VC-1 formally approved by SMPTE!

[zambelli]

After about 2.5 years, SMPTE has finally ratified the VC-1 codec specification, also known as SMPTE 421M Standard for Television.

The standard, based on Microsoft's Windows Media Video 9 codec, was submitted to SMPTE in September 2003. Most of the changes during the development period were related to the Advanced Profile portion of the VC-1 standard which is aimed at the growing high-definition market.

News links:
http://www.betanews.com/article/Microsoft_VC1_Codec_Now_a_Standard/1144097224

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6321571.html?display=Breaking+News

You can obtain the 421M document directly from SMPTE:
http://www.smpte.org/smpte_store/standards/index.cfm?scope=0&stdtype=smpte&CurrentPage=19


Q: What exactly is VC-1? Is it a new codec? Isn't VC-1 just WMV9?
A: VC-1 is a codec specification. WMV9 is an implementation of that specification. Think of it this way: WMV9 is to VC-1 what x264 is to MPEG-4 AVC. In the context of Microsoft video codecs, WMV9 and VC-1 can be considered one and the same. Note, however, that in the future other companies may choose to implement VC-1 codecs, too.
The SMPTE standard for VC-1, SMPTE 421M, was originally based on Microsoft's Windows Media® Video 9 codec. The Windows Media Video 9 codec is functionally equivalent to VC-1; it is Microsoft's implementation of the VC-1 standard.
When people talk about VC-1 in the context of HD-DVD and BluRay, they are talking about the Advanced Profile of VC-1. This is where Microsoft has been focusing most of its development work for the last several years.

A detailed and informative overview of VC-1 can be found here:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/forpros/codecs/vc1techoverview.aspx

Q: Where can I get a VC-1 codec?
A: The existing Microsoft WMV9 codec as included in WMP9 and WMP10 (FourCC: WMV3) is fully compliant with VC-1 Simple and Main Profile specifications.

The WMV Advanced Profile codec that was released with WMP10 and WMF SDK 9.5 (FourCC: WMVA) is NOT VC-1 compliant. It is considered deprecated at this point.

The WMV Advanced Profile 64-bit codec (FourCC: WVC1) that was released with Windows Media Encoder x64, although based on fairly old Microsoft code, IS VC-1 compliant. Its implementation is pretty similar to the WMVA encoder implementation in terms of quality and performance, but the bitstream is fully VC-1 compliant.

Finally, a 32-bit VC-1 compliant WMV Advanced Profile encoder (FourCC: WVC1) is expected to be released for beta testing later this month. The WVC1 decoder is already available for download through WMP's automatic codec download, or directly from here (http://download.microsoft.com/download/e/2/f/e2fcec4b-6c8b-48b7-adab-ab9c403a978f/wvc1dmo.cab). This one is what you would call the real deal as it's the same implementation that the studios have been using for their HD-DVD/BluRay encodings.

One way to look at the 3 AP codecs is to imagine them as v1.0, v1.1 and v1.2 versions of the same codec, the main difference being that the latter two use a different FourCC code and produce VC-1 compliant bitstreams.

[bond]

does the wmv9 advanced profile decoder (the compliant one) also handle decoding simple and main profile?

[zambelli]

does the wmv9 advanced profile decoder (the compliant one) also handle decoding simple and main profile?
Good question. I'm not sure it does. The decision to split the encoders/decoders into separate SP/MP and AP filters was probably more influenced by the upgrade paths and scenarios than anything else. It's likely that eventually all 3 profiles will be united into a single encoder DMO and single decoder DMO when there is an appropriate vehicle for the necessary installation cleanup of existing Windows Media DMOs - something like WMP, Encoder utility, etc. For the time being it's easier to release separate WVC1 encoder and decoder DMOs and let the existing DMOs handle encoding/decoding of everything else (WMV3, WMV2, WMV1, WMVP, WVP2, etc.).

[siddharthagandhi]

Oh *snap*

Will this beta be available to the public? Or is it a private testing? Is there a signup list like there is for other Microsoft software?

The only two codecs that I see will remain in the future is VC-1 and MPEG 4 AVC....the second works mad good for me and the first seems to be a breakthrough codec, for HD and normal video

[zambelli]

Will this beta be available to the public? Or is it a private testing? Is there a signup list like there is for other Microsoft software?
Yeah, it will be a public beta release.

It's even mentioned on the MS website now:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/forpros/codecs/video.aspx

"On March 10, 2006, the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (SMPTE) formally published the Final Specification for SMPTE 421M, also known as VC-1. Microsoft’s implementation of VC-1 is Windows Media Video 9. The Simple and Main profiles remain unchanged from previous releases, and an update for Windows Media Video 9 Advanced Profile based on this final specification should be available in April 2006."

[cacepi]

This one is what you would call the real deal as it's based on the same implementation that the studios have been using for their HD-DVD/BluRay encodings.
Does this mean that previous encodes made with WMV9 won't be HD-DVD/Blu-Ray compatible?

I know Blu-Ray only includes support for AP@Level2, Level3; is the same true for HD-DVD?

--Edit--
"Previous encodes" meaning "encodes done at Simple and Main Profiles."

[zambelli]

Does this mean that previous encodes made with WMV9 won't be HD-DVD/Blu-Ray compatible?
When I say "the real deal", it's mostly an observation on the fact that the other two previously released Advanced Profile codecs (WMVA and 64-bit) have either not been SMPTE 421M compliant or weren't based on the latest and greatest encoder code.

I know Blu-Ray only includes support for AP@Level2, Level3; is the same true for HD-DVD?
Good question, but I honestly don't know the answer to it because I haven't read the HD-DVD and BluRay specs in enough detail to know whether they mandate full VC-1 decoder implementations, or if it's OK to only support AP. If what you say is true, then I suppose the answer is that they won't support plain WMV9 (SP & MP).

The bottom line is that anybody implementing a full VC-1 decoder should be able to play back previously encoded WMV9 SP and MP bitstreams. I imagine most software implementations would, since it's probably not much more work than just AP. Hardware could be a different story.

[lcx]

I have a lot of high-quality videos encoded in WMP10 Advanced Profile codec.
Does this mean I will not be able to watch it future versions of Windows Media Player?:eek:

[siddharthagandhi]

Of course you will be able to watch those. Its just that the codec that you used to encode them is outdated, and you would probably achieve better quality in the same file size with the new VC-1 codec. If your thinking held true right now, we wouldn't be able to view Windows Media 7 videos in WMP 10, but, we can.

[lcx]

you would probably achieve better quality in the same file size with the new VC-1 codec

Do you know that for sure? :sly:

[bond]

Do you know that for sure? :sly:no, but as m$ itself abandones the old now incompliant advanced profile encoder, it makes no sense to use it anymore

edit: also i guess m$ didnt write a new advanced profile encoder from scratch but modified the old one so it gets compliant

[Sagittaire]

Finally, a 32-bit VC-1 compliant WMV Advanced Profile encoder (FourCC: WVC1) is expected to be released for beta testing later this month

good news ...

[diogen]

zambelli,-
Will the new encoder (application) allow to keep AC3?

Diogen.

[Golgot13]

The new encoder will can make elementary stream in VC1, file with *.es extension.

And HD DVD support AP@L3 (for HD resolution).


Golgot13

[zambelli]

Will the new encoder (application) allow to keep AC3?
I can't say because no information has been made public yet and my team (Codecs) is not working on it so I don't even know for sure myself.

I know language can sometimes be pretty ambiguous when it comes to the word encoder, so let me be clear: the upcoming beta release of WMV AP is just a codec, not an application. Whether a new encoder application is scheduled to be released any time soon - I don't have that information.

Although the WME9 app doesn't let you mux AC3 streams without recompression, keep in mind that it's possible to do that using 3rd party tools such as the Solveig Multimedia ASF Muxer. The caveat of storing AC3 in ASF is that you'll need:
1) A special source filter to parse the AC3 out of the ASF container. Existing AC3/AVI source filters, such as the one made by Gabest, can do the job.
2) If you're planning to play ASF using the WMF SDK (not DirectShow), you will need a DMO version of the AC3 decoder. The WMFSDK has a weird limitation that it can't use DirectShow A/V decoders. You can use DMO decoders in DirectShow, but you can't use DirectShow decoders in WMFSDK. Makes one wonder why everyone doesn't just build DMO decoders for greater compatibility.

So bottom line: you can mux AC3 into ASF, but playing it back will require extra effort.

[diogen]

...it's possible to do that using 3rd party tools...
I know. And sometimes I use VCM and VDM to get there. But you can't cut off parts at the beginning/end inside the encoder.
I just would like the simplicity of WME with direct stream copy of AC3 into the converted video stream.
Considering WMA-Pro is not a SMPTE standard, there is hope.

Diogen.

[Liisachan]

The WMV Advanced Profile codec that was released with WMP10 and WMF SDK 9.5 (FourCC: WMVA) is NOT VC-1 compliant. It is considered deprecated at this point.


The Windows Media Video 9 Advanced profile fully conforms to the SMPTE VC-1 standard,...
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/forpros/codecs/video.aspx#WindowsMediaVideo9AdvancedProfile

The Windows Media Video 9 Advanced Profile codec is Microsoft's implementation of the advanced profile of VC1.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/howto/articles/codecadvancedsettings.aspx#Windows_Media_Video_9_Advanced_Profile_Codec_Versus_VC1__UHRG


Which is true? Am I missing something?:confused:

[siddharthagandhi]

They are talking about the WVC1 advanced profile. Although its not released yet, i'm pretty sure thats what theyre talking about.

[Liisachan]

Maybe, but I'm not sure. They say "If you install Windows Media Player 10, the Windows Media Video 9 Advanced Profile codec is installed automatically" in the same page, so they seem to be talking about an already-existing codec. Perhaps you are right, and the MS pages are just confusing as always...

[bond]

the existing one is incompliant and shouldnt be used

the new advanced profile encoder is now only available in 64bit but soon also in normal 32bit and therefore will replace the current incompliant one

[Liisachan]

Thanks bond :) So what is written in MS pages about this is inaccurate or not up-to-date, and the first post of zambelli is accurate, right?

[zambelli]

Yeah, it's the Microsoft documentation that's out of date. :( As you can imagine, the whole "WVC1 replacing WMVA" story puts us in a strange situation because we now have to go back and update all the Advanced Profile articles. Some need to be changed, while others have to be split to include separate information for WMVA and WVC1. Furthermore, it needs to be done in such a way that's not totally confusing for the public (and that's a big challenge right there). We're a big company so it's often a very time-consuming process to bring the documentation in sync with the technologies.

With VC-1 finally standardized and WVC1 encoder on its way to make a public appearance, I believe the relevant documentation will be updated soon. For the time being, though, you can assume my information is the most recent one.

[bond]

will microsoft release a lossless "old wmv ap -> vc-1 ap" converter? :D

[siddharthagandhi]

since this is a codec, not an encoder, being released, does that mean new encoder applications will have to be developed to use the codec?

or will existing encoders automatically use the newer codec?

[zambelli]

will microsoft release a lossless "old wmv ap -> vc-1 ap" converter? :D
I'm not aware of one, but I would imagine that if the business need arises, it could happen. Then again, I haven't compared the source code of the two encoders to actually know what the bitstream differences are. They might be to great for a simple lossless conversion.
The WMVA --> WVC1 migration shouldn't affect most users. Even if they have WMVA encoded content, it will continue to be playable because the WMVA decoder will continue to be available on the MS codec server.
The only way users could be truly affected is if they have a ton of WMVA encoded content, they lost the original source, and now they want to make HD-DVDs out of the encoded content so they desperately need it to be VC-1 compliant. :) Didn't DivX run into this issue a bunch of times with their MPEG-4 compatibility between versions?

[zambelli]

since this is a codec, not an encoder, being released, does that mean new encoder applications will have to be developed to use the codec?
or will existing encoders automatically use the newer codec?
The new codec is built on the DMO model just like its predecessors. Any encoder application able to use DMO video encoders should be able to enumerate and use the new codec. For example, Nic's WM encoder can use the new WVC1 encoder just fine.

The biggest difference between the AP codecs (all of them) and the classic WMV9 codec is that they use the registry to store advanced encoder settings (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/howto/articles/codecadvancedsettings.aspx) (article needs updating). This was done in order to make the encoder usable with older applications without having to modify and re-release the WM Encoder SDK. This method of exposing codec properties has its advantages and drawbacks, but in the end it really boils down to who is exposing the advanced settings through a UI. Will it be Microsoft or will someone with a bit of free time release a "WMV AP Tweak App"... we'll see.

[siddharthagandhi]

For something like Nic's encoder, how will we know that its using the VC-1 codec

will it automatically be added to that list of codecs that Nic's WMencoder has...

[zambelli]

For something like Nic's encoder, how will we know that its using the VC-1 codec
will it automatically be added to that list of codecs that Nic's WMencoder has...
Yes, it should show up as "Windows Media Video 9 Advanced Profile" in the codec list, just like WMVA does today.

[siddharthagandhi]

What would happen if we selected a bitrate lower than 2 mbps (level 0 of adv profile wvc1)...or is the level 0 inclusive of bitrates lower than 2?

[zambelli]

What would happen if we selected a bitrate lower than 2 mbps (level 0 of adv profile wvc1)...or is the level 0 inclusive of bitrates lower than 2?
The encoder typically auto-selects the profile based on resolution, framerate and bitrate. The tables that define the profiles only define upper limits, so yes, you could encode a 160x120 15fps 200kbps video as AP @ L0.
Remember that the profile definitions are really meant for decoders. It's a way of telling the decoder "you have to have these functions implemented and be this powerful in order to properly decode this content". If a decoder only implements SP and MP decoding, then it should be smart enough to reject AP encoded content. Similarly, if it only supports AP decoding up to L3, it should reject L4 content.

[CruNcher]

zambelli can we assume http://www.stereosound.co.jp/hivi/detail/bancho_117.html those will be VC-1 encoded ?
btw now that you reached what you wanted "Microsoft" will you replace WMV-HD now slowly with VC-1 :D i mean WMV-HD isn't anymore needed it's purpose was fullfield (Demonstrating how VC-1 Production would work out for Production Houses and the Film Industry and showing the consumer the benefit vs SD) so now it can go and Rest in Peace :D and all those fake titled HD-DVDs (WMV-HD labeled as HD DVD) could finaly die (they done their job, makeing consumers fuzzy) :) and so will the Asian WMV-HD capable players slowly die too and alot of people will be angry as i promised it :P (good for me i never bought such a Player forseeing it's short term future) or will it live along as a Internet format side by side to VC-1 HD-DVD ? so customers would have to buy 2 Standalones to watch Internet and HD-DVD content or do you estimate that this wont happen, because before they buy 2 standalones they sell the old one and gonna buy Xbox360s like Crazy to be able playbacking (WMV-HD and HD-DVD on 1 Device) clever task once again by "Microsofts Strategy Research Division" ;) So you made yourselfs the way free into some of our Homes living rooms (starting with the Xbox) congratulations exactly as Bill visioned it in "The Way Ahead" (Hopes people understand how important it is what happened here). Now the only thing Microsoft needs to acomplish is getting VC-1 Looseless into Film and Broadcast Cameras (Microsoft gonna buy Panavision in the Future ?) and your done Sony would be on it's knees and Microsoft would own our Broadband Lines with VC-1 or maybe 2 with GRIDTV so Satellite Broadcast Providers with H.264 would get the convert Problems you have now (all the time consumeing converts different software parser licenses would be history) So the whole Movie and Broadcast infrastructure would be Microsoft Dependent sometime in the Future :D

[siddharthagandhi]

WMV HD is encoded in the old Advanced Profile (at least those trailers are, im not sure if WMV HD includes VC-1 encodings)...VC-1 is meant to replace the old AP codec

[bond]

Zambelli already wrote, iirc, that those wmv hd dvds are using vc-1 main profile and not advanced

[siddharthagandhi]

Wait bond are you referring to the WMV HD trailers or the actual HD DVD's?

Isn't VC-1 advanced profile best suited for HD encoding...then why would they use main profile?
Its a newer codec, according to what zambelli said a better codec, so why do they use the main profile?

[zambelli]

Wait bond are you referring to the WMV HD trailers or the actual HD DVD's?
They're both talking about WMV-HD discs. WMV-HD was more than just trailers. There were entire movies released under the "WMV-HD" logo, sometimes as standalone discs and sometimes as supplemental discs in DVD sets. I think Europe was their biggest market.

Isn't VC-1 advanced profile best suited for HD encoding...then why would they use main profile?
Its a newer codec, according to what zambelli said a better codec, so why do they use the main profile?
All content out there currently marked as "WMV HD" and carrying that logo is encoded as Main Profile @ High Level. They never really got around to switching to AP when WMVA came out, which is probably for the best since we had to change the AP implementation.

HD-DVDs ad BluRay discs will use VC-1 AP encoding. They're completely unrelated to WMV-HD.

[zambelli]

zambelli can we assume http://www.stereosound.co.jp/hivi/detail/bancho_117.html those will be VC-1 encoded ?
Yes. First HD-DVD releases in North America will all be VC-1 encoded.

btw now that you reached what you wanted "Microsoft" will you replace WMV-HD now slowly with VC-1 :D i mean WMV-HD isn't anymore needed it's purpose was fullfield (Demonstrating how VC-1 Production would work out for Production Houses and the Film Industry and showing the consumer the benefit vs SD) so now it can go and Rest in Peace :D and all those fake titled HD-DVDs (WMV-HD labeled as HD DVD) could finaly die (they done their job, makeing consumers fuzzy) :) and so will the Asian WMV-HD capable players slowly die too and alot of people will be angry as i promised it :P (good for me i never bought such a Player forseeing it's short term future) or will it live along as a Internet format side by side to VC-1 HD-DVD ?
Not sure, to be honest. I would expect the same - that WMV-HD as a disc format is no longer necessary. I really don't see a future need or market for them. They were a nice experiment though. Along with DVHS, they gave us our first taste of non-broadcast HD.

So the whole Movie and Broadcast infrastructure would be Microsoft Dependent sometime in the Future :D
Heh. It's a long way between Microsoft and Sony. Microsoft is still primarily a software maker. We make a little bit of hardware on the side, but that's about all. Last time I checked, Microsoft wasn't interested in owning movie studios, music labels and making TVs. :)

But what the hell do I know, I'm just a software engineer. :)

[diogen]

...and all those fake titled HD-DVDs (WMV-HD labeled as HD DVD)... From what I remember, the WMVHD version of Terminator 2 appeared before the term HD-DVD was coined
and long before VC-1 became part of it. How can "Product A" be a fake of "Product B" if B doesn't exist?
so customers would have to buy 2 Standalones to watch Internet and HD-DVD content...
You forgot Blu-Ray.That will certainly stick around for a while...
... and alot of people will be angry as i promised it :P (good for me i never bought such a Player forseeing it's short term future)... You must be a very smart guy...:)

Diogen.

[popper]

hmm im comfused now, can someone clarify please.

i thought that both HD-DVD and BLU-RAY were mandated
to use official H.264/avc, right ?.

that VC-1 is a different codec than H.264/avc, I.e not just
an MS extended H.264/avc compatable codec, right ?.

then Zambelli says:
Yes. First HD-DVD releases in North America will all be VC-1 encoded

ok , so im in the UK and so we use PAL 50 rather than ntsc 60 but if the official world mandate is for industry standard H.264/avc , how can NA be using VC-1 ?.

is it a case of releasing VC-1 for specialist hardware
(360 and other special US players etc)before the real official world standard H.264/avc comes online later, or is it that theres some misunderstanding (on my part ?)in all the official sites and posts (BBC tec and EU hangouts) plus what i read here.

[Wilbert]

... H.264/avc or VC-1 or MPEG-2. Players must support all three of them.

[Golgot13]

The fisrt HD DVD Video in Europe, will come from "Studio Canal" company, will be in VC1 (30 movies).
But the BEST codec, to my mind, is H264 because we can have HD DVD video on DVD disc.
Now Microsoft recommend to encode video at 16Mbps in VC1 (I think it's because
the hardware is not optimized)

Next week, all will be clear: HD DVD will launch in USA with disc in VC1 and
we will have lot of news from NAB2006 show (news of video encoders software and hardware) .

Golgot13
Membership of "HD DVD"

[siddharthagandhi]

"is H264 because we can have HD DVD video on DVD disc."

What do you mean by that? H.264 will be in a high bitrate, around 10-15 mbps, and the space-saving capabilites of AVC is most effective at way lower bitrates.

VC-1 might be just as good according to what I heard from zambelli and internet links.

[Golgot13]

Simple,
if you use VC1 at 16Mbps or MPEG2 HD, a movie of 90min will take 10,8GB of space only for video.
But in H264 at 8Mbps (I see a test of H264 with bitrate at 2,8Mbps HD DVD compliant in 1920x1080 of resolution),
the movie will take only 5,4GB and you can put it on DVD disc. :D

[Golgot13]

Sorry, with HD DVD it's possible to have HD DVD Video on DVD disc (all HD DVD player read it).
It's same like miniDVD (DVD Video on CD disc).

[Golgot13]

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 ?????)

[siddharthagandhi]

VC-1 isn't even released to public yet. HD DVD and Blu-Ray didn't even come out. So why would you need to optimize right now?

[foxyshadis]

"is H264 because we can have HD DVD video on DVD disc."

What do you mean by that? H.264 will be in a high bitrate, around 10-15 mbps, and the space-saving capabilites of AVC is most effective at way lower bitrates.

VC-1 might be just as good according to what I heard from zambelli and internet links.
At least it'll degrade more elegantly than MPEG-2 when cheap studios decide to encode at some insanely low bitrate to pack too much on or are unwilling to pay for DL, or use shitty hardware encoders.

And I can almost guarantee that once HD lands in the mainstream, chinese and korean studios are going to be cranking out HD movies (pirated and otherwise) in AVC/VC-1 on regular DVDs.

[siddharthagandhi]

Why does VC-1 have to be encoded at 16 while AVC has to be encoded at 8 mbps? Why cant it be equal bitrate?

[Golgot13]

If you want to put much video bonus or game (it's possible with iHD), you need to "optimize"
the space of the disc.
And nobody want to buy some thing with high price, so in first time some HD DVD Video will be on DVD disc.
Why, because there are not lot of DVD replicator which do HD DVD (last line of singulus "Spaceline II HD"
can make HD DVD and DVD disc), so the price is expensive (HD DVD glassmastering is x 10 than DVD
for simple layer...).
VC1 is available since January, we need to have PC with Windows 2003 x64 or XP x64 with the version
of Windows Media Encoder for x64 CPU

[Golgot13]

For cracking HD movie in HD DVD disc or DVD disc, I am not sure it will be easy: AACS is very hard.
It can be update by the net or disc, and there is lot of layer (one with no encryption, one with local
encryption, one with local encrytion and network authorisation, one with with local and networking
encryption,...).
And it's possible to put more one key (one key from Studio Authoring, one more from replicator
and one from network) and there is storage space (more than 128MB) on player for key and bonus.
Thank AACS association :( :(

local encryption is for encrytion of data on the disc
network encrytion is for web connection to have key(but I don't think that lot of disc, HD DVD
or BluRay, will use it)

[siddharthagandhi]

Golgot what you've seen since January isnt the REAL DEAL...if you read this thread. The real deal is the WVC1 Advanced Profile codec. That might even surpass AVC in terms of the best codec. What you've seen is WMVA, a (i quote) "deprecated codec". (dont wry i had to look that word up too :P)

That codec sucks like hell. WVC1 should be much better.

The first post in this thread discusses how a beta of the REAL DEAL is coming out this month.

I read in the HD DVdz FAQ that the encryption can be cracked because their encryption methods are bad and stuff. But I dont think you should discuss that here or a mod will strike u or something like that.

Btw it would be extremely difficult to fit a 16 mpbs VC-1 HD DVD file on a DVD, and even with AVC at 8 mbps thats still pretty high (when i encode at 8 mbps its like 70-80 mb per minute of video so on a 4.7 GB DVD only about an hour can be stored. So if you want to include a full length movie (about 2 hours) and all the "extras" that come with DVDz normally, and assuming that the extras are 2 hours long (thats what I found the ONLY time (lol) that i actually watched that extra stuff) then that would mean four DVDz. Eventually the price for a real HD DVD disc should go down. When the first HDTV and plasma tv's came out they were well over 2000 dollars, plasma well over 4000 dollars. Now you can get an HDTV plasma for 2000 (a good one) and a HDTV for less than a 1000 (if you look around).

[diogen]

...so in first time some HD DVD Video will be on DVD disc...It doesn't look like this will be the case. The first wave of HD-DVD (in US) will be VC-1 on DL 30GB disks. Sony on BD will be MPEG-2 on SL 25GB disks. It is not clear what titles and when will use H.264 AVC encoding.
You are right that some of the movies will have only ~8GB of video (<10Mbps bitrate), but thats just video.
...VC1 is available since January... This is true for the codec available to the studio mastering houses, not the public (as sid pointed out).

Amir on AVS claims the VC-1 encoding of the first US titles is so good (probably "The Last Samurai"), you can see dust in the air and people's spit while they are talking.

Diogen.

[diogen]

That codec sucks like hell. It depends on the source. T2EE shows it can be very good. This is not true for regular DVDs.
WVC1 should be much better. That's what everybody says...:sly:

Diogen.

[siddharthagandhi]

Everything Diogen said is right except about this:

"This is true for the codec available to the studio mastering houses,"

He was talking about the deprecated codec in Windows Media Encoder x64 edition. That codec is WMV 9 Advanced Profile, and is VC-1 compliant, but not fully compliant, and its worser than the "real deal" codec i described before.

[zambelli]

if you use VC1 at 16Mbps or MPEG2 HD, a movie of 90min will take 10,8GB of space only for video.
But in H264 at 8Mbps (I see a test of H264 with bitrate at 2,8Mbps HD DVD compliant in 1920x1080 of resolution),
the movie will take only 5,4GB and you can put it on DVD disc.
If their H.264 codec is more efficent than Microsoft's VC-1 codec, it's certainly not that much more efficient. The 16Mbps recommendation might be just that - a recommendation. How efficient the actual codec is depends on the implementation.

You really shouldn't take that info at face value. It's reasonable to expect that H.264 and VC-1 encodes of the same content will typically be of the same size/quality. Any efficiency advantage of one over the other will probably be due to the state of the particular codec implementation they're using, but I still doubt one codec will ever be more than 10% more efficient than the other.

VC1 is good codec because we don't need to have a big CPU to read HD video in this codec.
This is a very good point. VC-1 was designed to be a less complex codec than H.264, thus requiring less decoding resources. Any advantage you gain in encoding efficiency with H.264 over VC-1 - you're going to have to pay for it on the decoding side. (CABAC, for example.)

Golgot what you've seen since January isnt the REAL DEAL...if you read this thread. The real deal is the WVC1 Advanced Profile codec. That might even surpass AVC in terms of the best codec. What you've seen is WMVA, a (i quote) "deprecated codec". (dont wry i had to look that word up too :P) That codec sucks like hell. WVC1 should be much better.
Golgot still has a point - producing VC-1 AP bitstreams has been possible for everybody ever since the x64 Encoder came out. Regardless of what the actual FourCC code is, it's the bitstream that matters if you're looking to use VC-1 elementary streams in something like HD-DVD authoring.

BTW, now you've all got me questioning whether the x64 Encoder used the WVC1 FourCC or the old WMVA FourCC. I have to go find an x64 machine and find out for myself so it doesn't turn out I'm spreading misinformation. :)

Regardless of the FourCC being used, the important thing to understand about the 3 Advanced Profile Microsoft codecs is that they're just snapshots from a development timeline like any other.

x86 WMVA ----> x64 codec -----> x86 WVC1

The first one doesn't produce VC-1 AP compliant streams, the latter two do. From a dev standpoint, they all came from the same development branch, just from different points in time and different phases of development.
Even though the x64 encoder was released late in 2005, the codec itself was based on code dating to probably mid-2005.

[zambelli]

OK, guys, I screwed up. I just went and checked a x64 XP machine with WME9 x64 installed and it turns out the x64 WMV Advanced Profile codec actually uses the "WVC1" FourCC, not "WMVA" as I had previously said. Sorry about that!

This doesn't actually change much - the FourCC code itself is just an identifier to find the appropriate decoder. Everything else we discussed still holds true. The x64 AP codec is VC-1 compliant, but is probably about 9 months behind the current AP code.

I'll go back and edit the old posts just to make sure nobody new reading the thread gets confused.

[popper]

Why does VC-1 have to be encoded at 16 while AVC has to be encoded at 8 mbps? Why cant it be equal bitrate?

weather it has to be or not, i dont know, but its clear than the 8 Mbit (and lower) would be very usful for HD DTT broadcast on UKs FreeView and other countrys standards.

[siddharthagandhi]

"This doesn't actually change much - the FourCC code itself is just an identifier to find the appropriate decoder. Everything else we discussed still holds true. The x64 AP codec is VC-1 compliant, but is probably about 9 months behind the current AP code."

So the one that's coming out for beta will be a lot better than that one, right?

[IgorC]

Hi, zambelli
Can you provide a sample encoded by VC-1 codec. For example Harry Potter 2 Trailer http://multimediacom.free.fr/Download/
It is interesting to see how it performs at approx 500-600 kbps

[Doom9]

So where's the 32bit encoder so that we can face it off against x264? in2movies is just sheding a very bad light on Microsoft codecs...

[siddharthagandhi]

Zambelli said that the beta release is a codec, not an encoder.
I'd really like to see how it compares to Nero Digital, because ND has given me the best results and its one of the best AVC codecs as shown in MSU's and Doom9's codec comparisons.

[diogen]

So where's the 32bit encoder... It is supposed to be released this month, still two weeks left.
After checking MS site I noticed that the text of the announcement has changed:
what zambelli quoted in post #5 - April to be the release month - is not there anymore.
I do remember seeing the exact text as it is quoted in that post.
Does this mean the date has slipped or the release cancelled alltogether?
Can you comment, zambelli?

Diogen.

[IgorC]

I'd really like to see how it compares to Nero Digital, because ND has given me the best results and its one of the best AVC codecs as shown in MSU's and Doom9's codec comparisons.

Afaik. MSU and Doom9's comparisons compared High Profile Ateme AVC encoder that still not enable in Nero Recode2.
Nero Recode2 has only old Main Profile AVC. It's not bad and provide comparable quality as x264. Indeed last time x264 was improved siginifically - trellis, excelent ratetol, High Profile features like 8x8 dct and custom matrices, outstanding RD optimisations that makes x264 comparable only with close beta (not enabled yet) Ateme High Profile and Elecard.

[siddharthagandhi]

My results have shown that Nero Recode 2's codec is much better than x264. x264 doesn't even provide comparable quality to nero recode 2, in my opinion. But I don't want to start a codec debate.

[Golgot13]

NeroRecode use ateme encoder (in main profile). I use in my test for H264, the H264 software encoder
of Ateme (not directshow filter) : http://www.ateme.com/products/pcencoder.php

It is a good software and the quality of files encoded is one of better (1920x1080 24p at between 4Mbps to 5 Mbps
less I see difference with my 32" LCD from Samsung ).
There is some preset to be compatible with the hardware chipset (like STB7XXX from STMicroelectronic).
I do some test with Sigma Design chipset, it's wonderful...(but some options of H264 is not compatible
like GMC with old hardware chipset with Divx).

[Golgot13]

x264 is a best software to encode in H264 but the encoded file now will not compatible with
all hardware chipset present on market (because with can not change some options of H264).
So it's a good software to encode and watch the file on PC (with a good CPU).

But I think, in the near futur, some changement will do with x264 to be compatible
with hardware chipset.

And all new video hardware chipsets are directly compatible with H264 and VC1 (in High Definition). :D

[siddharthagandhi]

x264 doesn't give good results from fraps captures, whereas nero digital does...i'm doing some more testing on normal movies and videos

by the way how did u get a hold of ateme's high profile encoder? Did you buy it? Is there a demo?

[foxyshadis]

They had a closed beta a while back (been quite a while though! everyone thought recode would be updated as soon as it was over...), and I'm not sure, but it wouldn't surprise me if you could "obtain" it online.

[Golgot13]

I think the new NeroRecode will include this version of Ateme software. I see on show
(like CES, Ceatec, Cebit, IFA,...) that Nero is ready for HD DVD and BluRay (record disc software and
video software).
So for HD DVD, NeroRecode will be able to use High Profil for H264 and Advance Profil for VC1.
This version will be on market before september or this summer :D :D :D :D

[dohcmark8]

I hope the VC-1 codec is released soon.

I plan on compressing all my SD stuff with XViD and all my HD stuff with VC-1.

[siddharthagandhi]

Mad nice...Nero Recode will solve all my encoding needs

I currently use Nero Digital AVC and ASP for all my encodes, because for normal movies and Fraps captures it has give me the best results. Hopefully VC-1 will be as good as it sounds.

[trbarry]

I think the current WMV9 VCM is slipping a bit behind state of the art, making it compare less favorably with things like X264.

It would be nice to have a newer one.

- Tom

[zambelli]

So the one that's coming out for beta will be a lot better than that one, right?
Correct. Compared to both WMV9 MP (WMV3) and previous releases of WMV9 AP (WMVA and WVC1 x64), with new WVC1 codec you should see:

better quality at a given bitrate (CBR and 2pVBR)
smaller file size at given quality setting (1pVBR)

[zambelli]

So where's the 32bit encoder so that we can face it off against x264? in2movies is just sheding a very bad light on Microsoft codecs...
I haven't seen the in2movies encodes so I've no idea what they're doing. I'm assuming they're using Main Profile? Are they using CBR or VBR? 1pass or 2pass?

The beta of the new WVC1 codec will be out soon. You tested the alpha version back in December, so you know what to expect. You'll be happy to know that 2-pass VBR issues have been fixed and bitrate control is very accurate now.

[zambelli]

I do remember seeing the exact text as it is quoted in that post.
Does this mean the date has slipped or the release cancelled alltogether?
No, the plan is still to release it. The question is only which release vehicle to use. Keep in mind that Microsoft traditionally releases codecs with player/format updates. The only exception in recent years was the v9 VCM codec, so a lot of people are trying to figure out the appropriate release vehicle for this codec.

Sometimes I really envy companies that can just zip up the DLL together with a readme.txt and prop it up on a web server within minutes. ;) Here every release is like a Vista launch. :)

[stax76]

I haven't seen the in2movies encodes so I've no idea what they're doing. I'm assuming they're using Main Profile? Are they using CBR or VBR? 1pass or 2pass?

I don't think they state what they are using but wouldn't everything other than quality mody be flawed?

[siddharthagandhi]

"You tested the alpha version back in December, so you know what to expect."

Are you just talking to Diogen? Or was the alpha released to everyone?

[zambelli]

Can you provide a sample encoded by VC-1 codec. For example Harry Potter 2 Trailer. It is interesting to see how it performs at approx 500-600 kbps
720x576 at 500-600kbps? Umm, that's quite a stretch.

[Doom9]

Are you just talking to Diogen? Or was the alpha released to everyone?zambelli's reply was to me quote so guess whom he was talking to ;)

[Sagittaire]

720x576 at 500-600kbps? Umm, that's quite a stretch.

It's for this challenge
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=90784

At this time x264 is the best by far
41.30 dB for 447 Kbps
43.90 dB for 886 Kbps

[bond]

720x576 at 500-600kbps? Umm, that's quite a stretch.thats the bitrate most people use around here (or at least the "pro" encoders seeing it as a sport to place a movie on 1cdr :D )

and i have yet to see wmv9 be able to beat even xvid at that bitrate (not to speak of x264)...

till i see this all the quality claims are not more than ...

[dohcmark8]

Question for the Microsoft guys... will we be able to encode in VC-1 using '1 Pass Quality VBR' mode?

As I see in the current VCM it doesnt let you choose a profile unles you use two pass, or am I missing something?

[CruNcher]

No, the plan is still to release it. The question is only which release vehicle to use. Keep in mind that Microsoft traditionally releases codecs with player/format updates. The only exception in recent years was the v9 VCM codec, so a lot of people are trying to figure out the appropriate release vehicle for this codec.

Sometimes I really envy companies that can just zip up the DLL together with a readme.txt and prop it up on a web server within minutes. ;) Here every release is like a Vista launch. :)

Would perfectly fit for the WMP 11 XP Release then ;) you just had to pre date it's release by 2 month, anyway "before end of june" could also mean today, tomorrow or next friday ;)

[diogen]

720x576 at 500-600kbps? Umm, that's quite a stretch.I'd more than happy if it can transparently encode 12Mbps satellite/cable hidef using about 5Mbps (fitting 2 hours on one DVD).
Do you know, zambelli, whether the 3-pass encoding option that Amir talked about on AVS (3rd pass for hand-tuning)
will also be available in the upcoming VC-1 release? Or is this only for studios?

Diogen.

[siddharthagandhi]

Whats a db measurement? Is that like a measurement of quality?

[foxyshadis]

PSNR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSNR), a very rough measure of quality.

[zambelli]

thats the bitrate most people use around here (or at least the "pro" encoders seeing it as a sport to place a movie on 1cdr :D )
I understand the bitrate issue (trust me, I've been on this forum for a long time :)), but 720x576 is way too big for 500-600kbps to look good. However, after looking at Sagittaire's script, I see it's actually 720x304 at 900kbps that he requires. Much more reasonable, although still challenging.

and i have yet to see wmv9 be able to beat even xvid at that bitrate (not to speak of x264)...
till i see this all the quality claims are not more than ...
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.

[zambelli]

Question for the Microsoft guys... will we be able to encode in VC-1 using '1 Pass Quality VBR' mode?
As I see in the current VCM it doesnt let you choose a profile unles you use two pass, or am I missing something?
New WMV AP codec (WVC1) will support all encoding modes: 1p CBR, 2p CBR, 1p VBR, 2p VBR unconstrained and 2p VBR constrained.

[zambelli]

Do you know, zambelli, whether the 3-pass encoding option that Amir talked about on AVS (3rd pass for hand-tuning) will also be available in the upcoming VC-1 release? Or is this only for studios?
I remember briefly reading Amir's explanation and that stuff was news to me, too. I believe that's a property of the encoding tool that the studios are using, not the codec itself.

[siddharthagandhi]

I encode just about everything at 2 mbps, it would be nice if I could get it to 1.5 mbps or 1 mbps even. But would I see a benefit from VC-1 at 2 mbps? Thats not really HD bitrate, its not really an AVC bitrate either.

[IgorC]

Well, 500-600 kbps for 720x304 good clean source is enough ..... in case of x264.

There are some rumors from Vista and other MS applications beta testers:
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

Other information that in the best case new VC-1 videocodec is just comparable to MPEG4 ASP.

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.

[zambelli]

Well, 500-600 kbps for 720x304 good clean source is enough ..... in case of x264.
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.

There are some rumors from Vista and other MS applications beta testers: 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
Isn't LAME 3.96 just "tweaked LAME 3.91"? If the bitstream is locked, there is only so much improvement you can do to the encoder. Which codec did they evaluate? Standard, Voice or Pro?

[Liisachan]

Other information that in the best case new VC-1 videocodec is just comparable to MPEG4 ASP. 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.

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. You can not overestimate nor underestimate what does not yet exist. We will see...
And MPEG-related things could be like that too. I mean, for instance, it was claimed that HE-AACv2 48kbps was better than MP3 128, which is totally denied by the double-blind. It's normal that each company says their new product is the best and much better than existing things. Only the naive would believe that literally, but I guess VC-1 should be quite good.

[foxyshadis]

It's better than MP3 Lame at 128 kbit/s
Not meaning to pile on or anything, but that's like saying xvid is better than mpeg-1, or sorensen. mp3 has been outdated for many years, but it took a while for hardware (and apple) to show up and push more people to leave it behind. =p (Although lame has done a lot to push a great deal of extra complexity onto the encoding side to wring out extra quality.)

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.
The funny part is that, compared to their optimization for high bitrate HD video, they're still optimizing the audio codec to the bottom of the bitrate end (which I don't disagree with, so is every other current audio format).

[GodofaGap]

There are some rumors from Vista and other MS applications beta testers:
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

Actually this info is false: according to the latest multi-format listening test done by Sebastian Mares all codecs in the test (including WMA Pro, I-Tunes AAC and Lame MP3) were statistically tied at 128 kbps. So yes, MP3 performed just as good as I-Tunes and WMA.

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=40607

Well, 500-600 kbps for 720x304 good clean source is enough ..... in case of x264.
I do not think that this is true in general. Perhaps for an almost perfect source.

[diogen]

...in the best case new VC-1 videocodec is just comparable to MPEG4 ASP...At 500kbps, 5Mbps, 15Mbps or across all bitrates?
If it's true for high bitrates, somebody should tell Warner and Universal about it since their HD-DVD encodes are all VC-1.

Diogen.

[siddharthagandhi]

"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....


Why does audio really matter? For internet distribution bitrates, at most its a difference of a couple of megabytes. I couldn't give a *blank* about audio codecs. Video is what I'm concerned about. And since it seems that VC-1 won't be better than AVC that means I'm going to have to stay with Nero Digital for the future.

[IgorC]

500-700 is preferible bitrate for most people. http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=101187

I actually do my backups at 700-1500 dependly from source complexity. But 600-700 is a good bitrate to benchmark codec performance.

Maybe VC-1 isn't so good. That's why there is no sample video. ;).

As it says all last comparisons (MSU, Doom9, Sagitarie etc. ) WMV9 ins't on par with MPEG-4 ASP.

Finally there is no any material proof (not even one trailer ) of that VC-1 will be as good as ASP.
That's why I asked to encode with VC-1 Harry Potter trailer.
Without video trailer all claims just are words and nothing more than simply words.

[siddharthagandhi]

We all just have to wait for the beta and then see if all the hype was worth it.

[HookedOnTV]

Enough for what? VHS quality? I'm not buying it. This is where I disagree with the whole 1CD approach to codec comparisons.

Here here. I don't get it either. What kind of display are people watching these on? 13"? What do you get by fitting it on a CD? Cost of CD's vs DVD's is a few pennies. 6/700k on a 50" display is horrible. All the darker areas have ringing and blocking. Does that not bother them? Drives me nuts.

Ok, so that's my rant... don't mean to offend anybody.

[dohcmark8]

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

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?

[Doom9]

About distribution: you have windowsupdate and millions of pcs leeching whatever updates marked as important.. how much simpler can it get? And while you're at it.. make the darned .NET runtime mandatory so people can stop bitching about it.

[siddharthagandhi]

dochmark8: you're going to need special burners and burning software to do all that, but most applications and hardware will be third party, like MPEG-2 and DVD today

[siddharthagandhi]

Doom 9: I thought u said no profanity

But you have a good point.

[Golgot13]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

@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]

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]

(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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

x264 > WMV9 > XviD.

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

[zambelli]

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]

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

[zambelli]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[foxyshadis]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[zambelli]

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]

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. Ok, thank you for that info & sorry for been ironical. what you just said could be really useful information, because many devs were fazed out because of that incident. It actually damaged the status of ASF itself too, because something that can't be loaded on VD is a "bad" format for us. 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..."

[zambelli]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

VC-1 is not a container...

[foxyshadis]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[foxyshadis]

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).

[trbarry]

I've stuck to Virtualdubmod/avi/vcm pretty much out of habit and because it supports all my avisynth scripts and filters (and ac3).

- Tom

[bond]

smpte defines how to place vc-1 video streams in .mpg and .ts. therefore someone could say that .mpg and .ts are the official vc-1 containers (and not .wmv/.asf)

Then my dream is reality.
http://www.maresweb.de/listening-tests/mf-128-1/resultsz.pnglearn to care about the details

wma9 pro is NOT the same as wma9 (which you were talking about). the two are totally different and incompliant audio codecs

wma9 has NO chance against mp3 at 128kbps as listening tests on hydrogenaudio have shown...


edit: someone could make listening tests with wma9 lossless and claim that therefore wma9 provides better quality than mp3 (obviously as its lossless). obviously this would not make sense either

[GodofaGap]

Since neither of us are lawyers, it'll probably serve us no good to speculate here about the possible interpretations of that.
The problem is, I think, that this section of the EULA doesn't leave much room for interpretation.

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.
But this is the other way around. Developers should be *encouraged*, not hindered in their efforts. That is, if MS really wants ASF to be supported in other apps. And I really can't think of any reason why MS wouldn't want this. What is the big the deal with someone writing an open-source (GPL or not) ASF parser/writer? What and whom could it possibly hurt?

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?
Oh no, that can solely be blamed on DirectShow being very sensitive to badly written third party filters. :)

How to cause a stack overflow in Notepad using DirectShow filters (http://www.virtualdub.org/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=96#body)

P.S. We can take this to another thread/forum or offline, since it's pretty much outside the scope of this thread.
A topic split would be fine with me. PM's are not really 'my thing'.

[cdrinfo]

how someone can get the Windows Media Encoder Studio Edition Beta (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/forpros/encoderse/default.aspx)? there is no download link :(

[siddharthagandhi]

if you read the thread you would have seen that its not released yet but it is coming soon

[cdrinfo]

Ok, i thought so too, thanks for the confirmation. Is there any way to encode to VC-1, apart from using windows XP x64 and WMEncoder 9 for x64?

[siddharthagandhi]

just one slightly off topic (but it relates to the HA tests) what is the general ranking of ogg vorbis, lame mp3, and AAC (Nero) from 1 to 3? and generally what most tests have shown, im not asking what is the best or anything

[IgorC]

learn to care about the details

wma9 pro is NOT the same as wma9 (which you were talking about). the two are totally different and incompliant audio codecs


I didn't say that wma standart was better than LAME mp3.
Can you point at least one post where I say that ? No? Yes? Right?

And to whom you're saying to care about details? To me? lol nice try. I visit HA forum regulary and know what happens.

Learn to care/read well posts.

[siddharthagandhi]

"Learn to care/read well posts."

He wouldn't be a mod if he didn't know how to do that.

[stax76]

The only insult/flame here is 'but IgorC are you retarded?'

[siddharthagandhi]

I edited it. Happy?

[gURuBoOleZ]

I didn't say that wma standart was better than LAME mp3.
Can you point at least one post where I say that ? No? Yes? Right?

And to whom you're saying to care about details? To me? lol nice try. I visit HA forum regulary and know what happens.

Learn to care/read well posts.

This is what you said:
There are some rumors from Vista and other MS applications beta testers:
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

source: #90 (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=815388#post815388) of this thread.
Could you give me the exact location of these informations in HA.org? I'm reading HA too and I had made plenty testing these last years: I rarely forget listening tests results. What I read about WMA10 encoder from people having tested it [edit: not at 128 kbps though] is rather the contrary of what you said.

Moreover, if I read this debate correctly, you opposed to bond who told you that WMA9 is inferior to LAME 128 a plot including WMAPro and not WMA. It's as relevant as posting a porn image as proof: it has strictly no sense. Furthemore, this graph only shows that WMAPro is tied with all other competitors (including iTunes AAC and Vorbis aoTuV) and it can't be quoted as argument or proof for any encoder's superiority. The graph you're looking for is that one:

http://www.rjamorim.com/test/multiformat128/plot18z.png

and it concludes that test (http://www.rjamorim.com/test/multiformat128/presentation.html).

@bond> the (valid) difference between LAME and WMA9 was really small. So I wouldn't say that WMA "has no chance" ;)

[IgorC]

This is what you said:
There are some rumors from Vista and other MS applications beta testers:
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

source: #90 (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=815388#post815388) of this thread.
Could you give me the exact location of these informations in HA.org? I'm reading HA too and I had made plenty testing these last years: I rarely forget listening tests results. What I read about WMA10 encoder from people having tested it [edit: not at 128 kbps though]...

As I said there are rumors not a listening test and as the result of that there is no official information neither software. However Serge from HA gived some information
Post 16 http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=43656&st=0

Moreover, if I read this debate correctly, you opposed to bond ....
If you read well firstly he agressivly opposed to me without knowing if I was talkning about pro or std and started to teach me to care about the details.



....who told you that WMA9 is inferior to LAME 128 a plot including WMAPro and not WMA. It's as relevant as posting a porn image as proof: it has strictly no sense. Furthemore, this graph only shows that WMAPro is tied with all other competitors (including iTunes AAC and Vorbis aoTuV) and it can't be quoted as argument or proof for any encoder's superiority.
It should be adressed not only to me as well to Bond too. His statements has the same point.
In fact when I said "WMA (pro?) is better than Lame mp3 at 128 " I knew perfectly the interpretation of the test results. i.e in the last 48 test 3gpp was stadistcly tied
to Winamp and Nero AAC+ encoders. But what happened really on HA? Now Nero's one is considirated as best AAC+ encoder to be tested in 48 multi test. Because this test is unique information. Yes, stadistiscly it's tied , but in fact considerated as best.

[gURuBoOleZ]

As I said there are rumors not a listening test and as the result of that there is no official information neither software. However Serge from HA gived some information
Post 16 http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=43656&st=0

I know this link. But you talked about beta testers: as far as I know, Serge only count for one person. Moreover, Serge only mentionned pre-tests without giving any precision (blind or not, one or more sample, etc...) and he didn't said that WMA10 is inferior to iTunes AAC. As you mentioned several information that aren't claimed by Serge, I've asked for your sources. I'm still waiting for them ;)

If you read well firstly he agressivly opposed to me without knowing if I was talkning about pro or std and started to teach me to care about the details.
He reacts to your wrong arguments. And it's not the first IIRC that your interpreting listening tests results in a wrong manner. I could understand by his reaction - I sometimes feel the same things with people used to distort facts.

But what happened really on HA? Now Nero's one is considirated as best AAC+ encoder to be tested in 48 multi test. Because this test is unique information. [B]Yes, stadistiscly it's tied , but in fact considerated as best.

I beg your pardon, but Nero AAC isn't considered as best (not alone at least) as you said - and the first member who will be tempted to claim that with this test as basis would break TOS#8 obligation. Back up your claims, please.

[Sagittaire]

well this test is outdated (2004-05-23)

http://www.rjamorim.com/test/multiformat128/plot18z.png


Now it's more like that ...

http://www.maresweb.de/listening-tests/mf-128-1/resultsz.png


Perhaps wrong but there are no public test at this time for wma sdt 9.1 and no public test for wma sdt 10.0. If mp3can progress certainely that wma sdt can progress too.

[IgorC]

I'm not going to back my claims not even in wet dreams.
and I'm not violating the TOS#8. You don't understand what I'm saying. All answers are already in my previos posts.

We can keep discussing and discussing you know it perfectly.
So I will stop here. I have a lot of things to do today. And I'm not going to waste time on discussing not because I have no arguments but because it's useless since we don't understand to each other.

If you wanna accuse in tos#8 somebody then you should to do that with many people from HA forum.

Good bye.

[diogen]

...Yes, stadistiscly it's tied , but in fact considerated as best.WTF?
Do you understand what you're talking about? How can one be considered best if it is statistically tied?
Those arguments might fly at hydrogenaudion, but here you should keep them to yourself.

Diogen.

[siddharthagandhi]

You better hold back on the flaming the mods might do something to you.

[diogen]

I'm not going to back my claims...Of course, why would you?
You don't understand what I'm saying.Would be nice if you did yourself.
And I'm not going to waste time on discussing Sounds really promissing. If you check in the meantime the difference between statistics and wishful thinking - everyone would benefit.

Diogen.

[gURuBoOleZ]

Sagittaire> that's entirely true.

IgorC >
And from where comes your knowledge about what people on HA.org are thinking? The only rational source I can find would be threads and posts published on the board - but I can't find such claims. Do you have some unknown powers giving you the possibility to read in people's mind?
For your own enlightment: you weren't even registered on HA.org when moderators and other members started to fight against wrong analysis of listening tests results. I don't noticed any changes in the last weeks, and as far as I can read, people are not considering Nero as better than other HE-AAC competitors like Coding Tech's one.

But your free to save face by quoting messages from "many people" that are violating TOS#8 and statistical conclusions. Otherwise, your claims are pure calumny (against a forum, against moderators of this forum).

[IgorC]

Guruboolez. Were you never disagree with admins of HA? Garf?
You did it so many times!!!!
I'm not flaming to anyone and trying to answer the question in the excatly same form as question.

Guru, as you know Nero AAC is considirated as optimal (if youy don't like the word "best") encoder to participate in multi 48 test. If you don't agree with then you don't agree with hundred people from HA who considirating to include Nero AAC to multitest.

Did you get my point now? what I´m trying to say that it´s best conditionally not best as itself.

Do you understand now?

I would repeat we are (me and you, Guru) people who will fight own point infinitly. Don't you?

[IgorC]

Guruboolez, if you standing by your words then go on HA forum and ask to not include Nero AAC+ encoder into 48 multitest because of " all aac+ encoder are tied". I want to see how many people (including admins) will respond your question.

Do it!!! if you are so rightfull person.

Why you're compalining here about interpretation of test results?
Why you are not asking it to Garf ( admin and Nero dev )?

[avih]

guys, pls take it easy and keep the discussion intelligent ;)

[gURuBoOleZ]

Guruboolez. Were you never disagree with admins of HA? Garf?
You did it so many times!!!!
What is the point of this?

Guru, as you know Nero AAC is considirated as optimal (if youy don't like the word "best") encoder to participate in multi 48 test. If you don't agree with then you don't agree with hundred people from HA who considirating to include Nero AAC to multitest.
I'm making effort to stay polite...
One encoder must be selected to compete in a multi-format listening test. The common sense tells to everybody to use the one that obtained the best mark, and not to choose arbitrarily one of those that are tied at first place. What did you expect: that the five different HE-AAC implementation must all be selected because they're all tied?


Did you get my point now? what I´m trying to say that it´s best conditionally not best as itself.
Does someone has a decoder to translate this?
There's nothing such as "best conditionally". There's a probability for Nero AAC to be the best, but there's also a probability (lower, but significant) for 3GPP to be the best too. That's why there are confidence bar, and why people who understand plots are saying that all these encoders are tied.

Do you understand now?
This argument doesn't explain anything about "many people are thinking that..." and other claims. It seems that you have your own interpretation of listening tests, and that you're trying to convince yourself that many people are thinking the same way.
Correct me if I'm wrong.

[communist]

Can you take that HA stuff/listening test somewhere else?

This thread is about VC-1 - a video codec ;)

[GmorG McRoth]

All this talk about AAC is nice but, are there any news about VC-1 status?

-edit-

nice timing communist XD

[siddharthagandhi]

Yea. Personal battles like yours should be done through PM.

[zambelli]

are there any news about VC-1 status?
Yes, it's alive and well, living with uncle SMPTE. :)

I'm sure you're asking about WMV9 AP (WVC1) codec that I said would be out "later this month"... and yet, here we are, end of month, and it's still not out. What happened? Well, what can I say... shipping products in large companies is difficult, even when it's just a DLL that's being released.

We're tying up some loose ends and still trying to release the codec as soon as possible. Unless something goes horribly wrong, the updated WVC1 codec should be out within a few weeks - in one shipping vehicle or another.

I'm sorry I have to be so ambiguous about it.

[GmorG McRoth]

Small companies are not keeping release terms too. It's way too comon lately for my taste, though I understand if it's not ready you can't just release it on us, kinda like giving half cooked dish for the dinner... I hope it won't take too long, I'm hungry.

[siddharthagandhi]

"within a few weeks - in one shipping vehicle or another."

a few weeks!?!??

oh man this sucks.....

i thought studio edition was coming out this past friday, thats what diogen said...

[diogen]

...i thought studio edition was coming out this past friday, thats what diogen said...Hey... It's not me, Ben said that in two posts on AVS. I'm just the messenger.
BTW, "couple weeks" (zambelli) and "today" (Ben, on Fridey) _is_ a hell of a difference...
I guess, that's how big companies operate - no one knows for sure (forget about being able to tell).

This does suck...

Diogen.

[siddharthagandhi]

Ben works for Microsoft?

[diogen]

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/forpros/encoderse/usingsehd.aspx

Diogen.

[trbarry]

Well, drat! I see everyone's losing interest in this thread now the codec has been delayed. :(

- Tom

[GmorG McRoth]

I didn't loose interest, im just watching and waiting quietly.
most of things that ware to say, were already said so we are waiting for codec to talk about it's pros, and cons when we have chance to actually use it.

[diogen]

Well, drat! I see everyone's losing interest in this thread now the codec has been delayed...I'd love to bitch about it, but it won't help anyway :)

Diogen.

[siddharthagandhi]

I didn't lose interest...its just that theres nothing to show for all this time

[zambelli]

I can assure you guys that nobody finds it more frustrating than me that the codec is still not on the web. :(

[diogen]

I can assure you guys that nobody finds it more frustrating than me that the codec is still not on the web. :(
If there would be even a theoretical chance for this to be resolved, I'd bet you are wrong.:sly:
But I've lost bets before...;)

Since we have more time now to read, the Abstract in Ben's article starts with:
"A beta version of Windows Media Encoder Studio Edition is available."
I guess nobody's told him yet that it is not.:(

Diogen.

[zambelli]

If there would be even a theoretical chance for this to be resolved, I'd bet you are wrong.:sly:
But I've lost bets before...;)
I assure it's just a question of "when" and not "if".

Since we have more time now to read, the Abstract in Ben's article starts with:
"A beta version of Windows Media Encoder Studio Edition is available."
I guess nobody's told him yet that it is not.:(
The problem is that articles and downloads have different release criteria, different deadlines, and are published in different sections of the website... so yeah, it's not a good situation to be in - the articles are published but the downloads are not.

[siddharthagandhi]

For most other releases in general (by any company) its usually the exact opposite circumstance.

[diogen]

I still believe it won't be "just a DLL" that will be released.
Based on that note in ExtremeTech, I think we'll see the codec, WME Studio (beta) and WMP11 (probably beta) released at the same time (I understand that WMP10 as of now plays VC-1).
WMP11 might even have AACS approval to play back HD-DVD content. There are still no HDMI video cards and PC drives, but those must be out shortly (the NEC drive in the Toshiba HD-DVD player _is_ a simple IDE PC drive that will get a XP driver).
Vista is 8+ months away, I think MS can't afford not to give XP users an option (and a cheap one at that) to play HD-DVD content - they will risk to lose momentum. And announced Toshiba (laptop) and Sony (desktop) products prove it can be done on XP.

Or may be it's just wishful thinking ....
If releasing "just a DLL" takes this much time, there is something really wrong at MS...

Diogen.

[GmorG McRoth]

If releasing "just a DLL" takes this much time, there is something really wrong at MS...
More like there is something wrong with DLL.

[zambelli]

I still believe it won't be "just a DLL" that will be released. Based on that note in ExtremeTech, I think we'll see the codec, WME Studio (beta) and WMP11 (probably beta) released at the same time (I understand that WMP10 as of now plays VC-1).
I will neither confirm nor deny that. :)
But I will say that the 3 releases that you mentioned have separate, mutually independent schedules. None of them are holding each other back, if that's what you're thinking.
Vista is 8+ months away, I think MS can't afford not to give XP users an option (and a cheap one at that) to play HD-DVD content - they will risk to lose momentum. And announced Toshiba (laptop) and Sony (desktop) products prove it can be done on XP.
I actually don't know what the plan is there, since that kind of scenario (HD-DVD on XP) requires a lot of different pieces to fall into place. It's not just a simple matter of releasing, say, a decoder or something... There's so much "protected playback" stuff associated with HD-DVD and BluRay that it's not an easy task protecting the entire playback pipeline - and that's something that Microsoft would have to implement in order to get approval from the HD-DVD/BluRay people.

[diogen]

.. the 3 releases that you mentioned have separate, mutually independent schedules.I can understand how the codec (DLL) can be "dropped" into the old WME9 (and I hope it will, to simplify the learning curve).
But I can't imagine WME Studio released without the new codec. Hence, they are not _completely_ independent.
... There's so much "protected playback" stuff associated with HD-DVD and BluRay that it's not an easy task protecting the entire playback pipeline - and that's something that Microsoft would have to implement in order to get approval from the HD-DVD/BluRay people.As Amir mentioned on AVS, the player has to be AACS-certified (no "approval from the HD-DVD/BluRay people"). And if it gets hacked, it costs 8mil (not that simple, but close). Who is better positioned to take this "gamble" with HD-DVD playback than Microsoft? If they don't do it - nobody will (for WinXP on existing PCs).
And this is what I don't think will happen (i.e. MS can't afford let to happen).

Diogen.

[siddharthagandhi]

"But I can't imagine WME Studio released without the new codec. Hence, they are not _completely_ independent."

It can't be...the whole encoder is based off of VC-1 so it must be packaged with VC-1

[diogen]

...the whole encoder is based off of VC-1 so it must be packaged with VC-1Exactly my point: if the DLL is not ready it will hold back WME Studio.
But I'm not sure the WME Studio will _replace_ WME9 since Studio works _only_ with Advanced Profile (according to Ben's article).
Unless it is so good, any other profile becomes irrelevant.

Diogen.

[siddharthagandhi]

But why would you need to or want to encode in any other profile?

[diogen]

But why would you need to or want to encode in any other profile?Hmmm... Encoding speed for non-critical jobs?

Diogen.

[Valeron]

But why would you need to or want to encode in any other profile?

Simple profile for mobile and low caculation capable device~

and for main profile, i take a look into the VC-1 draft, there's just a bit differents compare to the adavanced.

if they re-implement the VC-1 from scratch, main profile might be improved too.

[dohcmark8]

Ben Waggoner made a post on AVS to expect the new WME sometime this week.

I'm holding my breath...

[stax76]

This might be a stupid question as nobody ask before, will AviSynth scripts be supported by WME Studio and the automation interfaces? With the old stuff it's not working and I have problems to understand how it can be useful for us without AviSynth support. If it's possible I will add VC-1 support to StaxRip. I wanted to do that with WMV9 too but after having a major pain I was forced to give up.

[GmorG McRoth]

This might be a stupid question as nobody ask before, will AviSynth scripts be supported by WME Studio and the automation interfaces? With the old stuff it's not working and I have problems to understand how it can be useful for us without AviSynth support. If it's possible I will add VC-1 support to StaxRip. I wanted to do that with WMV9 too but after having a major pain I was forced to give up.
I was wondering same thing for some time now, but I could not decide where to post here or there (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=110404)

[Latexxx]

This might be a stupid question as nobody ask before, will AviSynth scripts be supported by WME Studio and the automation interfaces? With the old stuff it's not working and I have problems to understand how it can be useful for us without AviSynth support. If it's possible I will add VC-1 support to StaxRip. I wanted to do that with WMV9 too but after having a major pain I was forced to give up.

If I remember correctly, avisynth is somewhat usable with wmenc9. I mean that it is a pita to set up but it works correctly at least for video only content.

[HookedOnTV]

WMNicEnc uses avs input.

[zambelli]

Simple profile for mobile and low caculation capable device~
and for main profile, i take a look into the VC-1 draft, there's just a bit differents compare to the adavanced.
if they re-implement the VC-1 from scratch, main profile might be improved too.
Correct. Improvements to AP should be seen in MP, too. One catch though: when we release the standalone AP codec for download, it'll just be the AP encoder DMO - your existing MP encoder DMO will not be updated. You'll have to wait for WMP11 or Vista for an updated MP encoder DMO.
People commonly talk about VC-1 as a new codec, but in reality it's mostly the Advanced Profile that's new - and that's what all the buzz is really about.

[zambelli]

Avisynth input - good question.

I can't speak for WME Studio Edition, but now that Ben is in charge of that project - I don't think that's an impossible request. From an implementation perspective, AVS support is not much different than AVI support (that's the whole point anyway) so one would only need to make sure .avs input is not being reject by an overly aggressive input validation algorithm.

The problem with WME9 is that it has its own internal source plugins to deal with AVI, MPEG, capture, etc sources. Even though .avs inputs are accepted by the Encoder and end up getting handled by the AVI source filter, the source filter (for some reason) fails to retrieve the Duration property from the .avs file in some scenarios. That's the real cause of the failure.

The workaround is to specify "Both device and file" as an input source in WME9, then browse for file and point it to the .avs file. This causes WME9 to ignore the Duration attribute (like it would when sourcing from a device).

In the command-line script encoder (wmcmd.vbs), this can't be done. For this reason (and some others) we have updated wmcmd.vbs and will try to make it publicly available on the web soon. I'll talk about that more when it's ready - I don't want to jump the gun again. :)

[zambelli]

With the old stuff it's not working and I have problems to understand how it can be useful for us without AviSynth support. If it's possible I will add VC-1 support to StaxRip.
I'm not familiar with StaxRip. If you plan on using the WM Encoder SDK to do WMV encoding, just remember to avoid querying for source duration and you should be fine.

If you're using the command-line script encoder, see my response above.

If you're using the WMV Encoder DMOs directly, then this is a non-issue anyway.

You're more than welcome to add WMV9/VC-1 Advanced Profile support to your application. Check out http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/howto/articles/codecadvancedsettings.aspx for a list of advanced settings. The new WMV9 builds are way more flexible than the old WMV9 codec as far as performance/PQ tweaking.

[Valeron]

@zambelli:
will MS release an all-in-one decoder DMO or even VFW one for vc-1 stuff from SP to AP?

[zambelli]

@zambelli:
will MS release an all-in-one decoder DMO or even VFW one for vc-1 stuff from SP to AP?
DMO = Yes. In WMP11.
VfW = Don't know. Seems unlikely, but that's just my personal opinion.

However, now that's VC-1 is standardized, there's no reason somebody else couldn't produce a VCM encoder/decoder.

[popper]

I still believe it won't be "just a DLL" that will be released.
Based on that note in ExtremeTech, I think we'll see the codec, WME Studio (beta) and WMP11 (probably beta) released at the same time (I understand that WMP10 as of now plays VC-1).
WMP11 might even have AACS approval to play back HD-DVD content. There are still no HDMI video cards and PC drives, but those must be out shortly (the NEC drive in the Toshiba HD-DVD player _is_ a simple IDE PC drive that will get a XP driver).
Vista is 8+ months away, I think MS can't afford not to give XP users an option (and a cheap one at that) to play HD-DVD content - they will risk to lose momentum. And announced Toshiba (laptop) and Sony (desktop) products prove it can be done on XP.

Or may be it's just wishful thinking ....
If releasing "just a DLL" takes this much time, there is something really wrong at MS...

Diogen.

http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/News/Details.aspx?NewsId=14831

GECUBE X1300 and X1600 HDMI Graphics Cards Released
http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=5305

[bond]

why does m$ not release one vc-1 encoder that does all profiles? why release different dlls/dmos or whatever?

[zambelli]

why does m$ not release one vc-1 encoder that does all profiles? why release different dlls/dmos or whatever?
We have several release vehicles for WMV9 updates. Vista and WMP11 in general will have all WMV/VC-1 profiles in one DMO. However, since both of those products are in beta right now, we're also trying to release a standalone Advanced Profile DMO for those people who want to try the updated AP codec but don't want to install a beta product.

[bond]

:thanks:

[snowcrash]

Avisynth input - good question.

The workaround is to specify "Both device and file" as an input source in WME9, then browse for file and point it to the .avs file. This causes WME9 to ignore the Duration attribute (like it would when sourcing from a device).



I regularly use WME9 in this way to encode from .avs files and it works ok. There does seem to be one problem though, and I wonder if you're aware of it. After closing WME9 in the normal way, the wmenc.exe process continues to run. I have to go into task manager and end the process, otherwise after using the encoder a few times I'll end up with mutiple instances of wmenc.exe running and eventually it'll start acting weird and crash. This only happens when I encode from an .avs file within WME9. I'm using Windows XP, btw.


In the command-line script encoder (wmcmd.vbs), this can't be done. For this reason (and some others) we have updated wmcmd.vbs and will try to make it publicly available on the web soon. I'll talk about that more when it's ready - I don't want to jump the gun again.

That sounds good. Then I guess I'd be able to use the script encoder to do batch encodes from .avs files which is something I've always wanted to do but could never get to work. I'll be looking forward to getting my hands on this new version of the script encoder.

[fccHandler]

After closing WME9 in the normal way, the wmenc.exe process continues to run. I have to go into task manager and end the process, otherwise after using the encoder a few times I'll end up with mutiple instances of wmenc.exe running and eventually it'll start acting weird and crash. This only happens when I encode from an .avs file within WME9. I'm using Windows XP, btw.
Wow, I thought I was the only one with this problem...
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=721165#post721165

The impression I got from IanB is that it's an Avisynth problem, but it's hard not to point a finger at WME9 since Avisynth works perfectly well with everything else I have.

[zambelli]

The impression I got from IanB is that it's an Avisynth problem, but it's hard not to point a finger at WME9 since Avisynth works perfectly well with everything else I have.
I have a fix/workaround for both the hanging process problem and the AVS duration problem in the updated wmcmd.vbs script. I'll let you guys know when it's officially available for download.

[trbarry]

I have a fix/workaround for both the hanging process problem and the AVS duration problem in the updated wmcmd.vbs script. I'll let you guys know when it's officially available for download.


Good deal. Thanks.

- Tom