[HD-DVD Challenge] MPEG2, VC-1 and H264 with real uncompressed source movie [Archive] - Page 8

Golgot13

8th July 2007, 11:30

Hi Zambelli,

about help of MS, I know that you're a little team for VC1 support. But it is not true that you help everebody...
I can give the name of 5 authoring studio which ask me PEP VC1 encoder because you never answer
at email/fax/message to obtain it.
A example, Kolak ask me in February about it, the software was free but I was not able to give him.
And now Kolak and other companies prefer to make H264 HDDVD or BD...

About 25fps, HDDVD is not only for movie (24fps) in USA, there is some nice documentary, in 29.97fps,
and lot people bought and buy it. It is not posiible in europe (becuase we are in 25fps.....)!!!!!!
To Toshiba player, there is lot of firmware update to HD DVD player because you (MS) ask Toshiba to do it
for new interactivity (weblink,....). And MS can make modification in "HD DVD specification",
MS support HDDVD because HDDVD included "Advanced Content" (and VC1) on the specification
(AOD, old name of HDDVD supported in first only "Standard Content").
So you (MS) can ask Toshiba to support 25fps on their HD DVD player.
Last I don't ask you to change the HD DVD specification because 25fps is inside.....

Maybe I need to find contact with european union investigation about this, I think after you (MS and Toshiba)
will support it in one week..... :devil:

Regards,

Golgot13

vsv

8th July 2007, 20:01

Because Ben and I didn't write the HD-DVD spec and we don't manufacture the player units. We're here to discuss codecs. Your question is more suitable for AVS Forum's Industry Insiders (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=851221) thread.

I've asked. ("http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=10972379&&#post10972379
)

Silence...

vsv

8th July 2007, 20:10

foxyshadis

9th July 2007, 01:48

Does this thread need adult supervision? This isn't Slashdot, stop piling all the wrongs of the HD world on Microsoft's head. If you have a burning need to discuss lousy framerate conversion and support, Microsoft support, or conspiracy theories about backdoor deals at MSU, make a thread about it. (And try to get a statement from Dmitry first. I suspect they simply aren't interested in it.)

Golgot13

9th July 2007, 02:01

Does this thread need adult supervision?

Sorry, only answer at some bad informations.
I stop my anger about European problems.
Now, I offer my help about H264 encoding process.

Golgot13

MarcioAB

10th July 2007, 02:25

SSIM any day, imo. MSU did a study a while back, showed it correlates best to visual quality.

Correct. And should be the same for all: the avisynth SSIM 0.24 from Lefungus for example ?

zambelli

12th July 2007, 09:05

MarcioAB

13th July 2007, 02:22

Regardless of which quality metric would be used, I think it'd be a good idea to show a graph representing the metric score per frame - and not just the overall score. Only a comparison of graphs can show how different codecs compared in particular scenes.Good for a more detailed analise. The overall score should be accompanied with the diffusion of the data set. It's the average of the absolute deviations of data points from their mean.
This can be easily accomplished using, for example, the function AVEDEV() from OpenOffice.org Calc importing the csv output from ssim with all values per frame.

Sagittaire

30th July 2007, 10:08

Partial result:

|--------------|---------|---------|----------|---------|---------|
| Codec | PProc | Bitrate | Size | OPSNR | SSIM 2 |
|--------------|---------|---------|----------|---------|---------|
| MPEG2 | PP0 | 5999 | 479233 | 43.08 | 82.55 |
| VC-1 | N/A | 5994 | 478824 | 43.75 | 86.41 |
| H264 | N/A | 6007 | 479766 | 46.35 | 89.54 |
|--------------|---------|---------|----------|---------|---------|
| MPEG2 | PP0 | 12001 | 958666 | 46.38 | 91.27 |
| VC-1 | N/A | 11986 | 957521 | 46.71 | 92.44 |
| H264 | N/A | 12008 | 959329 | 49.11 | 94.18 |
|--------------|---------|---------|----------|---------|---------|
| MPEG2 | PP0 | 17988 | 1434719 | 46.58 | 92.00 |
| VC-1 | N/A | 17930 | 1432338 | 48.28 | 94.60 |
| H264 | N/A | 18009 | 1438862 | 50.53 | 95.74 |
|--------------|---------|---------|----------|---------|---------|
SSIM 0: Lumimask Off
SSIM 1: Lumimask On (Original Lumimask)
SSIM 2: Lumimask On (One2Tech Patch)

1) I use Libavcodec for MPEG2: incredible result ... libavcodec outperform by far all the other mpeg2 codec.
2) "Anonymous" user make VC1 encoding with vc1_enc.exe from PEP. If I compare with Zambelli WMV9 AP encoding: little lower result for OPSNR but very better for SSIM. Anyway "Anonymous" stream are perfectly vbv compliant and perhaps not WMV9 AP stream from Zambelli and can explain the OPSNR result.
3) I use x264 for H264
4) All the stream are perfectly HDDVD compliant: scan vbv with streameyes and mux work for HDDVD. Scan vc1 stream with esa.exe from PEP by "Anonymous".
5) I can't make 18 Mbps encoding for MPEG2 with Libavcodec (quantizer saturation). I use HCEnc with best possible profil for 18 Mbps encoding.

CruNcher

30th July 2007, 15:47

How about Encoding Time, Decoding Complexity,Visual Compare of Key Sequences and the Settings used ?

Sagittaire

30th July 2007, 19:45

How about Encoding Time, Decoding Complexity,Visual Compare of Key Sequences and the Settings used ?

just partial result ... but interessing partial result.

1) Encoding Time is not a probleme here.
2) Decoding complexity is not a problem for HDDVD SAP and not really a problem with PC and low cost GPU hardware acceleration. My c2d at 2.66 Ghz is able to play all the stream without hardware acceleration.
3) Stream will be available for all the video codec
4) Setting for all the video codec too

Golgot13

31st July 2007, 11:49

[QUOTE=Sagittaire;1028887]Partial result:

|--------------|---------|---------|----------|---------|---------|
| Codec | PProc | Bitrate | Size | OPSNR | SSIM 2 |
|--------------|---------|---------|----------|---------|---------|
| MPEG2 | PP0 | 5999 | 479233 | 43.08 | 82.55 |
| VC-1 | N/A | 5994 | 478824 | 43.75 | 86.41 |
| H264 | N/A | 6007 | 479766 | 46.35 | 89.54 |
|--------------|---------|---------|----------|---------|---------|
| MPEG2 | PP0 | 12001 | 958666 | 46.38 | 91.27 |
| VC-1 | N/A | 11986 | 957521 | 46.71 | 92.44 |
| H264 | N/A | 12008 | 959329 | 49.11 | 94.18 |
|--------------|---------|---------|----------|---------|---------|
| MPEG2 | PP0 | 17988 | 1434719 | 46.58 | 92.00 |
| VC-1 | N/A | 17930 | 1432338 | 48.28 | 94.60 |
| H264 | N/A | 18009 | 1438862 | 50.53 | 95.74 |
|--------------|---------|---------|----------|---------|---------|
SSIM 0: Lumimask Off
SSIM 1: Lumimask On (Original Lumimask)
SSIM 2: Lumimask On (One2Tech Patch)

Hi all,

no answer from MS team (Ben or Zambelli) ???
So with this result ( and all next test sure ), H264 can do the same quality
than VC1 but with low bitrate (up to 40% less).

I think VC1 is a codec for transition between old CPU and new CPU.
But all PC ( 80%) of this year (2007) is ready to ready H264 video
(only need a graphic card and monitor ready for HD).
And with the new graphic card (UVD or Pure HD), there will be no problem with H264.
All people will use H264 because the tool and CPU are ready.

Next year, VC1 will be dead (no people use WMV, they prefer Divx at WMV),
people will prefer H264 at VC1/WMV for HD use (and it is hard to put VC1 on TS stream,
no public muxer for VC1 on WMV).

Regards,

Golgot13

honai

31st July 2007, 14:01

Next year, VC1 will be dead

Perhaps you should tell that to the studios and mastering facilities that are investing millions and millions in VC-1 workflows ...

people will prefer H264 at VC1/WMV for HD use

Define "people".

Reality is that so far no company is offering professional x264 solutions, and certainly no 4:4:4 pre-mastering workflow solution that utilizes x264 anywhere in the chain. Professional h.264/AVC solutions (note that I'm talking AVC from Toshiba/Panasonic here, not x264) still perform much worse than x264.

More to the point: The actual "people" who're producing HD content now and in 2008 couldn't care less what some random guy at Doom9 opines. ;)

Sagittaire

31st July 2007, 14:28

Reality is that so far no company is offering professional x264 solutions, and certainly no 4:4:4 pre-mastering workflow solution that utilizes x264 anywhere in the chain. Professional h.264/AVC solutions (note that I'm talking AVC from Toshiba/Panasonic here, not x264) still perform much worse than x264.

x264 is simply H264 implementation. Ateme AVC or Mainconcept AVC for example can produce similar result. Mainconcept for example produce lower PSNR but better SSIM in this test. I don't use Mainconcept implementation in this test because I can't produce 18 Mbps encoding with this source (min quantizer limitation for my demo build I think). Sonic Cinevision encoder (really professional product I think) use for example Mainconcept SDK AVC implementation.

honai

31st July 2007, 15:11

Neither Ateme nor Mainconcept are being used at the major facilities.

Golgot13

31st July 2007, 16:07

Perhaps you should tell that to the studios and mastering facilities that are investing millions and millions in VC-1 workflows ...

I don't see any TV channel or TV broadcast company which use or will use VC1.

I 'm not sure that htere is lot of studios which are investing millions in VC1 software (because it, PEP, was free at start
and now it cost 50k$). The studio are investing in hardware encoding process (computer for network encoding).
But it is easy to use this investment to encode in H264 or others.

Define "people".

You, me, studio companies (video or authoring studio): why=
Because H264 can make a better quality at same bitrate or make the same quality with a low bitrate (to put more HD video movie or bonus).

Today, I can buy a Tvix M4100 or M5100 (or other device like AminoNET 130, NetBox 7600, PS3,..) which can play H264 HD video
from a NAS system (like linksys NSLU2 at 60$) to my HD TV set. I use H264 because I can put lot of video on my HDD and because
there is some limitation in my home bandwith (NFS better than Samba) material (my switch or router) or software (inside of HD player with network mode)

Reality is that so far no company is offering professional x264 solutions, and certainly no 4:4:4 pre-mastering workflow solution that utilizes x264 anywhere in the chain.

First VC1 don't support 4:4:4.... (no more than 4:2:0)
And it is not true for H264, there is some solution in 4:4:4 (go to NAB or IBC to see it).
HDCAM SR is a MPEG4 Part 2 Studio Profil :D (and not a wmv...) with 4:4:4 support

Professional h.264/AVC solutions (note that I'm talking AVC from Toshiba/Panasonic here, not x264) still perform much worse than x264.

Yes, but all change quickly with H264 development (see CineVision do nice H264 now not like one year before; or H264 encoder
for TV broadcasting work well now, Ambarella is a good example).
If you are 80.000$ you can buy the nice PC turnkey solution with CC-HDe (CinemaCraft HD encoder) use by Disney for BD tilte.

More to the point: The actual "people" who're producing HD content now and in 2008 couldn't care less what some random guy at Doom9 opines. ;)

You are right but I think you don't go at some professional show and you don't work on on video studio
(in europe there is lot of HD VoD encoded in H264 for IPTV broadcast, all in France except Club Internet).
I hope you will change your glace at next IBC (if you live in Europe) or NAB).

And there is lot of guy but not only in Doom9 forum who had the same opine. I hope this challenge will open
the eyes at some people and professionnal ( I listen that some authoring studio which use VC1 exclusively and
made all first HD DVD in France was interested by CC-HDe ).

Golgot13

Golgot13

31st July 2007, 16:27

Neither Ateme nor Mainconcept are being used at the major facilities.

All VoD HD in France ( 90% = N9uf Telecom, Wanadoo, Free and may be Alice ) use H264 software encoder from Ateme.

I don't think you live on country where there is some alternative solution than MS.
About some experience of MS I can give you a nice example of mistake from this company: WMVHD

Golgot13

honai

31st July 2007, 16:46

This thread is about HD-DVD, right?

Please name one (1) HD-DVD disc production facility that uses x264 or Ateme/Mainconcept for A-list titles.

(Fact is that there is not a single one.)

I hope this challenge will open
the eyes at some people and professionnal

No, it won't.

First VC1 don't support 4:4:4.... (no more than 4:2:0)
And it is not true for H264, there is some solution in 4:4:4 (go to NAB or IBC to see it).

We're talking about the pre-stage here, hence 4:4:4. The VC-1 workflow with PEP and its successor fully supports it. For x264 there is no professional 4:4:4 support (keywords: blade, SAN/NAS), period.

Sharktooth

31st July 2007, 17:12

I cant understand what you dont understand...
h.264 is better by specifications than VC1. PERIOD.
So, with "equivalent implementations", h.264 will be always better than VC1.

Golgot13

31st July 2007, 17:15

This thread is about HD-DVD, right?

Please name one (1) HD-DVD disc production facility that uses x264 or Ateme/Mainconcept for A-list titles.

x264 is a implementation of H264 (to my mind better than H264 of CineVision ).
Today professionnal companies (like your and the company where I work) are affraid by "problems" of compatibilty.
So they use commercial software (some with lot of bug, Pianiste HD DVD was made with PEP and needed a firmware update player...)
to be sure there is not any problems.

About HD DVD with H264 codec see japanese market....
There is HD DVD with H264 codec, HD DVD on DVD (3x DVD) and TwinDisc (HD DVD layer and DVD layer on same side)
and since last year (summer 2006).

You can go at Ceatec (Beginning of October) to see HD DVD with H264, all other H264 hardware (camcorder, TV,...) and more...

Today, I'm afraid by some companies partner of HD DVD format (MS with VC1 and Toshiba without support of 25fps)
and some guy (like you, see the first result of challenge).
So I think HD DVD will lost (I hope not but it take the way for).

Golgot13

benwaggoner

31st July 2007, 18:52

[QUOTE=Sagittaire;1028887]Partial result:

|--------------|---------|---------|----------|---------|---------|
| Codec | PProc | Bitrate | Size | OPSNR | SSIM 2 |
|--------------|---------|---------|----------|---------|---------|
| MPEG2 | PP0 | 5999 | 479233 | 43.08 | 82.55 |
| VC-1 | N/A | 5994 | 478824 | 43.75 | 86.41 |
| H264 | N/A | 6007 | 479766 | 46.35 | 89.54 |
|--------------|---------|---------|----------|---------|---------|
| MPEG2 | PP0 | 12001 | 958666 | 46.38 | 91.27 |
| VC-1 | N/A | 11986 | 957521 | 46.71 | 92.44 |
| H264 | N/A | 12008 | 959329 | 49.11 | 94.18 |
|--------------|---------|---------|----------|---------|---------|
| MPEG2 | PP0 | 17988 | 1434719 | 46.58 | 92.00 |
| VC-1 | N/A | 17930 | 1432338 | 48.28 | 94.60 |
| H264 | N/A | 18009 | 1438862 | 50.53 | 95.74 |
|--------------|---------|---------|----------|---------|---------|
SSIM 0: Lumimask Off
SSIM 1: Lumimask On (Original Lumimask)
SSIM 2: Lumimask On (One2Tech Patch)

Hi all,

no answer from MS team (Ben or Zambelli) ???
Just saw this now.

Interesting results, but since we don't know where the .vc1 file came from, we can't say how well done it was. This might be a good excuse for us to get around to doing our own encode with what we've got for the next version of PEP/CineVision PSE.

Also, shouldn't we really be looking at the streams? For VBR content, PSNR/SSIM isn't going to tell the whole story.

So with this result ( and all next test sure ), H264 can do the same quality than VC1 but with low bitrate (up to 40% less).
No, you've compared one metric on one source given an encode of unknown origin and optimization. And with a source without film grain, where VC-1 has the biggest advantage over H.264. It's an interesting data point, but nothing that can be generalized from!

Next year, VC1 will be dead (no people use WMV, they prefer Divx at WMV), people will prefer H264 at VC1/WMV for HD use (and it is hard to put VC1 on TS stream, no public muxer for VC1 on WMV).
People prefer Divx? Perhaps in "the scene", but any measurement of actual public streams/files out there provided commercially is going to show orders of magnitude more WMV.

benwaggoner

31st July 2007, 18:54

I don't see any TV channel or TV broadcast company which use or will use VC1.
Swisscom is using VC-1 for live broadcasting right now.

Lots of the MediaRoom broadcasters are using VC-1 for on-demand as well, even if they're using H.264 for live broadcasting. Now that Inlet Spinnaker is out, I'm expecting you'll here some announcements about additional broadcasters adopting VC-1.

benwaggoner

31st July 2007, 18:56

I cant understand what you dont understand...
h.264 is better by specifications than VC1. PERIOD. So, with "equivalent implementations", h.264 will be always better than VC1.
Untrue. VC-1 has differential quantization, non-square block sizes, and a loop filter that's better for film grain. H.264 is hardly a superset of VC-1.

Sharktooth

31st July 2007, 19:03

ROTFLMAO... wasnt VC-1 a superset of MPEG-4 ASP? :p
Come on, results are quite clear, VC-1 looses (by far) against h.264 using low and high bitrates, in both HD & SD, with and without stream restrictions...
Im still asking myself why VC-1 was developed when there was already MPEG-4 ASP (very popular and widely supported by hardware players...)

EDIT: I would like to see a DivX vs VC-1 comparison using the same restrictions... im sure the results would be "interesting"...

CruNcher

31st July 2007, 19:44

@benwaggoner
You are the one that has good connections to the R&D of Film Studios so couldn't you get the Source that was used by Universal Studios (under a Scientific License ofcourse but based on trust rather on signing a paper lol) that played a major role in the decission that the 8x8 transform (FreXt High Profile) was needed for AVC @ that time ?

Encoding that thing with X264 and compareing those results against VC-1 would be quiet interesting (but maybe some are fearing those results then ;) ), not that i say Elephants Dream is not a nice Source (Animation) but it wasn't a Source that played a role in the Development process (and decission process of Hollywood Studios) so rather useless to compare with that.

diogen

31st July 2007, 20:01

...Next year, VC1 will be dead
...h.264 is better by specifications than VC1.
...h.264 will be always better than VC1.
So, I guess the comparison is done...
It didn't take long this time... :)

What happened to the "quantitative nature" of doom9 roots?

Diogen.

Sagittaire

31st July 2007, 20:30

EDIT: I would like to see a DivX vs VC-1 comparison using the same restrictions... im sure the results would be "interesting"...

Difficult to make that because I can't scan the vbv compliancy for MPEG4 ASP and it's really important particulary for this source.

Sagittaire

31st July 2007, 20:37

No, you've compared one metric on one source given an encode of unknown origin and optimization. And with a source without film grain, where VC-1 has the biggest advantage over H.264. It's an interesting data point, but nothing that can be generalized from!

VC-1 Sequential Encoder

@REM >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
@REM >> HDDVD - 1080p - 29.97 fps - pulldown 3:2i - SSIM optimisation
@REM >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

@REM 6 Mbps - 3 pass - insame profil

vc1_enc.exe -i C:\Master\1920x1080.yuv -o Temp\1080p_1.vc1 -w 1920 -h 1080 -framerate 29.97 -frametype progressive -telecine 1 -addeos -rate 6000 -maxrate 20000 -buffer 1843200 -gopperiod 14 -mvrange 1 -bframes 2 -bframeposopt 1 -bdeltaqp AdaptiveWeak -loopfilter 1 -deblocking 1 -complexity 0 -chromasearch 4 -motionmatch 2 -perceptual 2 -dquantstrength 0 -adaptivedeadzone 1 -favorinterlevel 3 -log Temp\stat_1.txt

vc1_enc.exe -i C:\Master\1920x1080.yuv -o Temp\1080p_2.vc1 -w 1920 -h 1080 -framerate 29.97 -frametype progressive -telecine 1 -addeos -rate 6000 -maxrate 20000 -buffer 1843200 -gopperiod 14 -mvrange 1 -bframes 2 -bframeposopt 1 -bdeltaqp AdaptiveWeak -loopfilter 1 -deblocking 1 -complexity 4 -chromasearch 4 -motionmatch 2 -perceptual 2 -dquantstrength 0 -adaptivedeadzone 1 -favorinterlevel 3 -2pass Temp\stat_1.txt -log Temp\stat_2.txt

vc1_enc.exe -i C:\Master\1920x1080.yuv -o Temp\1080p_3.vc1 -w 1920 -h 1080 -framerate 29.97 -frametype progressive -telecine 1 -addeos -rate 6000 -maxrate 20000 -buffer 1843200 -gopperiod 14 -mvrange 1 -bframes 2 -bframeposopt 1 -bdeltaqp AdaptiveWeak -loopfilter 1 -deblocking 1 -complexity 4 -chromasearch 2 -motionmatch 1 -perceptual 2 -dquantstrength 0 -adaptivedeadzone 1 -favorinterlevel 3 -2pass Temp\stat_2.txt

@REM 12 Mbps - 3 pass - insame profil

vc1_enc.exe -i C:\Master\1920x1080.yuv -o Temp\1080p_4.vc1 -w 1920 -h 1080 -framerate 29.97 -frametype progressive -telecine 1 -addeos -rate 12000 -maxrate 24000 -buffer 1843200 -gopperiod 14 -mvrange 0 -bframes 2 -bframeposopt 1 -bdeltaqp AdaptiveWeak -loopfilter 1 -deblocking 1 -complexity 0 -chromasearch 4 -motionmatch 2 -perceptual 2 -dquantstrength 0 -adaptivedeadzone 1 -favorinterlevel 3 -log Temp\stat_3.txt

vc1_enc.exe -i C:\Master\1920x1080.yuv -o Temp\1080p_5.vc1 -w 1920 -h 1080 -framerate 29.97 -frametype progressive -telecine 1 -addeos -rate 12000 -maxrate 24000 -buffer 1843200 -gopperiod 14 -mvrange 1 -bframes 2 -bframeposopt 1 -bdeltaqp AdaptiveWeak -loopfilter 1 -deblocking 1 -complexity 4 -chromasearch 4 -motionmatch 2 -perceptual 2 -dquantstrength 0 -adaptivedeadzone 1 -favorinterlevel 3 -2pass Temp\stat_3.txt -log Temp\stat_4.txt

vc1_enc.exe -i C:\Master\1920x1080.yuv -o Temp\1080p_6.vc1 -w 1920 -h 1080 -framerate 29.97 -frametype progressive -telecine 1 -addeos -rate 12000 -maxrate 24000 -buffer 1843200 -gopperiod 14 -mvrange 1 -bframes 2 -bframeposopt 1 -bdeltaqp AdaptiveWeak -loopfilter 1 -deblocking 1 -complexity 4 -chromasearch 2 -motionmatch 1 -perceptual 2 -dquantstrength 0 -adaptivedeadzone 1 -favorinterlevel 3 -2pass Temp\stat_4.txt

@REM 18 Mbps - 3 pass - insame profil

vc1_enc.exe -i C:\Master\1920x1080.yuv -o Temp\1080p_7.vc1 -w 1920 -h 1080 -framerate 29.97 -frametype progressive -telecine 1 -addeos -rate 18250 -maxrate 28000 -buffer 1843200 -gopperiod 14 -mvrange 0 -bframes 2 -bframeposopt 1 -bdeltaqp AdaptiveWeak -loopfilter 1 -deblocking 1 -complexity 0 -chromasearch 4 -motionmatch 2 -perceptual 2 -dquantstrength 0 -adaptivedeadzone 1 -favorinterlevel 3 -log Temp\stat_5.txt

vc1_enc.exe -i C:\Master\1920x1080.yuv -o Temp\1080p_8.vc1 -w 1920 -h 1080 -framerate 29.97 -frametype progressive -telecine 1 -addeos -rate 18250 -maxrate 28000 -buffer 1843200 -gopperiod 14 -mvrange 1 -bframes 2 -bframeposopt 1 -bdeltaqp AdaptiveWeak -loopfilter 1 -deblocking 1 -complexity 4 -chromasearch 4 -motionmatch 2 -perceptual 2 -dquantstrength 0 -adaptivedeadzone 1 -favorinterlevel 3 -2pass Temp\stat_5.txt -log Temp\stat_6.txt

vc1_enc.exe -i C:\Master\1920x1080.yuv -o Temp\1080p_9.vc1 -w 1920 -h 1080 -framerate 29.97 -frametype progressive -telecine 1 -addeos -rate 18250 -maxrate 28000 -buffer 1843200 -gopperiod 14 -mvrange 1 -bframes 2 -bframeposopt 1 -bdeltaqp AdaptiveWeak -loopfilter 1 -deblocking 1 -complexity 4 -chromasearch 2 -motionmatch 1 -perceptual 2 -dquantstrength 0 -adaptivedeadzone 1 -favorinterlevel 3 -2pass Temp\stat_6.txt

vsv

31st July 2007, 21:13

Just speculation...
VC-1 not optimised for encoding 25fps (50Hz) content.
In this case all models of Toshiba hddvd players dont support 25fps content.
Implementation VC-1 in CineVision not good if compare to h264 in same CV.
For real test possible use source from Canon HV20 camcorder 1920x1080p24(and 25p too!) 4:2:2 10 bit Cineform stream captured from HDMI via Black Magic Intensity card.

Sagittaire

31st July 2007, 21:22

VC-1 not optimised for encoding 25fps (50Hz) content.

It's really not a problem for VC1. 1080p24 or 1080p25 in practice don't change anything (just GOP change and no pulldown 3:2i flags). And no judder at playback for 1080p25 stream ...

In this case all models of Toshiba hddvd players dont support 25fps content.

No it's simply that toshiba don't support HDDVD PAL. Here it's simply a firmware problem ...

Golgot13

31st July 2007, 21:55

@ Sagittaire

No it's simply that toshiba don't support HDDVD PAL. Here it's simply a firmware problem ...

Yes, we wait (since near of one year) the firmware update.

@Ben

People prefer Divx? Perhaps in "the scene", but any measurement of actual public streams/files out there provided commercially is going to show orders of magnitude more WMV.

There is more Divx video on the web (P2P,...) than any other format. And all (most) DVD player support Divx.

@Ben

Swisscom is using VC-1 for live broadcasting right now

Nice, but it is only one company (?). there is no US company, very strange...
H264 is used in lot of broadcast system and application (TV, IPTV, mobile broadcast, AVCHD Camcorder, LocationFree,...)

@Ben
Now that Inlet Spinnaker is out, I'm expecting you'll here some announcements about additional broadcasters adopting VC-1.

I know (from MS) that Inlet is not a good encoder solution. Fathom card can not make HD stream compliant with HD DVD
(there is no support from MS team ??). I wait a new software version with this option, VC1 compliant with HD DVD, since April 2006... :devil:

I see a demo of Inlet Spinnaker (first in NAB2006, second in NAB2007 on MS stand). I asked to see a video at 6Mbps
and it was horrible at 960x1080 (and 100meter at next stand, GrassValley, I could see a nice video at 6Mbps...).

Golgot13

benwaggoner

31st July 2007, 22:05

P2P (or more accurately, pirated), perhaps. But the problem with that class of P2P is that there's no money in it :).

[QUOTE]Nice, but it is only one company (?). there is no US company, very strange...
Lots of US companies are doing VC-1 for IPTV VOD, already. That should be a good indication of companies that would be interested in using VC-1 for live as well.

I know (from MS) that Inlet is not a good encoder solution. Fathom card can not make HD stream compliant with HD DVD (there is no support from MS team ??). I wait a new software version with this option, VC1 compliant with HD DVD, since April 2006...
Fathom was originally a WMVHD encoding tool - it predates the final HD DVD spec. Spinnaker is a wholly different product for live encoding, and it's excellent. And Fathom itself has had some great updates, including a software-only version. You should revisit it.

I see a demo of Inlet Spinnaker (first in NAB2006, second in NAB2007 on MS stand). I asked to see a video at 6Mbps
and it was horrible at 960x1080 (and 100meter at next stand, GrassValley, I could see a nice video at 6Mbps...).

I'm not sure what you saw, but there was no Spinnaker demo in HD at our NAB booth in 2006 or 2007.

benwaggoner

31st July 2007, 22:10

@benwaggoner
You are the one that has good connections to the R&D of Film Studios so couldn't you get the Source that was used by Universal Studios (under a Scientific License ofcourse but based on trust rather on signing a paper lol) that played a major role in the decission that the 8x8 transform (FreXt High Profile) was needed for AVC @ that time ?
Are you asking to see a sample of VC-1 encoded to HD DVD limits with the StEM video? That's probably something we could tackle.

Encoding that thing with X264 and compareing those results against VC-1 would be quiet interesting (but maybe some are fearing those results then ;) ), not that i say Elephants Dream is not a nice Source (Animation) but it wasn't a Source that played a role in the Development process (and decission process of Hollywood Studios) so rather useless to compare with that.
Do other folks here have access to that source who would be willing to encode the x264 version?

Golgot13

1st August 2007, 00:20

I'm not sure what you saw, but there was no Spinnaker demo in HD at our NAB booth in 2006 or 2007.

May be it was not "Spinnaker" but it is a VC1 streamer from Inlet (in 2006 and 2007).

Golgot13

Golgot13

1st August 2007, 00:38

And Fathom itself has had some great updates, including a software-only version. You should revisit it.

Fathom is a FPGA card, the software is "process code" to use this FPGA chipset.
Now it can encode in VC1, H264, MPEG2 ... now but no HD DVD or BD support.
After NAB2006 (and some info from MS and Inlet), Fathom was to receive
a update for HD DVD encoding (VC1 first and H264 with 3.0 version).
But I saw nothing at summer 2006.
At NAB2007, I saw only that it can encode in FLV and some MPEG4.

I don't understand MS politic: in 2005, MS and Inlet worked together
and Sonic sale the Fathom card with WMVHD solution.
But after 2005 nothing, Fathom support VC1 but not for HD DVD.
And no update, after lot of announce from Inlet for a release fully compliant HD DVD and BD....

Golgot13

Sharktooth

1st August 2007, 14:13

@diogen: http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=128498

Sagittaire

1st August 2007, 14:53

@diogen: http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=128498

yes it's a new thread because I use simply completely new "NTSC" setting for the challenge.

Mod can close this thread ... ?

crypto

2nd August 2007, 07:30

I don't understand MS politic: in 2005, MS and Inlet worked together
and Sonic sale the Fathom card with WMVHD solution.
But after 2005 nothing, Fathom support VC1 but not for HD DVD.
And no update, after lot of announce from Inlet for a release fully compliant HD DVD and BD....
Golgot13

First I want to thank the participants of this challenge for the excellently documented results, which are giving a perfect insight of current encoding technology.

MS has concentrated sole on commercial HD-DVD products for the movie industry. Other ISVs and developers don't receive much support. The WM DMOs are years old and are not able to produce fully compliant streams. So no wonder Fathom cannot produce fully HD-DVD complaint output without own post processing.

There are absolutely no tools for encoding enthusiasts and hobbists like the ones here on D9. The Xbox has artificially restricted H.264 playback suport. The famous Encoder Studio Edition has been revoked, WME9 is years old, so no wonder MS is getting mostly unfriendly comments here.

H.264 is a whole different story. There are excellent free and open source tools, huge support from the community, widely playback support on consoles, streaming clients and so on. And this challenge proves superior quality for H.264. That's why people love and use it.

In Europe all HD channels are using H.264, many of them have just switched to 2nd generation encoders and are happy with the results. Three HD-DVD quality channels per transponder are absolutely doable.

zambelli

2nd August 2007, 08:27

I must say, it's disappointing to see this thread degenerate into a VC-1 and MS bashing session. I haven't seen much discussion of Sagittaire's results - only a group of individuals immediately jumping onto the thread to declare a victory in a war that's mostly only going on in their heads. Come on. Let's be civil, have a normal discussion and focus on actual encoding results instead of drawing farfetched conclusions i.e. "VC-1 will be dead next year". The future of VC-1 and H.264 is not going to be decided by a thread on Doom9.
I don't understand MS politic: in 2005, MS and Inlet worked together
and Sonic sale the Fathom card with WMVHD solution.
But after 2005 nothing, Fathom support VC1 but not for HD DVD.
MS and Inlet are still working closely together. What products Inlet chooses to focus their product development efforts on is solely their decision. MS is only providing the encoding engine underneath. I'm not aware that Inlet ever had plans to build an HD-DVD encoding solution, though of course that's a question best answered by Inlet - I won't claim to be the best informed person on all VC-1 related products.

Golgot, on a more general but personal note... Your posts here have a history of hostile attitude, fingerpointing and speculating about MS and VC-1. You've mentioned on several occasions that you work for a professional video production company, yet I must tell you that your attitude is very far from professional. If anybody from Microsoft has ever treated you with disrespect or contempt when you sought out support from MS for your VC-1 encoding needs, please let me know, I would love to see what we can do to help or at least understand each other. If that's not the case, then I really fail to see a valid reason for your attitude other than you trying to get a cheap thrill out of publicly berating Microsoft and its employees. :confused:

zambelli

2nd August 2007, 08:48

MS has concentrated sole on commercial HD-DVD products for the movie industry. Other ISVs and developers don't receive much support.
I don't think that's fair to say. Who are these ISVs and developers that aren't receiving supports from MS? What kind of support are they looking for?

The WM DMOs are years old and are not able to produce fully compliant streams. So no wonder Fathom cannot produce fully HD-DVD complaint output without own post processing.
A valid point and you know I won't disagree there. We are working on remedying that problem by producing a VC-1 Encoder SDK that ISVs will be able to use to build VC-1 encoding tools (HD-DVD compliant too) without dependencies on WMV encoder DMOs. As with everything, this takes time - but it's on its way.

There are absolutely no tools for encoding enthusiasts and hobbists like the ones here on D9. The Xbox has artificially restricted H.264 playback suport. The famous Encoder Studio Edition has been revoked, WME9 is years old, so no wonder MS is getting mostly unfriendly comments here.

H.264 is a whole different story. There are excellent free and open source tools, huge support from the community, widely playback support on consoles, streaming clients and so on. And this challenge proves superior quality for H.264. That's why people love and use it.
I've commented on this before. This is a bit of a "chicken or the egg" story. Nobody uses VC-1 because there aren't any tools. Nobody writes tools because nobody is using VC-1. And so it goes. I agree it's probably the latter that has to happen to facilitate the first, but at the end of the day... why does everyone keep looking at Microsoft to make this happen? Sony and Apple didn't write x264, Haali, MeGUI, and the plethora of other free H.264 tools that dominate this forum. So why does everyone keep expecting Microsoft to provide all VC-1 tools? Don't get me wrong - we'd *love* to provide Microsoft authored VC-1 tools for every nook and corner of the market, including the free stuff - but we simply don't have the resources to do so and we're doing the best we can with what we've got. The whole point of standardizing WMV9 into VC-1 was to try to get more people on board - and now that it's finally a standard (same licensing rules as with H.264), everyone is still waiting for MS to make it successful. It's like telling somebody to throw a party at their house and then not showing up because not enough "cool people" were invited.

Beastie Boy

2nd August 2007, 08:48

Agreed with all of the above.

At least the new thread seems to have got off to a better start. Let's hope that one becomes what this one should have been.

Cheers, Beastie.

Golgot13

2nd August 2007, 09:37

Golgot, on a more general but personal note... Your posts here have a history of hostile attitude, fingerpointing and speculating about MS and VC-1. You've mentioned on several occasions that you work for a professional video production company, yet I must tell you that your attitude is very far from professional.

It is same about MS in Europe for lot of professional studio.
MS Europe gave ( remember my private post to you of last year, in Summer)
only support at one or two authoring studio !!!!
MS Europe gave advance of 6 or 9 month at this studio and you gave for free the best VC1 encoder...
And when some other studios (the company where I work was not alone)
asked for only software (no support because it was impossible), we received some email
from you or Ben (thanks for answer) but nothing more (nothing from MS Europe)....
I can give more that 10 companies name from different european countries
(you know some one, they send you email)

If anybody from Microsoft has ever treated you with disrespect or contempt when you sought out support from MS for your VC-1 encoding needs, please let me know, I would love to see what we can do to help or at least understand each other.

But you know this names ( direspect, for me, is to wait 3 or 4 month with no answer
from MS Europe, after email, phone and fax).
Last year, you was not able to help us about this tool.
Today, it's easy because we can buy it at a extern MS company (Sonic with Cinevision PSE).

If that's not the case, then I really fail to see a valid reason for your attitude other than you trying to get a cheap thrill out of publicly berating Microsoft and its employees.

Today, I said the true (I think, but sure "my" true).
But there was lot of change at the end of 2006 from MS (Technical Training for HD DVD,
you gave the VC1 encoder,...).
I said, lot of time (see my old posts), that VC1 is a good codec transition because
it don't need a fast CPU. I was one of first supporter of HD DVD (see my old posts)
but with the politic of some companies (ex:Toshiba and 25Fps) I will, may be, change.

Sorry because I anger about some people in MS Europe (my company don't think same).
But after this post I will talk about only performance of H264 and some nice development of VC1
(but I don't think you can do more than nice PEP, except preprocessing).

Golgot13

Golgot13

2nd August 2007, 10:02

I've commented on this before. This is a bit of a "chicken or the egg" story. Nobody uses VC-1 because there aren't any tools. Nobody writes tools because nobody is using VC-1.

You're right.

And so it goes. I agree it's probably the latter that has to happen to facilitate the first, but at the end of the day... why does everyone keep looking at Microsoft to make this happen?

You can give some nice tool or access at some VC1 tool development ( code ).
There is lot of HD player (Tvix M4100/5100, AmnoNET 130, Netbox 7600...) can read VC1
but only on WMV container. If you give this tool (like Inlet Muxer in command line).
Or you can give a demuxer to help some developper about muxing VC1 on TS stream
(Inlet have a similar software).
I think, after that, the egg (of "chicken or the egg") will be quickly a chicken and will do lot of egg.... :D

Golgot13

skal

2nd August 2007, 11:41

everyone is still waiting for MS to make it successful. It's like telling somebody to throw a party at their house and then not showing up because not enough "cool people" were invited.
It seems to me the analogy is historically wrong. It's rather: nobody asked MS to throw a party while there was already one going on (where the chicks showed up).

CruNcher

2nd August 2007, 11:53

It seems to me the analogy is historically wrong. It's rather: nobody asked MS to throw a party while there was already one going on (where the chicks showed up).

:goodpost: :D
and don't forget they where one of the hosts of the first party left and did a new one, and took all the things they learned from this party (and some stuff they keeped behind a curtain) to the new one (we can do a better one then the last alone with that what we've learned from the other hosts) ;)

benwaggoner

2nd August 2007, 17:44

Fathom is a FPGA card, the software is "process code" to use this FPGA chipset.
The original version was FPGA based, but they now have a software only version. Also, there have been a lot of quality improvements.

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=128498

They'll have HD DVD support eventually, I'm sure, but that'll be up to them to announce.

crypto

2nd August 2007, 19:01

I don't think that's fair to say. Who are these ISVs and developers that aren't receiving supports from MS? What kind of support are they looking for?

OK, that didn't come as I ment it. I wasn't saying ISVs didn't get support. I wanted to point out the support bias towards big business. They got PEP, SDKs and ES specs for instance and all under NDA.

A valid point and you know I won't disagree there. We are working on remedying that problem by producing a VC-1 Encoder SDK that ISVs will be able to use to build VC-1 encoding tools (HD-DVD compliant too) without dependencies on WMV encoder DMOs. As with everything, this takes time - but it's on its way.

That's good to hear and exactly what is needed. Please keep us updated.

... why does everyone keep looking at Microsoft to make this happen? Sony and Apple didn't write x264, Haali, MeGUI, and the plethora of other free H.264 tools that dominate this forum. So why does everyone keep expecting Microsoft to provide all VC-1 tools? Don't get me wrong - we'd *love* to provide Microsoft authored VC-1 tools for every nook and corner of the market, including the free stuff - but we simply don't have the resources to do so and we're doing the best we can with what we've got. The whole point of standardizing WMV9 into VC-1 was to try to get more people on board - and now that it's finally a standard (same licensing rules as with H.264), everyone is still waiting for MS to make it successful. It's like telling somebody to throw a party at their house and then not showing up because not enough "cool people" were invited.

Nice one. The "party" analogy is cool and really describes it.

Golgot13

2nd August 2007, 21:36

The original version was FPGA based, but they now have a software only version. Also, there have been a lot of quality improvements.

To my mind, FPGA card is the best solution because all process
(video preprocessing and encoding) are in real time !!!
And the Inlet tool is nice: muxer, demuxer, dump, flag remover,...
Inlet Semaphore is too a good software to analyze WMV or VC1 stream

They'll have HD DVD support eventually, I'm sure, but that'll be up to them to announce.

Not sure because they gave (last year) lot of announce about that
but now, this year at NAB2007, nothing ( ?? ).

It is really a good FPGA card (good Processor Unit power) which can now capture and
encode in VC1, H264, FLV, MPEG2 and MPEG4part2. May be with a little help of MS team
this product can be a HD DVD real time encoding solution (real time for one pass process).
And I think more companies will use VC1 codec for HD DVD,
if they have a hardware VC1 card (like Inlet Fathom).

Golgot13

2nd August 2007, 21:44

That's good to hear and exactly what is needed. Please keep us updated.

Yes, but there are some counterparts (support or push only one format or codec)...

It is good but I am being wary about MS (sorry Ben and Zambelli).

zambelli

3rd August 2007, 01:08

And when some other studios (the company where I work was not alone)
asked for only software (no support because it was impossible), we received some email
from you or Ben (thanks for answer) but nothing more (nothing from MS Europe)....
I'm sorry you didn't get a reply from MS Europe at the time. The European deployments of PEP were fairly limited, from what I recall. The goal was never to give out PEP for free to everybody but to focus on customers we could support, get direct feedback from and expect a solid VC-1 production volume from. I realize that might seem unfair to those who didn't get included, but for the design and improvement of PEP it was very important to be able to focus on only as many customers as we could handle at a time.

Today, it's easy because we can buy it at a extern MS company (Sonic with Cinevision PSE).
But there was lot of change at the end of 2006 from MS (Technical Training for HD DVD, you gave the VC1 encoder,...).
That's true, there were changes made. One of the reasons the deal with Sonic was made was exactly to get some help with the support and sales aspect of the product, allowing the MS codec team to focus more on product development. I realize it hasn't been an easy transition for a lot of studios that used to get PEP for free but it's a decision that was made to help expand the customer base of the product.