AVC vs VC-1 comparison?

[hkl8324]

Not a question actually. I know there are HD-DVD titles out there which use H.264 (Japanese release) and VC-1 (US release).
Can someone make a "at least" perceived viedo qualtiy comparison@ doom9 forum/site?:)

(Or have someone done that already, if so, please give me the URL:devil: )

[Golgot13]

No way, H264 is better. But if you want to read video file
on computer (no hardware acceleration) VC1 must be use.

It is same like MPEG1 and MPEG2 six years ago:
MPEG1 play fine on small CPU ( <300Mhz )
MPEG2 ( DVD Video ) need a big ( :p ) CPU (more than 300Mhz).


Golgot13

[Manao]

Can someone make a "at least" perceived viedo qualtiy comparisonAt the bitrates used for those HD DVD, even mpeg2 would look good. So I wouldn't worry too much.
It is same like MPEG1 and MPEG2 six years agoThe parallel isn't that accurate. Mpeg2 is basically Mpeg1 with a higher bitrate. If mpeg2 is harder to decode than mpeg1, it's because mpeg2 videos have a bigger resolution and/or a higher bitrate.No way, H264 is betterIt depends on the encoder. Not all h264 encoders out there perform as well as x264.But if you want to read video file
on computer (no hardware acceleration) VC1 must be use.A high end computer + core avc is enough.

[zambelli]

Not all h264 encoders out there perform as well as x264.
Amen to that. And the unfortunate thing is that most top tier studios won't be using x264 or anything close to that good. They'll probably be using a Sony software product because Sony is more likely to provide them with support.

[CruNcher]

zambelli they gonna use Mainconcept solutions wich Microsoft also likes to license products from, here and then hehe ;)
But if the First Blue-Ray with Mainconcept Encoded H264 come out nobody is going to talk about VC-1 anymore ;) (the studios sure they have exclusive stuffs with Microsoft going on "secured Patent status till XXXX") but i doubt the users can be bought hehe :P Maybe VC-1 will be successfull in the IPTV market but even there the last words are not spoken yet for Sattelite Broadcasting Microsoft allready lost the Race and the attack in the home market with the Xbox 360 also is going to fail Sony is going to own most Living Rooms not Microsoft at least in Europe but yeah i know who cares about Europe the Asians do ;)

[zambelli]

Cruncher, I seriously can't make heads and tails of your posts. I've no idea where one sentence starts and the other begins, which makes it rather difficult for me to address any of it.

[acidsex]

Cruncher, I seriously can't make heads and tails of your posts. I've no idea where one sentence starts and the other begins, which makes it rather difficult for me to address any of it.

Proof that you shouldnt post when you are drunk LOL. Dont worry, I had a hard time making heads and tails of it as well.

[foxyshadis]

I think he uses smileys as punctuation.

The choice between VC-1 and AVC hardly seems like a no-brainer... a studio is more likely to make a purchase based on support, price, and speed, than on which one has .5 higher psnr than the other. And if you compare them, remember to compare with the set-top restrictions, not simply picking maximum compression options.

VC-1 for HD-DVD currently has the best studio encoding suites available, and until that changes VC-1 is likely to make up the majority of HD-DVD output. Maybe if Cinebench prices ever come down.

[Sulik]

From a purely codec point-of-view, they're both quite similar in performance, as most of the differences are dependent on specific implementation (ME, mode decision, rate control are not part of the standard).

The advantage of VC1 is that it's much more efficient in terms of computational cost (Return on Cycle Investment)
(The VC1 syntax is better than the generalized CAVLC in H.264, and CABAC is very inefficient from a computational point of view, the 4-tap MC is also a better choice than 6-taps).

[IgorC]

Actually there is a powerfull comercial H.264 codec for HD-DVD authoring.New Mainconcept H.264 verison. I don't have a time to check it. But guys say it is good as x264 or even better and fast. They are actually working on updates constantly. http://www.mainconcept.com/site/index.php?id=7854

[Sagittaire]

Even Quick Time H264 done good result for 1080p at simply 10 Mbps with 16/9 uncompressible trailler. HD-DVD will use certainely something like 15 Mbps for 15 GB single layer disk.

Exceptional implementation for H264 or VC-1 is not necessary ... good MPEG2 encoder will done excellent result too at 15 Mbps.

Now it's an another problem If you want HD movie on simple DVD5 or DVD9 ... :)

[Hurricane Neddy]

Exceptional implementation for H264 or VC-1 is not necessary ... good MPEG2 encoder will done excellent result too at 15 Mbps.

And yet the currently released Sony Blu-Ray discs which are about ~20mbps look like crap with quite noticeable compression artifacts. *shrugs*

[Hurricane Neddy]

Not a question actually. I know there are HD-DVD titles out there which use H.264 (Japanese release) and VC-1 (US release).
Can someone make a "at least" perceived viedo qualtiy comparison@ doom9 forum/site?:)

(Or have someone done that already, if so, please give me the URL:devil: )

Yeah I was reading reviews and comparisons of the Japanese and US Chronicles of Riddick and from what I was reading the Japanese disc was very much inferior in quality (softer and noticeable compression problems). So far from the reviews I've read the Japanese HD DVDs using h.264 aren't that great in quality.

[Blue_MiSfit]

Seriosly, what's up with that?? As everyone has been saying, with that much bitrate, even MPEG-2 should be able to make 1080 look nice, I dont care how uncompressable the source is!

This REALLY is not giving people a reason to get HD. In fact, it's feeding the silly notion that "HD isnt that much better"...

If only the doom9 ilk were in charge of HD-DVD / BluRay film content creation!! We'd have it DOWN with stupid DVD-9s and x264/AAC :)

[foxyshadis]

We'd have it DOWN with stupid DVD-9s and x264/AAC :)
Which of course isn't supported. We're still stuck in the dark ages of mp2 audio or fattening george lucas' pocketbook.

[Manao]

From a purely codec point-of-view, they're both quite similar in performanceNo, the AVC standard is more efficient, compression-wise. CABAC is really a killer. And speed-wise, since there's now the hardware to decode HD + CABAC in realtime, it's not a problem ( and I don't understand why it keeps being said. h264 is slower to decode, yes, but it decodes realtime and that's all that matters. )
Seriosly, what's up with that?? As everyone has been saying, with that much bitrate, even MPEG-2 should be able to make 1080 look nice, I dont care how uncompressable the source is!

This REALLY is not giving people a reason to get HD. In fact, it's feeding the silly notion that "HD isnt that much better"...Huh ? I fail to see the logic there. HD is better, whatever the codec used. A codec like AVC/VC1 is better suited to encode it ( more efficient -> more quality, and - finally - no more of that DCT noise ), but Mpeg2 can do if it has to.

[Blue_MiSfit]

I totally agree that HD is better. Many people don't think its sufficently better to upgrade to HD-DVD / BluRay over an upconverting DVD player, which of course is total BS but understandable given the dreadful cost of players and the low quality of existing titles.

All I was saying is that this current state of HD formats is really slowing down HD adoption because everyone is waiting for the situation to get better i.e. one format die off, cheaper HDTVs and players etc...

~Misfit

[crypto]

AVC and VC-1 can both deliver superior quality, no doubt. VC-1 surely points in the architectural design category. It is easier to implement. Easier means less errors and cheaper decoding chips.

AVC on the other hand has far more complex specs just to gain a few more points on compression. Codecs are often implemented partially resulting in imcompatibilities.

[Sagittaire]

And yet the currently released Sony Blu-Ray discs which are about ~20mbps look like crap with quite noticeable compression artifacts. *shrugs*

Well H264 from Sony is simply a very poor H264 implementation ... ;-)

[CruNcher]

ehh a Blue-Ray that uses H.264 to my knowledge isn't out yet and i wouldn't count on Sonys codec im sure they didn't licensed Mainconcepts Encoder for their products for nothing, but Pioneers H.264 codec seems interesting you only hear good things out of Asia from that one :)

[zambelli]

I think he uses smileys as punctuation.
LOL, I never realized German grammar relied so heavily on smileys. :)

The choice between VC-1 and AVC hardly seems like a no-brainer... a studio is more likely to make a purchase based on support, price, and speed, than on which one has .5 higher psnr than the other. And if you compare them, remember to compare with the set-top restrictions, not simply picking maximum compression options.
VC-1 for HD-DVD currently has the best studio encoding suites available, and until that changes VC-1 is likely to make up the majority of HD-DVD output. Maybe if Cinebench prices ever come down.
You've absolutely nailed it. :goodpost:

I know it seems odd to people who have been using x264 for 2+ years now that Sony can't seem to get a decent AVC encoder to use on their movie titles, but everyone has to understand that the studio encoding workflow is quite different than our "amateur" encoding workflow. VC-1 encoding tools currently used by studios (provided by Microsoft) offer high quality scaling, high quality 10bit-->8bit color conversion, segment re-encoding, bitstream analysis, and parallel encoding (i.e. using a workstation cluster to cut down on encoding times). None of these are actually properties of the WMV/VC-1 codec but features of tools that Microsoft is providing with the codec - so everyone needs to understand that the choice of codec doesn't just come down to "AVC looks better than VC-1 at exactly the same bitrate". The two codecs are close enough in terms of quality/efficiency that other things play a bigger role.

[smok3]

well, honestlly iam ever into HD delivery i really dont want anything 'provided by MS'. And yes the choice must be really done based on objective/subjective quality, i dont see what a studio would gain if they can encode their stuff a bit faster (this encodes are copy pasted zillion times then and done only once anyway...). Providing that quality is the same nobody sane should choose MS way imho.

the reasons, no it is not ms bashing:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3563697.stm

p.s. zambelli, what tools exactlly are you talking about?
p.s.2 i do think it is time to make some longtail graphs for this fancy 'studios' that use some 'pro' authoring/encoding options, opensource alone will do it in next years imho.

[Golgot13]

I know it seems odd to people who have been using x264 for 2+ years now that Sony can't seem to get a decent AVC encoder to use on their movie titles, but everyone has to understand that the studio encoding workflow is quite different than our "amateur" encoding workflow. VC-1 encoding tools currently used by studios (provided by Microsoft) offer high quality scaling, high quality 10bit-->8bit color conversion, segment re-encoding, bitstream analysis, and parallel encoding (i.e. using a workstation cluster to cut down on encoding times). None of these are actually properties of the WMV/VC-1 codec but features of tools that Microsoft is providing with the codec - so everyone needs to understand that the choice of codec doesn't just come down to "AVC looks better than VC-1 at exactly the same bitrate". The two codecs are close enough in terms of quality/efficiency that other things play a bigger role.


Sony have tool to encode in H264 (PSP use H264 in Main Profil),
but I think they have not yet tested H264 with Blue Ray chipset
(the industrial test is long and hard, 50Hz is not yet available
for HD DVD, because of the test tool....).

Zambelli you know why the studio use VC1 ( :) ) is not because
VC1 give the best quality or because your tool is more efficiency.
I have a very good tool in H264 with re-encoding, parallel,
bistream analysis,... But it don't come from M$, people know it
because they see it on NAB and is not gratis...

VC1 is better to play HD DVD with no hardware acceleration on PC,
HD DVD with H264 need a "very good" PC (minimum 3.4GHz HT.... ).

But soon we will have PC with software and hardware (GPU acceleration)
optimized to play H264 (like MPEG2 with DVD).


Golgot13

[Sagittaire]

Well I think that H264 speed encoding is really not a problem. I can make 1080p encoding at 1 fps with high quality (cabac, inloop, 5 ref, wpred, RDO ... ect) with my little sempron 2.1 Ghz. I think that the movie industry don't use sempron for make encoding and there are high quality professional encoder like ateme enginer or elecard enginer for make H264 encoding.

And speed decoding is really not a problem too. My little sempron play very well all the 1080p Quick Time AVC H264 trailer with coreAVC ... but can't decode 1080p VC-1 with post-process (default setting).

Anyway for quality H264 will be really better than VC-1 for 1080p on 8.5 Go (DVD) but certainely not for 1080p on 30 Go (HD-DVD). IMO VC-1 and H264 are simply useless with HD-DVD and BR. IMO MPEG2 with very good software encoder will done the same visual result for 99.99% of the people.

[zambelli]

Providing that quality is the same nobody sane should choose MS way imho.
the reasons, no it is not ms bashing:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3563697.stm
How is that not MS bashing? Even it's not MS bashing, it still doesn't make any sense. You're saying that the reason why international movie studios should not choose Microsoft technology is because of Microsoft's legal case in the European Union in a completely different business sector? That's like saying nobody should buy Sony TVs because of Sony's spyware on audio CDs. The two are completely unrelated.
In the movie and entertainent business, it's Microsoft that's the underdog and outsider. It virtually owns no market at all.

p.s. zambelli, what tools exactlly are you talking about?
They are encoding tools that are provided to top-tier studios by Microsoft for VC-1 encoding. They are not publicly available.

[odditory]

Actually there is a powerfull comercial H.264 codec for HD-DVD authoring.New Mainconcept H.264 verison. I don't have a time to check it. But guys say it is good as x264 or even better and fast. They are actually working on updates constantly. http://www.mainconcept.com/site/index.php?id=7854

I'd like to know which 'guys' you are talking about because i've tested mainconcept's commercial encoder pretty extensively on all sorts of different input material and the filesizes were bigger than for example nero recode's H.264 output and quality not even as good.

I had high hopes for mainconcept when I first tried it especially because it included batching options, but its still got some ways to go quality-wise.

[lexor]

Golgot13, first of all your post makes no grammatic sense (or any othere sense for that matter). Secondly I'd like to be the first to applaud you for your ingenious use of the simbol '$' to substitute the letter 'S' in MS. It is a very fresh and novel idea that should be picked up by more people. In fact I am amazed no one has ever thought of that before.


P.S. Backdate this post to August of 1995, it would've actually been sincere at that time, I suppose.

[Prettz]

At least he didn't include "winbl0wz" in his post...
lol

[IgorC]

I'd like to know which 'guys' you are talking about ....
And I'd like to know which version and settings you are talking about. In the last metric test Elecard/Mainconcept was better than Nero/Ateme and x264. Use search.

That's why I gave a link to LAST version of Mainconcept encoder. http://www.mainconcept.com/site/index.php?id=7854

[ott666]

For the people attributing VC-1 to Microsoft is ludicrous. If you have checked, VC-1 has 16 companies of which they are part of the patent pool. Microsoft being only one of them.

If it's white, then Apple must have come up with it?

[ott666]

IMO VC-1 and H264 are simply useless with HD-DVD and BR. IMO MPEG2 with very good software encoder will done the same visual result for 99.99% of the people.

I guess you haven't had a chance to look at the MPEG-2 BR movies that are out. IMO they look worse than VC-1 on HD-DVD.

[slavickas]

I guess you haven't had a chance to look at the MPEG-2 BR movies that are out. IMO they look worse than VC-1 on HD-DVD.
I guess you haven't had a chance to look at the post that you are replying

[Sagittaire]

Well BD seem use better profil than HD-DVD for MPEG2:
- Higher max bitrate
- Long GOP possible
- Higher possible bitrate for DL disk

IMO Sony MPEG2 codec is simply very crap MPEG2 implementation. MPEG2 at 20-25 Mbps will done exceptional quality in general case with good MPEG2 encoder for HD-DVD or BD ...

[R3Z]

I came into this thread expecting a quantitative comparison between these codecs and not the usual anti-microsoft sentiment from some jaded persons.

I simply dont consider VC1 as feasable for me because i havent seen the flexibility in the vc1 encoder program as i have with x264 (megui).

It would be interesting to see just how effective both codecs are frame for frame.

[xymor]

For the people attributing VC-1 to Microsoft is ludicrous. If you have checked, VC-1 has 16 companies of which they are part of the patent pool. Microsoft being only one of them.
If it's white, then Apple must have come up with it?

People attribute VC-1 to MS just because of WMV and WMV-HD, which are implementations of the standard.
To use VC-1 you have to pay licensing fees to mpeg4la.

Mpegla - MS, Sony, Toshiba, Samsung, Sharp, LG...

PS:
-Warner is lauching VC-1 encoded Blu-rays in Sep 26.
-Fox is lauching, in November 14, 'Ice Age: The Meltdown,' 'Kingdom of Heaven,' 'Fantastic Four' and 'The Omen.' , the frist wave of AVC/DTS-HD Lossless.

Finally some *real* Hi-Def
Lossless audio:cool:

I bet we'll be able to see some real world AVC/VC-1 comparisons running in the same hardware in nov14.

[scilli]

I haven't seen any HD-DVD content yet so I can't really comment about it, but I did see a Blue-Ray setup on display at best buy and was not impressed. It was only showing movie trailers, but I could see some noise and blocking still, which I don't really want to see if I'm gonna spend $1000 dollars on just a player. I'm not sure what codec was used but seeing the quality first hand made me want to wait until they actually get this shit right.

[*.mp4 guy]

There is one very good reason why Mpeg4-avc is better then any of the other HD formats, and that is bitrate spikes. A complex scene with hard to predict motion in HD will murder mpeg2 (I've seen it happen a lot, even with good encoders) if it has to follow vbv restricions, VC-1 does better, but IMO Mpeg4-avc is the only standard really equiped to manage the types of complexity spikes that HD content will cause.

Think of that scene from the matrix revolutions with all of the sentinels swarming over Zion, there are lots of artefacts in mpeg2 at 9mbps sd, think what would happen if you multiplied the resolution by 6, and the bitrate by only half that.

[popper]

Amen to that. And the unfortunate thing is that most top tier studios won't be using x264 or anything close to that good. They'll probably be using a Sony software product because Sony is more likely to provide them with support.


that doesnt seem the case if you take the time to look at what all the turnkey AVC options are now available to top tier providers.
http://www.newvideobusiness.com/content/view/74/26/

lets hope some Exec with a brain and an eye on the long term future picks the AVC (aka H.264/MPEG-4 Part 10) codec rather than some accountant messing with the short term books.......

the link is 3 pages long, so heres an overview
http://www.newvideobusiness.com/content/view/74/26/
"
'Bookmarks' in this feature (just follow the section headings):
VC-1 IS SIDELINED FOR REAL-TIME BROADCASTING
DUAL-CODEC APPROACH AT TIER-1 TELCOS
CONTINUING ROLE FOR MPEG-2 -- EVEN ON IPTV
IPTV MPEG-2/AVC MIGRATIONS
SATELLITE ADOPTS AVC FOR HDTV
CABLE HAS LESS NEED FOR ADVANCED CODING
ADVANCED COMPRESSION ON DIGITAL TERRESTRIAL
DTT REMAINS LARGELY MPEG-2
AVC HALVING BIT RATES
SWEET SPOT FOR HDTV IS 6-7.5Mbps
IPTV NEEDS TWO SIMULTANEOUS HD STREAMS
SATELLITE PUTS A PREMIUM ON PICTURE QUALITY
HDTV COULD BE POSSIBLE "IN 3-3.5Mbps"
HDTV BECOMING THE NEW STANDARD-DEFINITION?
TANDBERG TELEVISION'S NEW COMPRESSION ENGINE
TIER-1 QUALITY HDTV ONTO DENSE TELCO PLATFORMS
FOUR HD, FOUR SD AND FOUR PIP FROM 1RU
HARMONIC'S NEW SD AND HD ENCODING PLATFORMS
FOUR CHANNELS OF HDTV FROM 1RU
HARMONIC MOVES AWAY FROM MPEG-2/AVC PLATFORMS
"STILL A NEED FOR MPEG-2/AVC PLATFORMS"
DEBATE ABOUT IMPORTANCE OF DENSITY
BUT NEAR-CONSENSUS ABOUT VC-1
KEY DEPLOYMENTS: WHO USES WHO?
SCOPUS FINALISING HD PLATFORM"

NTL:tw accountant said *| LOL
"A spokesman says, “We are using MPEG-2 because we can."
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"
AVC HALVING BIT RATES
The good news for operators on all platforms is that AVC is living up to its hype and halving bit rates compared to MPEG-2.

The fastest gains appear to be for high-definition, where the world’s leading encoder vendors have set their sights over the last 24 months.

So, from bit rates of up to 20Mbps for HDTV on MPEG-2 a couple of years ago, like-for-like HD services plummeted to around 8Mbps on leading-edge advanced encoders this time last year.

By IBC (Amsterdam exhibition) this September, the figures will be 6-8Mbps depending on content, with the most bullish predictions being for sub-6Mbps for hard-to-encode content like sports."

"
Depending on who you talk to, the so-called ‘sweet spot’ for HDTV is between 6Mbps and 7.5Mbps.

Carl Furgusson, VP product management at TANDBERG Television, comments: “We are getting to the point where we can get to around 6Mbps for HDTV with top quality pictures and with statistical multiplexing you can get between 6-8 satellite services onto a 36Mbps transponder.”

In fact, TANDBERG claims that with its latest encoder it can deliver more than eight channels of full-resolution HDTV on a 36MHz transponder using DVB-S2 (the latest satellite transmission standard) and 8PSK."

notice thats Mpeg-2 NOT HD Mpeg-2
"HDTV COULD BE POSSIBLE "IN 3-3.5Mbps"
Harmonic is also pushing the boundaries of bit rate reduction, claiming sub-6Mbps for best-quality HDTV sports pictures and as little as 3-3.5Mbps for less demanding content - which is matching some MPEG-2 services."

"TANDBERG TELEVISION'S NEW COMPRESSION ENGINE
TANDBERG Television is using IBC to unveil its new ICE3 (Intelligent Compression Engine), which is the underlying technology for the push towards 6Mbps HD.

The improvements in bit rates have been possible on the back of improved motion estimation, single-slice video processing, dedicated processing for low resolution encoding of PiP services, multi-pass analysis and enhanced video pre-processing.

ICE3 is being used on the new EN8030 AVC standard-definition encoder and the EN8090 AVC HD/SD encoder.

Effectively, these are the next-generation to the current EN5930 (SD) and EN5990 (HD) encoders for AVC but besides better bit rate reduction, they also deliver more outputs.

The EN8090, for example, will take a single HD input and generate a full-resolution HDTV channel, a secondary version of that main channel in full standard-definition, and a third ‘micro’ channel for use in PiP, mosaic and multi-view applications."

"FOUR HD, FOUR SD AND FOUR PIP FROM 1RU
As a result, the Plex systems can output up to 12 services from a single HD input within a 1RU form factor: four full-resolution HD, four secondaries up to full SD and four low-res channels for PiP type applications. For the telco market - which is more comfortable than the broadcast industry with high-density, multi-function platforms - this represents a notable advance."

[Ranguvar]

Basically, they're VERY close. I disagree that even MPEG-2 will do justice to 1080p at uber-bitrates (there are some mpeg-2 artifacts that just cannot be overcome by bitrate), but at 15MB/s, I highly doubt the ability of people to tell much of any difference between VC-1 and AVC. Since VC-1 is faster and seems to compress a bit better, and has MS for support, it should win. I don';t really care, they both rokzor!

[Manao]

I disagree that even MPEG-2 will do justice to 1080p at uber-bitratesDepends on the encoder, but mostly true since most encoders are bad.there are some mpeg-2 artifacts that just cannot be overcome by bitrateThere are no inherent artifacts that comes with mpeg2.I highly doubt the ability of people to tell much of any difference between VC-1 and AVCIt depends on the complexity, but for movie content, it should be mostly correct.Since VC-1 is fasterYepand seems to compress a bit betterNop, VC1 is less efficient ( at least 10% bitrate increase for the same quality ).and has MS for support, it should winHD DVD has MS support, and it isn't doing any good at the moment...

[zambelli]

HD DVD has MS support, and it isn't doing any good at the moment...
Huh? HD-DVD titles outsold BluRay titles in 2006.

[Manao]

Afaik, we're in 2007

[zambelli]

Afaik, we're in 2007
True, but don't forget to also account markets outside the U.S.:
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/2007/03/08/hd_dvd_blu_ray/

[Dethis]

I bet that after PS3's launch the market shares will be clearly in favor of BluRay

[zambelli]

I bet that after PS3's launch the market shares will be clearly in favor of BluRay
I think the significance of PS3 is generally overestimated. Its sales haven't been living up to the expectations - even PS2 is still giving it a run for its money. Plus, I think the "1 PS3 customer = 1 BluRay customer" math that Sony has been trying to make you believe is completely bogus. Just like not everyone used the Xbox and PS2 for DVD playback, neither will everyone who owns a PS3 use it for BluRay playback. For starters, not every PS3 owner will own an HDTV, especially in Europe where SD is still king.

[CruNcher]

Just like not everyone used the Xbox and PS2 for DVD playback


Those who have the knowledge used it for much more than that and still do and soon the Xbox 360 protection includeing efuses will fall the same future is gonna hit Sony's PS3 Hypervisor and the whole power that Microsoft and Sony try to hold away from the customers will be available and the knowledge will be spreaded arround the world again and no DMCA gonna ever protect this from happening :P
Smart guys/girls are allways gonna try to unleash the full Powers of those consoles, because it would be to sad to leave all of it to Games or buy those features for extra money from the console manufactures all the new stuff thats happening at the moment (online services, protection shemes) and especialy how important firmware has become (restricting playback capabilities to open new selling grounds (Sony PSP,PS3,Xbox360)) and is being protected for consumer electronics by manufactures is frigthening, to much power in one hand at the moment so people have to regain balance or manufactures gonna missuse this power for sure, they allways do especialy Microsoft and Sony.

[Selur]

true, but too long sentences ;)
(or is it just one?)

[Morte66]

I know it seems odd to people who have been using x264 for 2+ years now that Sony can't seem to get a decent AVC encoder to use on their movie titles, but everyone has to understand that the studio encoding workflow is quite different than our "amateur" encoding workflow.

A point on this: many of those microsoft tools are ways to put extra human effort into the encode. Things like segement reencoding, using different deblocking for different areas of the frame, etc are useful for professional "compressionists" who spend two weeks of office hours encoding a movie. Imagine doing that with avisynth trim statements and x264 command line switches -- *shudder*.

But us guys who're interested in DVD backup and efficient storage of TV rips don't generally go into that sort of thing on a per-encode basis. The closest most of us come is "test encodes" on clips, to determine "our settings", that we'll then use as a matter of policy. Thus we don't really appreciate the adavantages of the vc-1 encoder, which are not so much about fundamental encoding efficiency as about user interface. It has features we wouldn't use anyway.

[zambelli]

But us guys who're interested in DVD backup and efficient storage of TV rips don't generally go into that sort of thing on a per-encode basis. The closest most of us come is "test encodes" on clips, to determine "our settings", that we'll then use as a matter of policy. Thus we don't really appreciate the adavantages of the vc-1 encoder, which are not so much about fundamental encoding efficiency as about user interface. It has features we wouldn't use anyway.
Indeed, hence the gap between what's being used for HD-DVD production versus what's being used on Doom9. :)
Though as far as VC-1 vs AVC goes, one shouldn't really be comparing only Microsoft VC-1/WMV9 vs AVC. Other implementations of VC-1 are certainly possible - and I'm sure we'll be seeing more of them, hopefully targetting different audiences too.

[Mug Funky]

Things like segement reencoding, using different deblocking for different areas of the frame, etc are useful for professional "compressionists" who spend two weeks of office hours encoding a movie.

i lol'd a little at that. segment re-encoding in particular is a massive, gigantic time saver.

think of all those threads in avisynth usage about certain artefacts that only occur sometimes, and stuff like that. with segment re-encoding you can get most of the movie right, and fix the niggling bits later. with an efficient enough workflow an encode-monkey need only spend half an hour with every feature and still get the result aimed for.

also remember there's people employed at a lower rate to the "compressionist" whose job it is to watch everything through and note any quality issues. the compressionist can just go back and fix anything that comes up on the tester's report.

though i think you'll find (at least for the DVD industry... i don't know about HD-DVD) the encoding workflow to be far less glamourous :). in fact practically any software encoder could be used, and all one need do is have a clever way to distribute the encoding between all the available machines after hours. 1 fps is still realtime if you have 25 machines going at once...

and in a field where 1 place could be getting through 60 or more titles a month, speed is much more important than it is in DVD backup.