from these AVC low bitrate codecs.

How don't they own VC-1 if they created it !?@?#?$?

zambelli

21st April 2006, 00:47

How don't they own VC-1 if they created it !?@?#?$?
It is a SMPTE specification. Microsoft submitted it based on an existing technologies (WMV) with extensions for pending improvements (AP), but it was SMPTE and its members that provided feedback and shaped it into its final form. There are now 15 or more other companies in the patent pool.

Microsoft doesn't own VC-1 in the same way that Toshiba doesn't own HD-DVD. They're not proprietary standards, that's the point.

Liisachan

21st April 2006, 10:05

"As for quality, today's WMV9 is already at least as good as MPEG-4 Part 2. "

Xvid is MPEG-4 Part 2...and you say that WMV9 is just as good as that? Pshhh.... I believe you know the difference between "at least as good as" and "just as good as".

After all, WMV9 and AVC are disturbingly similar, so it's like MPEG-4 Part 2 vs. AVC, or, XviD vs x264.
Dont ask an obvious question.

siddharthagandhi

22nd April 2006, 00:33

I'm not asking a question, I'm stating stuff.

""at least as good as"- That means you're saying that WMV9 is better than MPEG 4 Part 2?

WMV9 and AVC may be technically similar, but the general quality and file size ratios point to AVC as the superior...and BY A LOT.

How on earth can you argue that WMV9 is a codec that is at least as good as MPEG-4 Part 2 or AVC?

And AVC has pretty much established itself at the top, now I don't think even Xvid can keep up...but theres Xvid AVC coming.

Liisachan

22nd April 2006, 02:08

@siddharthagandhi
You are quoting out of the context.
IgorC said "Other information that in the best case new VC-1 videocodec is just comparable to MPEG4 ASP." and I said "If they are talking about the speed, that's possible. As for quality, today's WMV9 is already at least as good as MPEG-4 Part 2."

IgorC is the one who said
VC-1 <= MPEG-4 Part2
but I don't think so. To deny his proposition, saying this was enough:
VC-1 > WMV9 >= MPEG-4 Part 2.
qed

siddharthagandhi

22nd April 2006, 02:24

But that doesn't change anything

You said this:

"If they are talking about the speed, that's possible. As for quality, today's WMV9 is already at least as good as MPEG-4 Part 2."

So that means you are saying WMV9 is as good as MPEG-4 Part 2. Do you speak English as a first language? Maybe its a gramatical mistake although what you're trying to say is correct.

I say that

(MPEG-4 Part 2 |?| VC-1) > WMV9

zambelli

22nd April 2006, 03:02

(MPEG-4 Part 2 |?| VC-1) > WMV9
Saying "VC-1 is better than WMV9" is in general kind of silly. It's like saying "MPEG-4 is better than x264". One is a spec, the other is an implementation of a subset of the spec.

I'm probably just nitpicking again because I assume what you mean is "WVC1 is better than WMV3", but I just want to try to get people to use the right terminology - in order to avoid further confusion.

Also, blanket statements such as "codec A is better than codec B" don't make a lot of sense unless you give some context and encoding scenarios. What constitutes "better"? More efficient? Faster? Preserves more detail? Less macroblocking? Are you trying to achieve transparency or just acceptable quality at low bitrates? What about DECoding performance?

siddharthagandhi

22nd April 2006, 03:19

Yes thats what i mean. When I say VC-1 im talking about WMV AP whereas WMV9 is WMV MP.

I am going to give context, my signature acknowledges I'm working on a codec comparison.

Liisachan

22nd April 2006, 03:34

although what you're trying to say is correct. Thank you for understanding what I was trying to say and agreeing with that.

Saying "VC-1 is better than WMV9" is in general kind of silly. It's like saying "MPEG-4 is better than x264". Yes, it is quite possible--rather probable--that we won't use WVC1 if VC-1 is good. Chances are, if VC-1 is not that good, we will simply use WVC1 when needed, or, actually we won't use it at all unless forced, whereas if VC-1 is really nice, there will be a hot open-source vc-1 project (xvc1?) and we will use that codec voluntarily. I would support SNOW and Dirac anyway.

"We" here doesn't include ordinary Windows users who will install WMP11 without a second thought, so maybe I should just say "I" instead of "we" but I don't think I'm the only one who feel that way.

Revgen

22nd April 2006, 03:59

VC1 is good codec because we don't need to have a big CPU to read HD video in this codec.
But now I can not have information to optimize HD video in VC1, only recommendation
like in HD DVD the bitrate for 1920x1080 is 16Mbps (why, I don't know ?????)

H264 can be played quite well on older CPU's as long as you use a well optimized decoder like CoreAVC. VLC player is also a good choice.

Sagittaire

22nd April 2006, 12:06

Enough for what? VHS quality? I'm not buying it. This is where I disagree with the whole 1CD approach to codec comparisons. It's soooo 1999 to try to encode movies at 600kbps and pretend they're acceptable quality. It's 2006 and we've got HD displays, we should be shifting our focus to better quality encoding, we don't have to settle for this "good enough" stuff anymore.
Even Doom9's shootout tests that involveed "Matrix: Revolutions" at 600kbps had the source resized down to 640x272 before encoding. Most bittorrent-distributed TV rips are 512x384 at at least 1000kbps.

Well be carefull, H264 is not like the other video codec ... it's a very very powerfull standard. You must not use H264 like the other codec : H264 can support very higher resolution with very lower bitrate.

Little example for MPEG4 ASP vs MPEG4 AVC

1) Jaread Trailer from DivX Network
http://trailers.divx.com/Universal/Jarhead.divx
MPEG4 ASP 640*272 1000 Kbps
MP3 2.0 128 Kbps

2) Jaread Trailer from Sagittaire
http://multimediacom.free.fr/Video/jarhead.mp4
MPEG4 AVC 720*576 600 kbps
HE-AAC 5.1 128 Kbps

And compressibility for this trailer is very low. IMO really easy for H264 to encode 120 min at 720*576 in simple CDR 80 min. IMO really easy too for H264 to encode 120 min at 1920*1088 in simple DVD5 ...

trbarry

22nd April 2006, 13:53

While I expect improvements in WVC1 over WMV3, I don't know how well it's going to compete with low-bitrate XviD or x264 encodes. The development focus in AP has been on a completely different end of the scale - HD encoding. Now, before everyone asks "What's the difference?" - I'm just saying that when one codec is optimized for 15Mbps HD encoding, and the other is optimized for 600kbps sub-SD encoding - comparing the codecs in this kind of test clearly gives the latter codec a home-court advantage. :)

But pictures speak more than words and tests will show us where WVC1 stands in that category. After all, that's what beta testing is all about.

Yep. As time passes I think our expectations for the cost of a bit change. One the one hand, codecs get better but, OTOH, media and transmission get cheaper, better, and faster.

And displays get bigger and nicer. We can afford the bits now to make them look nice.

Some of us here are are less interested in the performance of a 1CD rip and a lot more interested in approaching transparent HD, at resolutions of 960x540 and higher. Those are even suitable for downloads now.

So where's the darn codec? ;)

- Tom

HookedOnTV

22nd April 2006, 16:31

IMO... x264 > WMV9 > XviD. My encoding goals are transparent HD. To me the difference between x264 and WMV9 aren't that many more bits. What usually makes me choose WMV9 with a slightly bigger final file size is encoding speed. WMV9 absolutely smokes x264.

siddharthagandhi

22nd April 2006, 17:46

x264 > WMV9 > XviD.

Whoa you're saying that Xvid is worse than WMV9?

zambelli

23rd April 2006, 04:22

Yes, it is quite possible--rather probable--that we won't use WVC1 if VC-1 is good. Chances are, if VC-1 is not that good, we will simply use WVC1 when needed, or, actually we won't use it at all unless forced, whereas if VC-1 is really nice, there will be a hot open-source vc-1 project (xvc1?) and we will use that codec voluntarily. I would support SNOW and Dirac anyway.
I'm anxious to see the first non-Microsoft implementation of VC-1. A little competition is good for everyone. :) Then again, some things never catch on. One has to wonder why AVI and VCM still rule the open source development projects. Some people like living in 1993, I guess. :)

"We" here doesn't include ordinary Windows users who will install WMP11 without a second thought, so maybe I should just say "I" instead of "we" but I don't think I'm the only one who feel that way.
As long as new VC-1 codecs stick with the WVC1 fourcc and ASF container (one can only hope), end users shouldn't even be able to tell the difference. Anyone with WMP should be able to play a VC-1 compliant bitstream without the need for installing a new decoder.

CruNcher

23rd April 2006, 18:13

@zambelli
you still didn't quote answered me, is M$ gonna set codec release with WMP11 ? ;)

zambelli

23rd April 2006, 21:10

So where's the darn codec? :)
Trust me when I say that we're trying to release it ASAP. I do know when the "absolute latest" date is for its release but we are trying our best to release this before that date, like we hoped for.

@zambelli
you still didn't quote answered me, is M$ gonna set codec release with WMP11 ? ;)
I can't comment on that because WMP11 plans haven't been officially announced yet. Sorry.

zambelli

23rd April 2006, 21:38

Well be carefull, H264 is not like the other video codec ... it's a very very powerfull standard. You must not use H264 like the other codec : H264 can support very higher resolution with very lower bitrate.
2) Jarhead Trailer from Sagittaire
And compressibility for this trailer is very low. IMO really easy for H264 to encode 120 min at 720*576 in simple CDR 80 min. IMO really easy too for H264 to encode 120 min at 1920*1088 in simple DVD5 ...
I checked out the AVC trailer. I don't even have to look at the source for this video to tell you that this AVC encode is heavily filtered. It completely lacks detail. The physical resolution doesn't mean a thing if the perceived resolution is low. It's great that AVC scales so well that it knows when to prefilter low-bitrate encodes in order to increase compressability and reduce apparent macroblocking, but to me this 720x576 AVC trailer looks no better than a 320x288 video. Please don't think I'm knocking AVC - I really do think that it does a great job - but I'm just saying there is no way a 720x576 120 min movie stored on a 700MB CDR is going to look good. It might look "OK", it might look "acceptable", but it's not going to look good.

I know I'm not speaking for everybody here. This forum is still largely "1CD backup" oriented, but I really do think those days are over and everyone just needs to move on. DVDR media is cheap, hard drive space is cheap, bandwidth is... well, reasonable, if not cheap. So why are people still obsessed with 600kbps video encoding? Anybody who's ever watched a 600kbps rip on an HD display knows just how painful that looks. Perhaps it's time to set the bar a little bit higher, that's all.

IgorC

24th April 2006, 06:24

Zambelli
And why people so obsessed with MP3 128 kbit/s? ( Some time ago it was impossible to achieve good quality at such bitrate) Maybe because of Lame new VBR brings good quality (transparent for most people) at 130 kbps. With 512 mb pen drive I can have 9-10 albums.

Well, that video trailer Harry Potter can be resized to 720x304 ( square pixel. ratio ). I remember even Xvid was transparent at 900 kbps for this trailer. And x264 was transparent at 600-700 kbps.
And yes, we talk about transparence here.

Almost all DVD are coming with 16:9 or 2.25:1 p. ratio . -> 720x400 or 720x304 resolutions. And many DVDs 720x304 looks very well at 700 kbit/s with x264. (and 720x400 at 1 mbit/s).

So what I was asking to provide trailer encoded at 600 kbit/s make a sence.
But everybody can be disagree with 40% of memebers of this forum that it's possible to achieve a good and/or transparent! quality for 1 CDR. Sure.

Finally it all depends on compresebelity. And that trailer wasn't such high motion.

Valeron

24th April 2006, 06:26

If u've got a decent good display device, yet still tell me(currently) an encoder can compress a whole movie in 1920x1080 progressive frame to DVD-5 size with acceptable quality(details and details please), then I have to admit u are not that freak in quality.

IgorC

24th April 2006, 06:29

With my little experience on HD area I can say that for best H.264 encoder tehcnology it would be more realistic 1280x720 for DVD-5 and 1920x1080 for DVD-9.

Another moment. AVC isn't that CPU hungry. With new CoreAVC decoder H.264 High Profile videos encoded with high complexity decoded at the same speed as ASP ( Xvid video decoded ffdshow+PP2).
And it can be faster in future as in case of continusly impoving AAC decoders.

And also H.264 isn't so slow. http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=105763

bond

24th April 2006, 17:52

New WMV AP codec (WVC1) will support all encoding modes: 1p CBR, 2p CBR, 1p VBR, 2p VBR unconstrained and 2p VBR constrained.now i wonder what the sense of 2pass cbr is? ;)

New audiocodec WMA 10 is just tweaked WMA9. Not big changes. It's better than MP3 Lame at 128 kbit/s but it's still worse than itunes AAC. Info source hydrogenaudio

Does anybody remember the promises of WMA9 codec?. It suposly was twice better than MP3 ( WMA9 64 = MP3 128). Practicly it's only slightly better.in your dreams... in no way wma9 is better than mp3 at 128kbps... check the dozens of listening tests on hydrogenaudio, they all show the same: wma9 has no chance against lame mp3

IgorC

24th April 2006, 20:26

Then my dream is reality.
http://www.maresweb.de/listening-tests/mf-128-1/resultsz.png

foxyshadis

24th April 2006, 21:02

That's a statistical tie. The middle number isn't a hard and fast rating, it's just the average of ratings several people gave it. In fact all 5 are a statistical tie: you can only say with very little confidence that wma9 is better than lame, but a little more confidence that vorbis is better than lame. You could say with moderate confidence that they're the same, or with even less confidence that mp3 is better. Only if one interval is entirely above another can you say one is definitely better.

All public listening tests say this when the results are posted! Not only that, but I recall the exact thread those results were posted in said specifically - all of these are a statistical tie. Many threads at HA have gone over confidence intervals and why those numbers aren't absolutes.

Liisachan

24th April 2006, 22:32

A little competition is good for everyone. :)

MS is the one who told VirtualDub to stop ASF support. How about a little competition in video editor?

One has to wonder why AVI and VCM still rule the open source development projects. Monopolization rules... until truth prevails.

As long as new VC-1 codecs stick with the WVC1 fourcc and ASF container (one can only hope), end users shouldn't even be able to tell the difference. Anyone with WMP should be able to play a VC-1 compliant bitstream without the need for installing a new decoder. Why are you assuming that they are going to use WMP anyway? You could think about it upside down: if WVC1 & ASF are really good, just wait, and every non-WMP players will soon gladly support them. So you don't have to force one to use WMP, because any player would decode WVC1. If, on the other hand, the advantage of WVC1 is based on the fact that it plays out-of-the-box on Windows, that will mean you are not actually selling a codec. The codec is already there, packed with the OS. In other words, users are not actively selecting WVC1 by their own free will, i.e. WVC1 is not used because it is good, but because of another reason.

But let's stop being hypothetical. We will see. Soon enough.

zambelli

24th April 2006, 23:50

MS is the one who told VirtualDub to stop ASF support.
Not exactly true. That whole VDub ASF episode has been blown way out of proportion. Avery Lee can tell you himself that he never actually got a cease and desist letter from Microsoft. Whoever contacted him didn't do so on behalf of Microsoft's legal department, but Avery didn't feel like pushing the issue. I'll be the first one to tell you that ASF support in VDub would've been a cool thing to have.

How about a little competition in video editor?
Nobody is preventing 3rd party devs from developing competing editing products. The WM SDK is well documented and available to everybody. Nothing about the ASF format makes it more closed off than AVI, which is why it's strange to me that everyone continues to hold on to a 15-year old file format that is clearly already having trouble keeping up with the technology (i.e. B-frames in MPEG-4 and VC-1).

Why are you assuming that they are going to use WMP anyway? You could think about it upside down: if WVC1 & ASF are really good, just wait, and every non-WMP players will soon gladly support them. So you don't have to force one to use WMP, because any player would decode WVC1. If, on the other hand, the advantage of WVC1 is based on the fact that it plays out-of-the-box on Windows, that will mean you are not actually selling a codec. The codec is already there, packed with the OS. In other words, users are not actively selecting WVC1 by their own free will, i.e. WVC1 is not used because it is good, but because of another reason.
I was talking about the playback experience. Only content providers can favor one codec over the other. End users only care that they can play the content without much hassle. In XP WVC1 will not be an out-of-the-box codec because one will either have to have WMP11 installed or use old WMP at least once to play WVC1 content and trigger the decoder download. Once the decoder is on the system, any DShow player can use it. It's unfair to say that any user will be "forced" to use WVC1 just because the decoder is already there. It will certainly be more convenient though, and my hope is that any 3rd party VC-1 developers will stick to the same 4cc code and take advantage of a decoder that's already there.

siddharthagandhi

24th April 2006, 23:52

zambelli

25th April 2006, 00:16

Windows Media Encoder Studio Edition for 32 bit OS with WVC1 support (WMV9 AP) is out, the beta at least. Thats the method that Zambelli was talking about. Except when I go to the beta page, I can't find a download link, although the FAQ and everything talks as if the download was already released. Expect a release very soon.
Actually, funny enough, that's not the release I've been talking about. I've been only talking about an encoder DMO release and I didn't want to say anything about the Encoder Studio Edition because I don't work on that team and I didn't know their schedule (and which aspects of it were public). Lots of the media teams have been targeting NAB (http://www.nabshow.com) for their releases. We were hoping to release the codec individually before the Encoder Studio Edition beta came out... but the Encoder team beat us to it. :)
There's still a chance there'll be a separate DMO codec download package for those who don't want to install the beta Encoder Studio Edition.

Liisachan

25th April 2006, 01:04

zambelli

25th April 2006, 02:09

Well, but then again, even if I could write an ASF editor, I still might get a cease and desist letter; I would say "zambelli said it's ok" and they would say "Whoever told you that didn't do so on behalf of Microsoft's legal department." the same line you just said. So how about putting a note somewhere in MSDN saying "ASF was, is, and will be, an open format. You can freely blah blah..."
But Microsoft never said people can't use ASF or develop applications for ASF! This has been entirely implied by those eager to dismiss the format.

On the other hand, I didn't say ASF was an open format. There is a clear line between "free to use" and "open format". Open format would imply that the format is owned and maintained by a non-proprietary organization. That's not the case with ASF. It's owned by Microsoft and Microsoft is the only party that has the right to modify the format.

What I am saying is that ASF is openly documented:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/forpros/format/asfspec.aspx
and free to use through the WM Format SDK:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/licensing/licensing.aspx
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/licensing/interim.aspx#WindowsMediaAudioandVideoDecoders_Interim

I should probably include a disclaimer here that says I'm not a lawyer - I'm merely intepreting information that's publicly available from the Microsoft website. If you really have concerns about legality of using ASF in your products, you can contact Microsoft through the Windows Media Licensing Program and find out the details for your particular scenario.

siddharthagandhi

25th April 2006, 02:10

Hey zambelli I can't find the download link for WM Encoder Studio Edition?....

"A release for Windows XP machines will be available soon."

I did not see that in the last question on the FAQ. Still waiting...

Liisachan

25th April 2006, 02:37

free to use through the WM Format SDK

SDK under the EULA is obvious. Is lower-level access to the file/stream format, directly without SDK, allowed? For instance, could one write an app to handle WMV that works on a non-Windows system?

foxyshadis

25th April 2006, 03:15

Isn't wmv, and thus vc-1, essentially just an tweaking of asf, which itself is a replumbing of avi? (iirc it used avi as a starting point but veered way off.) So anything that can read VC-1 should be roughly backwards compatible with asf, barring minor compatibility tweaks? And from what I understand VC-1 is an entirely free, standard, unencumbered container format now, though the video encoder itself is obviously still under patents.

Of course, there's more to supporting ASF/WMV than just parsing it, and vdub is still too tied to VFW (although the capture module is now entirely directshow) to support some of its capabilities - vfr being the most obvious.

dohcmark8

25th April 2006, 03:39

foxyshadis

25th April 2006, 04:01

I thought VC-1 specified also the WMV container format, though it can use others, but I could be way off base. ^^;

Also, ASF seems to stand for something new every time I see another explanation, from ActiveMovie Streaming Format, Active Streaming Format, Advanced Streaming Format, and now Advanced Systems Format... hah. :D

zambelli

25th April 2006, 07:52

I thought VC-1 specified also the WMV container format, though it can use others, but I could be way off base. ^^;
Yeah, you're way off base. :) VC-1 = Video Codec 1.
SMPTE 421M-2006, “VC-1 Compressed Video Bitstream Format and Decoding Process".
It's a video codec standard and it's entirely container/transport independent.

Also, ASF seems to stand for something new every time I see another explanation, from ActiveMovie Streaming Format, Active Streaming Format, Advanced Streaming Format, and now Advanced Systems Format... hah. :D
It only changed once: from Advanced Streaming Format to Advanced Systems Format. It started out as a streaming format but quickly grew into a more generic container format.

GodofaGap

25th April 2006, 08:25

Not exactly true. That whole VDub ASF episode has been blown way out of proportion. Avery Lee can tell you himself that he never actually got a cease and desist letter from Microsoft. Whoever contacted him didn't do so on behalf of Microsoft's legal department, but Avery didn't feel like pushing the issue. I'll be the first one to tell you that ASF support in VDub would've been a cool thing to have.
It is not possible to use ASF in a GPL project. I'm not a lawyer, but the EULA in ASF specification (section 2f) states that you are not allowed to distribute your implementation under an "excluded license". An "excluded license" is one that requires to distribute the program in source code form, and also one that allows making derivative works. Both these demands are incompatible with the GPL. Hence no VirtualDub with ASF support is possible if the creator wants to use the specification.

Nothing about the ASF format makes it more closed off than AVI, which is why it's strange to me that everyone continues to hold on to a 15-year old file format that is clearly already having trouble keeping up with the technology (i.e. B-frames in MPEG-4 and VC-1).
What I mentioned above is nothing?

I really don't see anything about it that says "You can't use ASF! Microsoft forbids it! Use AVI instead!" (particularly considering that AVI was also developed by Microsoft.)
The situation is quite different for AVI. I think Microsoft doesn't really own anything about AVI because it's a RIFF based format which is just the same as Electronic Art's original IFF format (except for byte endianess).

I don't think the situation for ASF is as hopeful for an open-source developer as you are trying to depict it here.

zambelli

25th April 2006, 08:33

A nice technical overview of VC-1 has been published on the Microsoft website:

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/forpros/codecs/vc1techoverview.aspx

diogen

25th April 2006, 15:42

Talking about the delivery mechanism of the new encoder: just read ExtremeTech article (http://www.extremetech.com/print_article2/0,1217,a=176527,00.asp)that had this interesting sentence:
"Most of the digital video files you'll download for Windows are in either MPEG format, WMV format, or DivX format.
The first two are covered pretty well by Windows Media Player (get version 10, or 11 if it's out by the time you read this). "

I guess WMP11 is just about out (days?) and it probably will be realesed at the same time as WME Studio beta and new encoder codec.

Diogen.

zambelli

26th April 2006, 23:42

It is not possible to use ASF in a GPL project. I'm not a lawyer, but the EULA in ASF specification (section 2f) states that you are not allowed to distribute your implementation under an "excluded license". An "excluded license" is one that requires to distribute the program in source code form, and also one that allows making derivative works. Both these demands are incompatible with the GPL. Hence no VirtualDub with ASF support is possible if the creator wants to use the specification.
Since neither of us are lawyers, it'll probably serve us no good to speculate here about the possible interpretations of that. Let's just say that the issue of proprietary code in GPL licensed applications is much bigger than just ASF in VirtualDub. There's a ton of GPL code out there that's in the legal gray area in that way.

That said, I will point out that not every free application must have a GPL license. You can develop an application that's totally freeware but has closed source code. There would be no apparent legal obstacle for such an app to include native ASF support. Also, I'm not aware of any restrictions on GPL apps using the public WM SDK, so I believe something like VirtualDub could at least use the WM SDK for reading ASF files.

My point is: yes, there might be some restrictions, but they are a part of a much bigger "proprietary vs. open source" legal debate. There are ways to work around the legal obstacles in one way or another. If some dev really wanted ASF support in their app, they could certainly find a way do it.

The situation is quite different for AVI. I think Microsoft doesn't really own anything about AVI because it's a RIFF based format which is just the same as Electronic Art's original IFF format (except for byte endianess).
I don't think the situation for ASF is as hopeful for an open-source developer as you are trying to depict it here.
Sure, I'll give you that. Developing for ASF might have some restrictions that developing for AVI doesn't, but I don't think legal ramifications are what most devs think about when they start working on new projects. This devotion to AVI and VfW seems little to do with legal issues. Can you make a case that VfW codecs keep being developed because DirectShow/DMO codecs have legal restrictions too?

P.S. We can take this to another thread/forum or offline, since it's pretty much outside the scope of this thread.

zambelli

26th April 2006, 23:47

Hey Bond,

I've been thinking about writing up a VC-1 overview in the New Codecs forum, sort of like the one about MPEG-4 ASP. If/when I do, could you please make that into a sticky?

BTW, your PM inbox is full - I couldn't send you a PM. :)

obieobieobie

27th April 2006, 00:51

Please do that, zambelli. I'm looking forward to it. :)

foxyshadis

27th April 2006, 03:53

I think AVI/VFW is mostly used because it's so simple, well-known, and stable (you can't get much more stable than deprecated and dead), and virtualdub. If avery lee had chosen to build his application around .mov and the quicktime framework, which is definitely more advanced & powerful than avi, I have a strong feeling that the open-source cluster around vfw would be around quicktime instead. (Not quicktime the application - too slow and huge - just something open source implementing it.) Only issue there is Apple might have shut it down in a jiffy, they're pretty zealous about keeping absolute control over their domain.

You probably know as well as anyone that open-source folks are often willing to life behind the state of the art in trade for performance and pride, especially once tools like these get entrenched and can't simply be cross-compiled. Within a few years I'm sure avi really will die, once some new format finds wide acceptance at all levels (like mp4 but for more formats, like mkv or mov but better supported - a zone wmv has been creeping into).