WMV9 Advanced Profile @ < 500kbps ??

[fanbanlo]

What happen if I encode with WMV9 Advanced Profile @ low bitrate (< 500kbps) for 320x240 video?

What that be any better than using the WMV9 Auto (which in turn would use Simple) ?


:thanks:

[bond]

why dont you try it and tell us about your results? ;)

[fanbanlo]

why dont you try it and tell us about your results? ;)

What's the best way to test?

I can't really tell from my last project.

But... is there any advantage technologically, using WMV9AP @ such low bitrate, while it was designed to work at 2+mbps?

Thanks.

[Sagittaire]

What's the best way to test?

I can't really tell from my last project.

But... is there any advantage technologically, using WMV9AP @ such low bitrate, while it was designed to work at 2+mbps?

Thanks.

500 Kbps for 320*240 is not really a low bitrate situation. Really constrained MPEG1 (short GOP, CBR) done really good result at 1 Mbps with this resolution ... ;-)

[Dark Eiri]

fanbalo: Click the encode button, wait some time and then... uhhh, it's magic. :) Try 300kbps instead. 500 is to high for this kind of resolution, would be a total waste.

Sagittaire: Actually, MPEG1 done really good result even at ~700kbps. I used 700kbps to do longer VCDs for months. Then I just bought a DVD Burner :D

[fanbanlo]

What happend to Doom9? ppl get so unfriendly.

Forget it, and don't reply if u haven't got anything constructive to say.

[zambelli]

What happen if I encode with WMV9 Advanced Profile @ low bitrate (< 500kbps) for 320x240 video?
What that be any better than using the WMV9 Auto (which in turn would use Simple) ?
Advanced or Main profiles do have some advantages over Simple, such as support for B-frames, loop filtering, range reduction, etc. You can find the full table at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VC-1. However, the disadvantage of those profiles is that they increase the decoder requirements too. If you're working with a decoding device of limited resources (i.e. PocketPC), you'll probably want to stick with Simple profile. But if you're aiming for PC playback, you might as well just spring for Main or Advanced and take advantage of some of those advanced features.

@Dark Eiri:
The bitrates you mention cannot produce high quality video. MPEG-1 @ 700kbps or VC-1 @ 300kbps might produce *acceptable* video quality, but good luck getting archival quality out of those. Have you tried doing some A-B comparisons with the source? Just because a video looks fine doesn't mean it's as good as the source.

[Dark Eiri]

For 320 x 240, yeah it will produce good video quality =/
I did some comparisons, but you know, 320 x 240 isn't really archival quality, anyway.
And WMV9 (amd I guess VC-1 wouldn't be that differrent) gives pretty good quality for various sources at 300 kbps, 320 x 240. x264 too.

fanbanlo: Sorry if it sounded rude, I was just kidding. We don't need to be military-serious 100% of time, right? ^^

[zambelli]

For 320 x 240, yeah it will produce good video quality =/
Got samples you could upload and share? You'd need to provide the source video too.
I did some comparisons, but you know, 320 x 240 isn't really archival quality, anyway.
It could be if the source is 320x240 too.
And WMV9 (amd I guess VC-1 wouldn't be that differrent) gives pretty good quality for various sources at 300 kbps, 320 x 240. x264 too.
WMV9 is VC-1, Microsoft implementation.
Anyway... Like I said... There's a difference between "looks OK" and "looks great", just like there is a difference betwern 128kbps MP3 and 320kbps MP3.

[tchaikovsky]

For 320 x 240, yeah it will produce good video quality =/
I did some comparisons, but you know, 320 x 240 isn't really archival quality, anyway.
And WMV9 (amd I guess VC-1 wouldn't be that differrent) gives pretty good quality for various sources at 300 kbps, 320 x 240. x264 too.

fanbanlo: Sorry if it sounded rude, I was just kidding. We don't need to be military-serious 100% of time, right? ^^

I agree with you, most of my share video on the web use 320*240, 300Kbps. It works perfectly :D

[fanbanlo]

What are some other popular resolution?

Or should we only rely on the end user's hardware to re-scale themselves during playback?

I've seen 400x300, 480x360, etc....

[zambelli]

I've seen 400x300, 480x360, etc....
480x360 and 512x384 would be good intermediate steps on the way to full 640x480.