VC-1 and H264

[weaver4]

Is there any web site that compare VC-1 and H264?

I am moving to DivX to either WMV9 or X264 and I want to encode my movies now so they will play on Stand-Alone-Players in the future.

It appears that both of these are going to be supported by Stand-Alone-Players in the future. But, WMV9 seems to have the edge if you want to encode now and ensure it will play on one of these players in the future. H264 doesn't seem to have the guidance to the SAP manufactures to tell them what specifications they should meet.

Anyone know of good reviews of video quality?

[Manao]

H264 is quite well standardize, and SAPs know what specifications they must follow ( bluray's and HDDVD's aren't far away from your everyday encodes, the biggest difference being the short GOP size, but that doesn't matter ).

VC1, as a standard, is less efficient that AVC ( it lacks CABAC, good intra prediction, reference bframe ). Would I guess, I'd say it translate to a 10 to 15% bitrate increase at same quality ( PSNR, which might not be perfectly suited here, since codecs are different )

But comparing standard isn't equivalent to comparing encoders - there I can't help you, I never used WMV9 encoder.

[Dark Shikari]

I used VC-1 on "better" to encode a recent EVE Online video I made (49 minutes, 1152x720 resolution for the WMV version). I don't normally use VC-1, but I wanted to give it as an option for people who don't want to download the an H.264 decoding codec set. This isn't a 100% accurate codec comparison, its just a recent experience I can share.

x264 settings were --ref 3, --subme 6, --trellis 2, and all the other usual high quality settings. WMV was "better" at twopass bitrate 1000kbps (as I didn't know what quality would yield what filesize due to a lack of experience with VC-1), x264 was CRF 30.

Encoding time, WMV took about 14 hours, x264 took about 3 hours or so.

Result: WMV was about 50% higher bitrate and had about 10% lower SSIM (about 0.957 vs 0.961 I believe, remember how SSIM scales before you say "that's not 10%"). :rolleyes:

You're going to need a lot more bitrate with VC-1 to equal x264, by a long shot. I'm guessing at higher quality levels the gap closes a bit, but still... in my honest opinion, VC-1 encodes too slow for too low of a quality to be worth using except if you're on a really slow computer for decoding, need to watch HD content, and don't have CoreAVC.

[weaver4]

Manao: OK, thanks for your input.

What profile would I use in MeGui or AutoMKV to encode x264 so that I am guaranteed that it will play on H264 SAPs in the future? Right now neither of these can do an encode that will work with Apple TV; a H264 player. (This info is a few months old, they may have one now.)

[benwaggoner]

x264 settings were --ref 3, --subme 6, --trellis 2, and all the other usual high quality settings. WMV was "better" at twopass bitrate 1000kbps (as I didn't know what quality would yield what filesize due to a lack of experience with VC-1), x264 was CRF 30.

Encoding time, WMV took about 14 hours, x264 took about 3 hours or so.

Result: WMV was about 50% higher bitrate and had about 10% lower SSIM (about 0.957 vs 0.961 I believe, remember how SSIM scales before you say "that's not 10%"). :rolleyes:

Can you share what VC-1 settings and version you used (Advanced Profile? WMP11 dlls?)? That was a lot of detail on the H.264 encode, but not on the VC-1. That's a much, much bigger diffeence than I'd expect, both in encoding time and in bitrate. I expect somethign went askew in your VC-1 encode.

[benwaggoner]

I am moving to DivX to either WMV9 or X264 and I want to encode my movies now so they will play on Stand-Alone-Players in the future.
I didn't want to miss this in the incipent codec discussion war :).

Really, the current encoders aren't shipping with explicit compatibilty modes for HD DVD or BD, so that really shouldn't be driving your short term decisions. There's a lot of tweaky compliance details in gettig a bitstream tuned to be compliant with either format.

That said, we should start seeing commercial products with HD Optical modes for VC-1 in a few months. Today that's only really available via our CineVision PSE product that Sonic is distributing for us.

[Dark Shikari]

Can you share what VC-1 settings and version you used (Advanced Profile? WMP11 dlls?)? That was a lot of detail on the H.264 encode, but not on the VC-1. That's a much, much bigger diffeence than I'd expect, both in encoding time and in bitrate. I expect somethign went askew in your VC-1 encode.
I used the VBScript VC-1 encoder with presets that's popular here, with "fast", "normal", "better", "best" and "insane". I used "better".

[benwaggoner]

I used the VBScript VC-1 encoder with presets that's popular here, with "fast", "normal", "better", "best" and "insane". I used "better".
Surprising there was that much of a speed difference. Did you do your preprocessing before encoding? What file format did you use for input? What kind of hardware were you running?

Also, for a real quality test, you should be doing "Best."

[benwaggoner]

I used the VBScript VC-1 encoder with presets that's popular here, with "fast", "normal", "better", "best" and "insane". I used "better".
Reviewing the settings, it looks like you got:

Complexity = 3 (-v_performance 60)
Lookahead = 30 (-v_lookahead 30)
Loopfilter = On (-v_loopfilter 1)
Motion Search Level = Auto w/ Integer Chroma (-v_mslevel 0)
Motion Search Range = Auto (-v_msrange 0)
Motion Vector Cost = Dynamic (-v_mvcost 1)
B-frames = 1 (-v_bframedist 1)

To get a good quality encode without going crazy on performance, I'd do:

Complexity = 4 (-v_performance 8)
Lookahead = 0 (v_lookahead 0) - not needed with 2-pass encodes
Loopfilter = On (-v_loopfilter 1)
Motion Search Level = Auto w/ True chroma (-v_mslevel 4)
Motion Search Range = Auto (-v_msrange 0)
Motion Vector Cost = Dynamic (-v_mvcost 1)
B-frames = 1 (-v_bframedist 1)
Motion Match Method = Auto (-v_mmatch 0)
DQuant on I & P Frames (-v_dquantoption 2)
Adaptive Deadzone (-v_percopt 2)

and if you're seeing artifacts, use

Overlap filter (-v_overlap 1)

Also, since you're comparing with a quality VBR encode, make sure you're using

2-pass VBR (-v_mode 3)

Note that some of the above settings are for optimizing video quality not PSNR/SSIM, so you should compare the quality of the two encodes visually. And since you already have a H.264 encode at bitrate you like, go ahead and use the same bitrate for the 2-pass VBR VC-1 encode so you're at least controlling one axis of the comparison.

Also remember that your encode time comparison isn't particularly germaine, since you're comparing a 1-pass to a 2-pass encode.

Still, how much RAM is in your machine? The Lookahead parameter doesn't help in a two-pass encode, and can eat up quite a lot of RAM in a HD encode. That could slow you down some.

[zambelli]

Let's also keep in mind that comparing x264 and WMV9 is just a comparison of two implementations and doesn't represent all H.264 and VC-1 encoders. A codec is only as good as its implementation.

[bond]

Let's also keep in mind that comparing x264 and WMV9 is just a comparison of two implementations and doesn't represent all H.264 and VC-1 encoders. A codec is only as good as its implementation.i think comparing x264 with wmv9 is ok, as x264 is one of the best h.264 encoders and wmv9 is propably the only (?) vc-1 encoder existing

[benwaggoner]

There are actuallly diffferent implementations of VC-1 available to the public today. Format SDK 11. Tarari. The version of the codec used in the Inlet products. The non-PSE version of Sonic's CineVision. SMPTE reference code. Telestream's implementation used in FlipFactory, Episode, and Flip4Mac. Main Concept has one. There's some DSP implementations used by folks like VBrick...

And of course we've got newer stuff we've done post FSDK 11. And there's been three major releases of FSDK with VC-1 (9, 9.5, and 11).

[Sagittaire]

The non-PSE version of Sonic's CineVision use Mainconcept VC1 SDK ...

[PuzZLeR]

Is this thread about the quality difference between the two, or the long-term support comparison? Or how to encode for stand-alones? All distinct topics.

For stand-alones and H.264, stick with a common denominator of QT compatibility, a standard within a standard, and you won't go wrong, even if it costs a bit more bitrate. However, hardware will eventually catch up with MRFs, B-pyramids, etc in due time, even though they make several decoders choke today.

Don't care what Apple TV and iPod are accepting. These machines have obvious tech limitations, not restrictions on a standard. It's also Apple's way of skimming the market, making us keep buying the "next great exciting" model coming up... In 5 years time my phone will be playing all my encoded clips of today, with all the gravy, and it doesn't even have to be a phone from Apple either...

Personally, I would say that for better support you can't go wrong with an MPEG codec. H.264 is the latest face of MPEG. In fact it *IS* MPEG.

The only reason VC-1 even got this far is because its parade is led by M$, otherwise it would be scratching for a niche market like VP-7 and RV10 are.

H.264 is also an open standard, while VC-1 has proprietary characteristics. There is no "corporation" that owns H.264, and any support it gets is rather genuine, which is plenty. VC-1's support is biased, as is those comments from obvious backers of the big M.

Quality difference? Don't care. Even if VC-1 is "better" quality, which I have yet to see evidence of, it wouldn't be distinguishable enough to beat an MPEG codec.

[benwaggoner]

H.264 is also an open standard, while VC-1 has proprietary characteristics. There is no "corporation" that owns H.264, and any support it gets is rather genuine, which is plenty. VC-1's support is biased, as is those comments from obvious backers of the big M.
What kind of proprietary characteristics are you thinking of? H.264 and VC-1 are both fully specified by a standards body (ISO or SMPTE) with the usual set of reference encoders and decoders, reference streams, etcetera. And both have similar patent terms, and have patent licensing handled by MPEG-LA.

Quality difference? Don't care. Even if VC-1 is "better" quality, which I have yet to see evidence of, it wouldn't be distinguishable enough to beat an MPEG codec.
Well, there's many flavors of "quality". PQ is one axis. PQ per MIPS is another. Installed base is another - clearly many more of the world's computers can play VC-1 out of the box than H.264.

It's never possible to say any codec is better or worse in the abstract. It's always comparing implementations and scenarios. Clearly there are places where H.264 is better (for example, playback on an iPod for example) and where VC-1 is better (for example, playback on corporate desktops, or in portable devices in software instead of via ASIC).

[Tack]

What kind of proprietary characteristics are you thinking of?
Past experience has certainly taught me to treat with great skepticism anything that comes from Microsoft, and even more so anything that Microsoft is pushing as a standard. (OOXML is one potent example.)

There is of course the pragmatic issue of platform availability. Can I encode VC-1 on Linux or OS X? (It's not a rhetorical question; I actually don't know, but I suspect not at least on Linux.)

Installed base is another - clearly many more of the world's computers can play VC-1 out of the box than H.264.
Ah yes, clearly. Because Microsoft is less interested in providing a seamless user experience than they are with pushing "standards" on which they have a firm, proprietary grasp.

The out-of-the-box media experience on Windows has always been ridiculously annoying. Certainly if you confine yourself to MS-blessed codecs (WMV, WMA) it's great. MP3 is supported, but only because of the sheer volume and demand. Microsoft missed the boat on MP3's popularity explosion -- not one to make the same mistake twice, VC-1 is Microsoft's answer to h264. I wonder why Windows doesn't support Ogg Vorbis out of the box? Are the licensing costs too high, perhaps?

Should you be unfortunate enough to have a file with an unsupported codec, like those unknown, esoteric, obscure ones such as xvid/divx, AC3, or h264 -- scantly used on the Internet and the AV/HT scene in general, to be sure -- then you are confronted with the ever-helpful dialog that consults MS's servers to download the codec, which I have never once seen actually work.

Ubiquity of VC-1 "on the desktop" is achieved only thanks to Microsoft's desktop monopoly. If you're a content provider and your motives are commercial in nature, then sadly your argument is valid. (I would still argue outweighed by other factors.) But otherwise, as with the case of the original poster, desktop penetration is moot, and in fact I would say the full transparentness of projects like x264 are an utterly compelling reason to embrace h264.

[benwaggoner]

Past experience has certainly taught me to treat with great skepticism anything that comes from Microsoft, and even more so anything that Microsoft is pushing as a standard. (OOXML is one potent example.)
This is a technical forum - I think it'd be more useful if you could bring up some specific examples of anything you object to in either the standard or the license. Companies like Main Concept have done their own implementation of VC-1 without any involvement from Microsoft without any issues.

As for OOXML, I think most of the criticisms miss the fact that its primary goal is to provide a XML implementation that's backwards compatible to all existing .doc files, which introduces painful complexity. You might argue about whether or not that's worth doing, but for enterprises that want to take their existing past few decades of .doc content and make them searchable in a structured way while preserving the layout precisely, OOXML is a great solution.

There is of course the pragmatic issue of platform availability. Can I encode VC-1 on Linux or OS X? (It's not a rhetorical question; I actually don't know, but I suspect not at least on Linux.)
Sure. Telestream's Episode and Flip4Mac products encode WMV with VC-1 on Mac. Those can plug into other tools, like Compressor and Squeeze.

As for Linux, I think there are some embedded VC-1 solutions using derivatives of the VC-1 Porting Kit (portable C++ implementation we license). And there's some Summer of Code thing going on:

http://wiki.multimedia.cx/index.php?title=FFmpeg_Summer_Of_Code#VC-1

And I'm sure someone's working on xVC1 somewhere, based on the SMPTE reference implementation. Since Microsoft doesn't control either the specification or license, we only hear about projects are they are announced just like everyone else.

The out-of-the-box media experience on Windows has always been ridiculously annoying...
Well, yes, only a very small percentage of users are watching anime fansubs and that kind of stuff, and there are readily available 3rd party players for those who are interested. Given how many formats and codecs there are out there, I hope you can understand why we don't take on the development and particularly test hit of getting everything working. There's an extremely high bar for security and stability for anything bundled with windows.

[Shapierian]

Well, yes, only a very small percentage of users are watching anime fansubs and that kind of stuff, and there are readily available 3rd party players for those who are interested. Given how many formats and codecs there are out there, I hope you can understand why we don't take on the development and particularly test hit of getting everything working. There's an extremely high bar for security and stability for anything bundled with windows.

But it is kind of funny that Microsoft that produced a reference implementation of MPEG-4 and considering the ubiquity of MPEG-4 that windows doesn't support it out of the box.

[PuzZLeR]

Hello Ben,

I know there’s about a dozen other “organizations”, or rather “corporations” behind it, but VC-1, although officially “open standard”, has the, albeit indirect, profitable goals, motives and characteristics of a proprietary format, and this is just another example of M$’s second-mover status – where something of merit is introduced into our mainstream and then the Big M yelps “Me too!” Instead of properly employing its status as the world’s most widely used O/S, where it should warrant some responsibility to embrace a standard, M$ instead leverages its advantage by unleashing something to compete against it unfairly … again. Of course, since (pun intended) Gates holds the gates with his operating system, and regardless of quality, or lack-thereof, from any M$ product, this time disguised, as “the standard”, it will still sadly get a wider-than-deserved attention, especially when it will be “pre-packaged”, and bullied on us with a unilateral premise, with added excuses of some over-abundance of existing codecs - and “an extremely high bar of security”, which apparently includes the standard of H.264 - an implication that it's a "trivial" codec that may also be a "threat".

Yeah, whatever.

Well, Ok, yes, it's a "threat" alright, but we all know what that "threat" to the Big M really is. As for “security” – I would call it INsecurity, a trait commonplace among the bully behavior.

Now instead of enjoying H.264, a common video format standard, widely portable, with high quality/compression that intends to be fluidly compatible universally among all platforms, we have to now put up with another M$ entry for no beneficial reason whatsoever to the industry - an analogy similar to that of a spoiled brat rich kid, living off a stolen heritance, that wants to play too with ONLY his/her crappy toys that the estate’s owner manufactures…

Ben, I do however respect your stance with Microsoft, and appreciate what you’re doing, but you will not be without challenge in this forum. And I won't insult you with fluff either.

But if you’d like to discuss “technical” comparisons in this forum, which may or may not be what this thread is about, as of this writing, the implementations of H.264 clearly outperform those of VC-1 for good reason beyond a head start. I see very little that VC-1 offers other than “faster processing” (such as decoding) – an “issue” that can easily be considered short-term and an “advantage” that will be negligible, and laughable, as hardware further progresses towards the world of HD. The law of diminishing returns will certainly apply to VC-1 as newer methods are developed into the H.264 standard – 4:4:4, lower bitrate encoding, chroma, etc on top of features like CABAC currently – none of which exist, or will exist, with “VC-1” as is.

Actually, I lie. Yes, H.264 does have this VC-1 “advantage”, and impersonation. It’s called BASELINE.

Don’t worry folks. This is one M$ joke that will definitely reveal lucidity and implode and choke and this will be a case based purely on the tangibles of the intangible – pure product features. My vision as a marketing administrator? VC-1 will still be around, and will boast this-and-that to those who will listen, but as H.264 further progresses M$ will lead us into yet ANOTHER new codec to compete… again, this time with their WMMVM4XVMV10VC2-whatever…but this time the general public, unless it’s not already doing it, will just roll back its eyes and sigh…

Thank you... methinks I'm done with this thread...

Geordie, BSc, CompSci, MBA
Finance & Electronic Marketing Concentration
Marketing Administrator

[bond]

here (http://www.mpegla.com/index1.cfm)you can check the patents owned by specific companies like microsoft on avc and vc1 and the licensing terms of avc and vc1

as you can see microsoft owns more patents in avc than in vc1 (just counting the amount, not looking into the details)
the licensing terms for avc and vc1 are pretty similar, with vc1 having higher overall caps, so imho for big producers being slightly more expensive
-> therefore i think microsoft might earn on the patent side the same with both formats any maybe even more with avc

this leaves the implemenation side:
all in all vc1 has been imho created because microsoft creates own "standards" as a business model using their strong standing in the os sector (and therefore media player sector) to push this "standard", exlcuding competitors.
in the vc1 case they have been forced by the dvd/bluray bodies to make the prior closed vc1 "standard" an open standard, harming microsoft's tactic of exlcuding competitors but still being better than being not included in hddvd/bluray


in the end in the vc1 case imho it would have been better for the industry, the end customer and propably even microsoft if ms would have pushed avc right from the start, using their os standing to push THEIR avc implementation and not some extra implementation of a different open standard

[Wilbert]

As for OOXML, I think most of the criticisms miss the fact that its primary goal is to provide a XML implementation that's backwards compatible to all existing .doc files, which introduces painful complexity. You might argue about whether or not that's worth doing, but for enterprises that want to take their existing past few decades of .doc content and make them searchable in a structured way while preserving the layout precisely, OOXML is a great solution.
OOXML is being pushed as an open standard, which is simply incompatible with being compatible with existing .doc files. You can't have it both ways. However, it's not open (future patents treats, references to older Word versions) nor a standard despite being pushed as one.

If you read what happened in the committee in Portugal (http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2007071812280798#comments):

As you know, it's been reported that both Sun and IBM were told there was no room for them to join the committee in Portugal and so they were not allowed to attend the July 16th meeting. A member of that committee, Rui Seabra, has now published his notes (http://wiki.ansol.org/CT-173-LDD-Meeting-002) from the meeting and given me permission to reproduce them here for you.

Just look at how many participants are affiliated with Microsoft:

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2007071812280798

Or in the committee in the USA:
Microsoft's plan to have its Office Open XML (OOXML) format fast-tracked for approval as an ISO standard hit a snag recently, when the V1, a technical committee that advises the International Committee for Information Technology Standards (INCITS), failed by two votes to gain the necessary two-thirds majority of its 26 voting members to give OOXML the "Approval, with comments" rating. The INCTS is a committee accredited by ANSI that recommends the United States' position on voting for ISO standards. Subsequent motions to pass OOXML as "Disapproval, with comments" and "Abstention, with comments" also failed. Rob Weir, an IBM employee who is a member of the V1 committee, explained the decision on his blog, and noted that 16 out of the 26 voting members joined the committee very late in the game, and almost all of these new partners voted to approve OOXML. Weir noted that some of these new members were companies that were Microsoft corporate partners.
as reported on ars (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070717-office-xml-hits-a-snag-on-the-way-to-iso-standardization.html). I think that Microsoft should be ashamed of itself, but what else is new.

@mods,

Please move this to a different thread if you think this is off topic.

[benwaggoner]

in the end in the vc1 case imho it would have been better for the industry, the end customer and propably even microsoft if ms would have pushed avc right from the start, using their os standing to push THEIR avc implementation and not some extra implementation of a different open standard
Remember that VC-1 Simple and Main profiles predate H.264 both technically and for license terms. Microsoft (well before my time) went down the codec standard route before with MPEG-4 part 2, which turns out to be a profound disappointment across the industry - it didn't offer that much of a compression advantage over MPEG-2, and the protracted license agreement discussions scared off a lot of adoption. I was involved in many digital media projects that wouldn't even touch MPEG-4 in the late 90's to early 00's because there was going to be a "content fee" that hadn't been fully defined yet.

More germain to today, there are some real technical advantages to VC-1, particularly in decode complexity and ability to retain fine detail like film grain. Comparing a device like the iPod (H.264 baseline) and the Zune (VC-1 Main Profile), better decode complexity means power-constrained devices can use a superior profile, and deliver better quality at a given bitrate.

VC-1 was designed for HD and film content from the get-go, while H.264 only really became competitive in that arena relatively late with the addition of High Profile, created after VC-1 beat MPEG-2, and both beat H.264, in the initial DVD Forum HD tests.

[Shapierian]

Remember that VC-1 Simple and Main profiles predate H.264 both technically and for license terms. Microsoft (well before my time) went down the codec standard route before with MPEG-4 part 2, which turns out to be a profound disappointment across the industry - it didn't offer that much of a compression advantage over MPEG-2, and the protracted license agreement discussions scared off a lot of adoption. I was involved in many digital media projects that wouldn't even touch MPEG-4 in the late 90's to early 00's because there was going to be a "content fee" that hadn't been fully defined yet.

MPEG-4 Part 2 has been a great success, consider: DivX, XviD, 3viX and QuickTime 6 and offers huge advantages over MPEG-2 otherwise people would have just stuck with MPEG-2 and doom9 wouldn't have XviD and DivX forums.

[PuzZLeR]

in the end in the vc1 case imho it would have been better for the industry, the end customer and propably even microsoft if ms would have pushed avc right from the start, using their os standing to push THEIR avc implementation and not some extra implementation of a different open standardRevisiting the thread in case my last post may have made me sound like some communist.

I have NO PROBLEM with M$ wishing to compete in this arena. I should have been clearer on this. I still have issues with the pushing of their implementation using their O/S, even with AVC, but at least it's an embracement of an existing standard that they'd be pushing...

If M$ wanted to instead create a compatible H.264 implementation of their own I, and many others, would have been very welcoming to this. Whether WMV-AVC would have sucked or not, nevertheless, an M$ entry of this nature WOULD have been great for the industry.

My beef is the fact that they went ahead and led a party to create a completely different, and inferior, standard. There is no excuse for this other than their greedy desire for control, and by unfairly using their position with their O/S to give us all the impression that VC-1 is "THE" standard.

And to furthermore force it down our throats packaged with Windows, purposely EXCLUDING H.264 with the excuse, and insult, that it may be unsafe and one of the "too many codecs out there". This will certainly cause alot of friction.

Ben, is that an official Microsoft statement? This is how they treat a standard?

This is one ploy that will not work and will backfire. I think the public is aware of M$ and their crap by now.

And let me remind you that the Zune is NOT an attempt to compete with Apple and its iPod as the traditionalists might think. The Zune emphasis is a means to win more exposure for VC-1. This is a desperate attempt by M$ because VC-1 is getting beaten convincingly. When the iPod pounds Zune, this will set VC-1 further back, where it belongs.

What concerns me most about VC-1 is not that it will beat H.264. It won't. The real nuisance is in the fact that it will not die for a long time. M$ will not let it go and will keep irritating us over and over again, constantly poking at the industry and the dream of fluid compatibility.

VC-1 will surely end up like WMV - still bugging us as an annoying side format floating around that everybody who comes into possession of is always asking in forums how it can be converted to something else...

[Manao]

VC-1 was designed for HD and film content from the get-go, while H.264 only really became competitive in that arena relatively late with the addition of High Profile, created after VC-1 beat MPEG-2, and both beat H.264, in the initial DVD Forum HD tests.Technically speaking, H264 main profile is superior to VC1 & MPEG-2 for HD. High profile is, of course, a lot better, because 8x8 transform is really a must for HD stuff, but even so, H264 MP outperforms both codecs.

However, when they did those tests, they may not have used a good h264 encoder. And it's easy to make a H264 encoder less efficient than Mpeg2. Look at ATI's software H264 codec...

So I'm interested in knowing what encoders where used for that DVD Forum HD comparison.

MPEG-4 Part 2 has been a great successNo. For the industry, Mpeg4p2 is a huge failure. The only success for Mpeg4 part 2 is that it's widely used by pirate. That doesn't make it a success :) Finally, mpeg4 part 2 is only ~20% more efficient than Mpeg2. Don't be fooled by the fact that you convert a DVD 9 to a 700MB CD to rate mpeg4's efficiency. DVD9 is an overkill, it has a GOP of 12, and professionnal mpeg2 encoders used for DVD aren't that good.

[benwaggoner]

Technically speaking, H264 main profile is superior to VC1 & MPEG-2 for HD. High profile is, of course, a lot better, because 8x8 transform is really a must for HD stuff, but even so, H264 MP outperforms both codecs.
Superior in what sense? That's certianly not my experience, especially for contet with film grain.

Sounds like a promising option for doing some actual head-to-head testing!

[Manao]

I must admit I'm mostly used to test TV content ( broadcast ), which is quite a lot more complex than movie, but which also is less grainy.

I must also admit I'm not a grain/noise addict, and that between ringing/blocks and sharp without grain, I'll choose the second any time.

And finally, I've never worked with anything higher than 10 mbps for HD stuff, and it may not be the bitrate at which the test was done.

That said, the encoder definitely matters. If the JM was used for the test ( gods forbid ), I can understand why h264 lost. JM is efficient, but doesn't have a good ratecontrol ( not even average ), and cares only about PSNR - which is completely the opposite of what is needed for keeping grain.

That's why I wanted to know what encoders were used for the comparison.

[Shapierian]

No. For the industry, Mpeg4p2 is a huge failure. The only success for Mpeg4 part 2 is that it's widely used by pirate. That doesn't make it a success :) Finally, mpeg4 part 2 is only ~20% more efficient than Mpeg2. Don't be fooled by the fact that you convert a DVD 9 to a 700MB CD to rate mpeg4's efficiency. DVD9 is an overkill, it has a GOP of 12, and professionnal mpeg2 encoders used for DVD aren't that good.

Slide 19 of http://www.ihollywoodforum.com/documents/IPTV/15.ppt shows certainly more than a 20% bitrate reduction.

MPEG-4 was only the current standard for a narrow windows. There weren't many standards between DVD and HD-DVD for MPEG-4 Part 2 to be adopted by. ASP was only finalized in 2002. I'll admit some of the more ambitious profiles of MPEG-4 did fail but certainly not SP/ASP. It also depends on what segment of the industry to which you are are referring. The stated goal of MPEG-4 was for streaming/mobile platforms so it's no surprise it wasn't adopted for broadcast use and the like. For video distributed over the internet: legitimate, illegitimate, or both MPEG-4 has been quite popular.

[Manao]

http://www.ihollywoodforum.com/documents/IPTV/15.ppt shows certainly more than a 20% bitrate reduction. It shows 25 to 35% bitrate reduction, and it's a document meant to promote Mpeg4 over Mpeg2, so I think I'll prefer my figures.

Anyway, the document claims a 50-66% bitrate reduction for AVC and it's an overstatement. 50%, perhaps, 66%, never.

For video distributed over the internet: legitimate, illegitimate, or both MPEG-4 has been quite popular.Legitimate ? where ? I can see WMV, VP6, RV, MOV ( h264, sorenson, and sometimes Mpeg4 SP ). But nothing else.

I still stand by my point of view : mpeg4 sp/asp only broke through for illegitimate distribution.

[Shapierian]

It shows 25 to 35% bitrate reduction, and it's a document meant to promote Mpeg4 over Mpeg2, so I think I'll prefer my figures.

Anyway, the document claims a 50-66% bitrate reduction for AVC and it's an overstatement. 50%, perhaps, 66%, never.

Legitimate ? where ? I can see WMV, VP6, RV, MOV ( h264, sorenson, and sometimes Mpeg4 SP ). But nothing else.

I still stand by my point of view : mpeg4 sp/asp only broke through for illegitimate distribution.

A lot of the QuickTime6 era stuff is MPEG-4 SP. RV is closely related to MPEG-4 both are derived from H.263. FFMPEG decodes all three with a common decoder.

Also in the internet world, rather than making an interoperable part in the middle of the data flow like in the broadcast world, the video format was the last mile so that's where companies tried to exert control hurting adoption of an open standard. Let's not forget Microsoft distributed 3 broken MPEG4 implementations before admitting they had no longer had interest in the format.

But to get back to the point at hand it was used by a major market player QuickTime (and also minor players Blizzard and Stage6).

It was more popular for illegitimate works but calling it a flop for that would be like calling MP3 a flop. Divx is the MP3 of video, that is by no means a flop.

Microsoft which should have had every market advantage with MPEG-4, being the authors of a reference implementation never actually did anything with it. It didn't fail them, they failed it.

[Manao]

And mpeg4 derives from mpeg2, and AVC from ASP, and...

Come on, all those codecs are block based, so of course they are closely related. As for RV, RV10 is more different from ASP, and isn't decoder by the same decoder in ffmpeg ( I checked the code source, the encoder shares some common code, as does most of the encoders in ffmpeg, but not the decoder )

[Shapierian]

Sorry about the Real Video thing. I was clearly wrong there but it was used by QuickTime 6.

Even just with illegitimate usage only, MPEG-4 was not a flop. It is the MP3 of video.

[benwaggoner]

Even just with illegitimate usage only, MPEG-4 was not a flop. It is the MP3 of video.
Except that it isn't being used significantly my major content producers. .mp4 mainly gets used for user generated content, not commercial publishing, and most of that .mp4 is H.264.

[Shapierian]

Except that it isn't being used significantly my major content producers. .mp4 mainly gets used for user generated content, not commercial publishing, and most of that .mp4 is H.264.

When i say MPEG-4, i mean it in the MPEG-4 Part 2 Sense. Very little of the MPEG-4 content I'm talking about even comes in .mp4 (mp4ff). Not a lot of content from commercial publishing is released in mp3 either.

[zambelli]

First of all, to anyone interested in the "behind the scenes" history of WMV9 and VC-1 development, I recommend you read this AmirM's post on AVSForum: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9931723&&#post9931723

Also, in the interest of full disclosure, I will remind everybody that I do in fact work for Microsoft as an engineer in its video codec group.

@Puzzler:
You seem like a smart guy who can make valid arguments so I'm finding it really puzzling that you insist on using that ridiculous "M$" acronym in your references to Microsoft. I hate to nitpick but it really makes it hard to take your arguments as unbiased. It gives the whole thing a bit of a playground namecalling flavor.

in the vc1 case they have been forced by the dvd/bluray bodies to make the prior closed vc1 "standard" an open standard, harming microsoft's tactic of exlcuding competitors but still being better than being not included in hddvd/bluray
This wasn't exactly a surprise to Microsoft or a challenge to its business model. It's a fact of the media and consumer electronics industry that a technology such as a codec needs to be adopted and governed by an industry organization. Microsoft is certainly not the first company ever to take its proprietary technology and open it up to standardization. Dolby Digital and DTS Coherent Acoustics both came from commercial companies, yet they also both exist as standards adopted by ATSC and ETSI, for example. In fact, let's not forget that even the ubiquitous MPEG-1 Layer 3 format was developed based on patents by Fraunhofer IIS, Thomson, Alcatel-Lucent and others.

My beef is the fact that they went ahead and led a party to create a completely different, and inferior, standard. There is no excuse for this other than their greedy desire for control, and by unfairly using their position with their O/S to give us all the impression that VC-1 is "THE" standard.
Control of what? It's already been established here that Microsoft has little more to gain financially by supporting VC-1 than it does by supporting H.264. It doesn't own VC-1 standardization nor licensing. Microsoft's chief investment into VC-1 right now is into its encoder implementation.

And to furthermore force it down our throats packaged with Windows, purposely EXCLUDING H.264 with the excuse, and insult, that it may be unsafe and one of the "too many codecs out there". This will certainly cause alot of friction.
You're speculating, or at the very least misintepreting Ben's words. H.264 supports wasn't purposely excluded from Windows because the codec is unsafe. Nobody ever said that and it's certainly not true. In fact, I would like to point out that an H.264 decoder - as well as a number of other "industry standard" decoders such as MPEG-2, AAC and AC3 - has been made by Microsoft and has thus far been bundled with the Zune Player, Xbox 360 Dashboard and Xbox 360 HD-DVD unit. The fact that it hasn't yet made it into a standard Windows release has been more a result of tight schedules and strict release guidelines than of some conspiracy plot to thwart H.264 adoption. Vista DXVA 2.0 API, for example, natively supports H.264 decoding HW acceleration. Future releases of Windows are pretty much guaranteed to have some form of H.264 decoder included (though whether simple DirectShow playback of MP4 files will be supported remains at the mercy of the mighty Vista planners whose decisions often baffle even us MS codec folks :confused:).

And let me remind you that the Zune is NOT an attempt to compete with Apple and its iPod as the traditionalists might think. The Zune emphasis is a means to win more exposure for VC-1. This is a desperate attempt by M$ because VC-1 is getting beaten convincingly. When the iPod pounds Zune, this will set VC-1 further back, where it belongs.
And let me remind you that you are now recklessly speculating. I hate to be blunt, but that's a pretty ridiculous statement - which once again doesn't do any favors to your many other valid arguments presented thus far. Do you seriously think Microsoft would've put all its money and resources into producing the Zune only so it could secure support for a codec standard it doesn't own in a market of limited product penetration (just compare the number of portable media player owners to the number of people who own cell phones or PCs)?

What concerns me most about VC-1 is not that it will beat H.264. It won't. The real nuisance is in the fact that it will not die for a long time. M$ will not let it go and will keep irritating us over and over again, constantly poking at the industry and the dream of fluid compatibility.
Right, because if H.264 wins, surely nobody will ever come up with a competing codec solution ever again and everyone will live happily ever after in digital peace and harmony.
Sorry, but in my opinion having multiple codec standards benefits the consumer by urging the codec implementers to continually keep improving their quality and efficiency. There's certainly room in the world for VC-1 AND H.264, just like there's room for Dolby Digital and DTS, MP3 and AAC, ZIP and RAR, etc, etc, etc.

I wonder why Windows doesn't support Ogg Vorbis out of the box? Are the licensing costs too high, perhaps?
No, but the cost to plan, develop, test and support Ogg Vorbis might be. Technology resources might be free, but human resources aren't. And for what? To cover the <1% of user playback scenarios? Sorry. Asking for MP4 and MPEG-4 SP/ASP/AVC support in Windows is a perfectly valid request given the amount of content available and ease of access to it. But Ogg Vorbis? Yeah, not so much.

FWIW, the reason Microsoft removed all 3rd party codecs from its WMP codec download server (back in the old days Indeo, ACELP.net, Voxware, and a bunch of other now obscure codecs were hosted online) was because it couldn't vouch for the security of components whose source code it didn't own. This wasn't entirely without merit - codecs such as Voxware were notorious for having memory leaks and bugs which their parent company never bothered to fix. I'm not saying it was a decision which benefited WMP users, but it certainly wasn't entirely unwarranted.

Even just with illegitimate usage only, MPEG-4 was not a flop. It is the MP3 of video.Except that it isn't being used significantly my major content producers. .mp4 mainly gets used for user generated content, not commercial publishing, and most of that .mp4 is H.264.
Well, I think you both have a point. MPEG-4 SP and ASP have certainly made a significant impact in online video delivery, but compared to MPEG-2, it certainly hasn't had the same impact in the professional video market. MPEG-2 is still the de facto standard for digital broadcasting, archiving, digital tape storage, etc.

[Dark Shikari]

Right, because if H.264 wins, surely nobody will ever come up with a competing codec solution ever again and everyone will live happily ever after in digital peace and harmony.
Sorry, but in my opinion having multiple codec standards benefits the consumer by urging the codec implementers to continually keep improving their quality and efficiency. There's certainly room in the world for VC-1 AND H.264, just like there's room for Dolby Digital and DTS, MP3 and AAC, ZIP and RAR, etc, etc, etc.
Agreed. Personally I think VC-1 is useless; its only advantage is lower playback processor requirement, which it gets at the cost of a massive loss in quality (or better said, a much higher bitrate required for the same quality). All it has going for it is that its mildly better than MPEG-4 ASP. And with computers constantly getting faster, a lower processor requirement becomes a useless feature in the long-term.

Yet without competition, we'd probably still be using something like VP3. So in that sense, VC-1 for the win.

[bond]

one of the points of creating an open standard is to push competition. you dont need multiple standards for that...

if technology advances there will be new standards (like h.264 following mpeg-2)

having two comparable standards at the same time does imho more harm to the customer than that it helps, because he needs (to pay for) more tools/patent holders, making it more expensive for him without giving him better quality/performance than in the case of one standard being used by all

additionally i dont see vc1 as being able to keep up with h.264 technically, so all in all i actually support Dark Shikari's opinion of vc-1 being useless

but thats just my opinion :)

[DeathTheSheep]

VC1, as a standard, is less efficient that AVC ( it lacks CABAC, good intra prediction, reference bframe ).

If I were to disable AVC's CABAC and B-frames, which would take the quality lead then?

Won't baseline AVC decode comparatively fast as VC-1 in this case, assuming good decoders for both?

If so, from a technical standpoint, what's the use of VC-1?

[zambelli]

If I were to disable AVC's CABAC and B-frames, which would take the quality lead then?
Doesn't that effectively take AVC down to roughly ASP level in terms of efficiency? If that's the case, one would assume VC-1 would then have a clear edge. It'd be interesting to see a real test though.

Won't baseline AVC decode comparatively fast as VC-1 in this case, assuming good decoders for both?
If so, from a technical standpoint, what's the use of VC-1?
To play the devil's advocate: we've all seen great looking MPEG-4 ASP (i.e. XviD) HD encodes at reasonable bitrates and the decoding is lightning fast. So why insist on AVC for HD encoding either? ASP seems to do the trick just fine. ;)

The Avsforum post I linked to in my previous entry talks about some of the design advantages of VC-1 over H.264 in HD encoding. And no, I'm not saying VC-1 is a superior design over H.264 in every way - I'm just saying there are design features of VC-1 that favor HD encoding, for example. Rather than make sweeping "codec X is better than codec Y" statements, I think it's far more appropriate to evaluate every codec in a specific encoding context.

[CruNcher]

Agreed. Personally I think VC-1 is useless; its only advantage is lower playback processor requirement, which it gets at the cost of a massive loss in quality (or better said, a much higher bitrate required for the same quality). All it has going for it is that its mildly better than MPEG-4 ASP. And with computers constantly getting faster, a lower processor requirement becomes a useless feature in the long-term.

Yet without competition, we'd probably still be using something like VP3. So in that sense, VC-1 for the win.

Eh i don't find it ok sure VP3 isn't better as VC-1 but @ the time it was released it was a match for Mpeg-4 ASP and ON2 allways fought against multi billion dollar companies (and Open Sourced VP3 for Theora) with less resources and does great if you ask me (just look @ the flash deal) it's research is top and now look @ the size of Microsoft Research and Compare it with On2 hehe ;) also Real Video is based on H.264 we all know On2 is based on their realy own researched stuff (they developed Vector and Wavelet based Video Codecs early on) not like Microsoft being Chair of VQEG for H.264 and discussing every tech aspect of it over and over in hundreds of meetings (and finaly stab it in the back).
Btw do you know why Bill Gates has this Vision of the Future and why he writes so cool books about it is because he stands at the first line with MS Research and gathers all his Intel about the Future from them :P it's not our Future he Visionizes it's the Future MS Research creates for him.

And about the Bundle Video Codec stuff with the OS Apple does exactly the same thing with H.264 (it's implemented deep in the OS all the applications can make use of it) don't forget they where major devs and contributed the Container but in all the way they Market it much better then Microsoft and whole Hollywood stands behind them (you never gonna see a PC Notebook in Movies allways those nice IBooks ;) ) that's a hard breed for MS and everything MS does is copying all the way and that badly look for example @ Apples trailer Page and then Compare with Microsofts *rofl*

But Sometimes i really wonder if MS Research is really that great for example the thing with the Xbox 360 and the Dashboard AVC playback thing lol i can only lough about this (why to buy this high tech shit if i can build me a unrestricted player) it's so ridicoulus but that's how Microsoft is restricting restricting and restricting but hey Sony isn't any better :P

PS: WOW (not Vista related) i didn't use the $ ;)

[DeathTheSheep]

Doesn't that effectively take AVC down to roughly ASP level in terms of efficiency? If that's the case, one would assume VC-1 would then have a clear edge. It'd be interesting to see a real test though.
I'd assume so at first, too, but...
There are claims by some members of this board (Sagittaire) that x264 at some of its lowest or fastest quality settings decisively outperforms XviD at its slowest and best.
You're right, it would be very interesting to see if these claims hold, and if Baseline AVC (the stuff I was talking about) is as good as max-quality XviD. :)

Then, if the results validate that hypothesis, we can set up a test against forms of VC-1.

[CruNcher]

DeathTheSheep in terms of Detail Preservation i can confirm this allready with the early on implementations like RV9/10 and later x264 it really preserves more details even at lowest settings and that is because of the much better implemented Qpel and partitions (not talking about 8x8 transform (FreXt) wich takes it another step above).
For x264 subme 1 allready outperforms ASP in terms of detail preservation for example XviD with vhq4 (you can enhance Detail Preservation see my EDP build but it still doesn't gets against H.264) and qpel can't stand against it you have much finer texture preservation best visible on skin textures.
and then you just have to add the facts that H.264 has no moving walls effect and ringing is almost non existant for low bitrate and then you have a winner (for low bitrate) it wont change for High Bitrate much at least the Detail Preservation wouldn't.

[zambelli]

Cruncher, I always feel like I'm going to run out of breath when reading your posts. :rolleyes:
ON2 allways fought against multi billion dollar companies (and Open Sourced VP3 for Theora) with less resources and does great if you ask me (just look @ the flash deal) it's research is top and now look @ the size of Microsoft Research and Compare it with On2 hehe ;)
Compare what to what? What is the size of On2's codec team? What is the size of Microsoft's codec team? I know the answer to that second question - but I'm curious if you do, since you seem to be comparing one against the other. Not sure how though.

FYI, while MS Research (http://research.microsoft.com/research/detail.aspx?id=8) has indeed contributed ideas to Microsoft codec development over the years, vast majority of the audio and video codec development is done by the codec product team in Redmond, WA. The same team also develops audio and video DSPs such as the ones found in Vista and WMP. While it's easy to think of Microsoft as one bottomless pool of people and cash, one has to understand that individual product teams within Microsoft are always finite in their resources.

everything MS does is copying all the way and that badly look for example @ Apples trailer Page and then Compare with Microsofts *rofl*
Point taken. That's just a classic case of MS being unable to get its PR act together. ;)
But Sometimes i really wonder if MS Research is really that great for example the thing with the Xbox 360 and the Dashboard AVC playback thing lol i can only lough about this (why to buy this high tech shit if i can build me a unrestricted player) it's so ridicoulus but that's how Microsoft is restricting restricting and restricting but hey Sony isn't any better :P
Not sure why you're making a connection between MS Research and Xbox Dashboard. One has nothing to do with the other. What is your complaint about Dashboard AVC playback anyway?

[Dark Shikari]

Eh i don't find it ok sure VP3 isn't better as VC-1 but @ the time it was released it was a match for Mpeg-4 ASP
Do people actually know when VC-1 was officially released as a completed standard?

(Hint: Long after H.264...)

[Golgot13]

(Hint: Long after H.264...)

The license and patent price for VC1 was available and (exactly) same
few month after H264 (4 months after the H264 final version of patent/license price...)



Golgot13

[CruNcher]

@Dark Shikari
yes i know that but that wasn't my point my poin't was that VP7 would have been existed anyways but you compare VP3 with VC-1 that's strange and even if VC-1 wouldn't exist VP7 would as it is a direct contender to H.264 and VC-1 is just Microsofts specialy modified version of H.264 (with research they hold back in the H.264 dev process) so the point is without VC-1 we wouldn't stuck with VP3 (as you said H.264 was long before VC-1) ;)

@zambelli

Compare what to what? What is the size of On2's codec team? What is the size of Microsoft's codec team? I know the answer to that second question - but I'm curious if you do, since you seem to be comparing one against the other. Not sure how though.

you right i don't know how big the Windows Media Video codec dev team of Microsoft is but for sure the Mother company has more resources to spend then On2
but that's also not the point the point is how smart are the guys in each of both teams :P very good example is CoreAVC (1 main dev beets the whole R&D of Elecard/Mainconcept Cyberlink/Intervideo and even races Nvidia and Atis First Generation Hardware acelleration away and that in under 2 weeks of development i find this quiet funny don't you ;) ).
And what does Microsoft to compensate such things and that since years they buy other innovative companies with such brains in them like (Seadragon,iview)


Not sure why you're making a connection between MS Research and Xbox Dashboard. One has nothing to do with the other. What is your complaint about Dashboard AVC playback anyway?

Because i estimate with such a big R&D behind your backs
it would be no problem to code a very efficient AVC Dashboard Decoder that can make use of the full power of the Xbox 360 multicores (a system Microsoft even designed) to playback 1080p @ higher bitrates then 15 Mbps or 10 what you say in your faq is the maximum and this 4 GB limit (lol)


AVC:

A: Video Bitrate: 10 Mbps with resolutions of 1920 x 1080 at 30fps. See the question about max bit rate, resolution, and frames per second.

AVC/ASP/SP
A: The maximum file size for an MPEG-4 Part 2 and H.264 file that can be played is 4 GB. However, Windows Media Player 11 and the Zune software do support streaming WMV files greater than 4 GB.


Those restrictions sound to me like you haven't your own Design under Controll and are sorry to say (blind) to improve it
it really sounds ridicoulus for what the Power this Machine has and o wonder is able to playback HD-DVD bitrates 30 Mbps from the HD-DVD Player or are these values only for DVD-Drive playback (this i could understand) but nothing is mentioned of HDD or DVD drive in this faq so @ the moment Sonys PS3 seemes less restricted in Video Playback Power then the Xbox 360 to me sad sad ;)

Why do you think people create firmware hacks or try to run Linux, yes lifting such restrictions is the answer, because the Power of these machines allows more and to see that the Vendor that creates them doesn't make fully use of them is hurting some people (you can call them Home Researchers ;) ).

Ah and yes


VC-1

A: Video Bitrate: 15 Mbps with resolutions of 1920 x 1080 at 30fps. See the question about max bit rate, resolution, and frames per second.


Big marketing gag hey look VC-1 can be playbacked with 5 Mbits more then AVC it's less Decoding Complex on our *rofl* highend (Mobile) Decoding Machine o come on this is so ridicoulus

[Dark Shikari]

The license and patent price for VC1 was available and (exactly) same
few month after H264 (4 months after the H264 final version of patent/license price...)



Golgot13
But VC-1 was designed as a competitor to MPEG-4 ASP, not AVC... it came a little late did it not? :p

[benwaggoner]

But VC-1 was designed as a competitor to MPEG-4 ASP, not AVC... it came a little late did it not?
It was designed to be a good codec, not to beat any particular existing standard :).

You can think of the design goal of VC-1 to be the best possible compression efficiency, including for HD scenarios, with appropriate performance to both PC and ASIC decoding.

[benwaggoner]

Agreed. Personally I think VC-1 is useless; its only advantage is lower playback processor requirement, which it gets at the cost of a massive loss in quality (or better said, a much higher bitrate required for the same quality).
Okay, challenge accepted :). Make a "massively" better clip with the same parameters as the 2 Mbps 720p clip on my blog:

http://on10.net/Blogs/benwagg/elephants-dream-720p--2-mbps/

Let me know when your comparative clip is avaliable.

[Golgot13]

Let me know when your comparative clip is avaliable.

I hope that Manao or Sagitaire can make a good "encoding" answer.
And I hope that the Ateme team (good developper) can answer too by a nice encoding file...





Golgot13