Any news from the WM9 vfw codec?

[Psymaster]

I remember amirm saying that it was going to be available in February. Any news yet?

[trbarry]

I've been wondering too. I tried WME a couple month's ago on Win/Me using Nic's encoder but was holding off waiting for vdub support to try it again.

- Tom

[Neo Neko]

Amir is a busy guy. But I am sure he will get back with us when it is ready. It will probably coincide with the next break in his work load. But I have to admit it piques my intrest. Even though WM9 for all intents and purposes does not blow MPEG4 out of the water it is not a worse codec like those in WM8. We might be able to find some use for it.

[Psymaster]

We might be able to find some use for it.

Yes, I think so as well, especially if it wasn't so dreadfully slow...:(

[Neo Neko]

Well I can stand slower. Just not that slow. h dot 264 is nice but it is way to slow for every day use atm and makes WM9 seem downright speedy though. :D I sure hope someone else can led some time to optimising the code a bit. I am a bit more interested in h.264 than WM9 right now.

[Tommy Carrot]

Originally posted by Neo Neko
Well I can stand slower. Just not that slow. h dot 264 is nice but it is way to slow for every day use atm and makes WM9 seem downright speedy though. :D I sure hope someone else can led some time to optimising the code a bit. I am a bit more interested in h.264 than WM9 right now.

Yepp, h264 can be much better both quality- and speed-wise than currently. It just has to evolve (like xvid).

[Psymaster]

Originally posted by Tommy Carrot
Yepp, h264 can be much better both quality- and speed-wise than currently. It just has to evolve (like xvid).

Really? I thought it was created without speed concerns right from the beginning.

[Selur]

No, as far as I read the draft (not through with it yet,..) at least decoding shouldn't be that slow after some optimisation. As I see it up to now H264 decoding will be slower than Mpeg4 but not so much as one might think after some experiments with the reference implementation. Ok, encoding will still be slower but a think atleast half the speed of mpeg4 should be reachable. (Sure some of the ideas implemented are real speed killers, but as I see it it's worth it.)

Like stated earlier it's just a a question of time until someone will do some optimisation ;)

Cu Selur

[Neo Neko]

In the hdot264 posts I remember -h commenting on an estimated 8000 times speed increase using optimised algorythms in place of the basic generic ones curretly in place. It will not be possible to get it running at the same speed as old MPEG4 on the same machine but it should be possible to get it to a respectable 4 to 8 fps on my anthlon XP 1600+. :D

[HaSh]

so...no news yet??...c'mon!!!

[alan_erickson@hotmail.com]

Last day end of February bump.

[PerCIVaL]

I wonder if it is actually possible. A true conversion of the wmv9 codec to fit into an avi without losing a lot of its powerful techniques.

for example variable framerate. Though I believe this is already possible by introducing null frames (xvid already does that?).

any deeper thoughts about this?

[Neo Neko]

The WM9 VFW codecs will not have varriable frame rate in the video or varriable bitrate for the audio. It is due to the weaknesses of Microsoft's VFW architechture. It is still the most used though.

[Sirber]

Will the video be VBR? Will we be able to mux it in OGM instead of AVIs?

[Tommy Carrot]

Please, tell me, what is the difference between "variable frame rate" and "framedropping"? AFAIK nothing, but anyway, if that is unswitchable, it's a pain in the arse. (like in tha cases of divx311, wmv and realvideo).

As i know, the main difference between wmv and avi is the streaming ability. So avi is better at storaging, wmv can be streamed (which is not important to me anyway). But it is utter stupidity to buffer the playback on a local storaging media, and this is what wmv does. Not to mention the lack of editing options. So if thay enable to use the video codec in the avi container, it would be a step to the right way. Other than the streaming, you won't miss anything.

/But in my personal option, they don't plan this. That statement was only to chill down the anti-microsoft rage in this forum. But i hope i'm wrong./

EDIT: OK, Avi cannot use VBR audio. But i'm usually satisfied with the 160 kbit/s mp3. And you can use ogm if you cannot live with that.

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by Tommy Carrot
Please, tell me, what is the difference between "variable frame rate" and "framedropping"? AFAIK nothing,

Frame dropping is a method to achieve varriable frame rate. It is also a method for your CPU to skip rendering frames if it is getting bogged down. With ASF you don't have to use a FPS. Time stamps can be used to specify when a new frame is to be displayed IIRC. Same thing with OGG and MCF. It is a much more complex system than AVI. AVI can handle VBR video because each chunk is treated and indexed as a frame. At the time of AVIs creation Microsoft dropped the ball and instead of treating chunks of audio data as a "samples" they assumed each audio chunk was equal to a given time. Which is why AVI is able to handle VBR video but not VBR audio.

Originally posted by Tommy Carrot
As i know, the main difference between wmv and avi is the streaming ability. So avi is better at storaging, wmv can be streamed (which is not important to me anyway).

Not exactly. There are more ways ASF and AVI differ. And technically speaking ASF is a better format for storring. Just as OGG is or MCF will be.

Originally posted by Tommy Carrot
But it is utter stupidity to buffer the playback on a local storaging media, and this is what wmv does.

Well it may not be the best solution but it does serve a purpose when using time stamps.

Originally posted by Tommy Carrot
Not to mention the lack of editing options.

Well in the past unless you could pay Microsoft they would not allow you to use the format whether or not you made any money from it. Microsoft likes to shoot themselves in the foot and then clotting it with cash later.

Originally posted by Tommy Carrot
So if thay enable to use the video codec in the avi container, it would be a step to the right way. Other than the streaming, you won't miss anything.

But in my personal option, they don't plan this. That statement was only to chill down the anti-microsoft rage in this forum. But i hope i'm wrong.

Well with the VFW codec there will be plenty you could miss. And as far as anti-Microsoft rage.... I am not seeing that. Yes I am not pro-Microsoft and I tend to highly question anything they do. But this is not from paranoia about non existant crisies. Microsoft as a corporation has a long history of dealing in bad faith and underhanded operations or smear tactics. A companies misdeeds do not speak for everyone under it though. And I know of several good people employed at Microsoft. Unfortuantly not enough or high enough in the hirearchy to make a difference.

[sirbender]

Why has Divx5 an own category here - in my opinion other codecs are better.
The german c't magazine has presented in the recent issue a 2 page article about wm9 and DVD Ripping/encoding. Rsume: slow but the promise of all codecs to get DVD quality at 1Mbit/s is fullfilled by wm9...and even the 5.1 (theoretically 7.1 sound).

Will there be a codec comparison soon ? Please doom...

sb

[midiguy]

Originally posted by sirbender
Why has Divx5 an own category here (and wmv9 doesn't) - in my opinion other codecs are better.

also, RV9 needs it's own forum IMHO.

[PerCIVaL]

Originally posted by sirbender
Why has Divx5 an own category here - in my opinion other codecs are better.
The german c't magazine has presented in the recent issue a 2 page article about wm9 and DVD Ripping/encoding. Rsume: slow but the promise of all codecs to get DVD quality at 1Mbit/s is fullfilled by wm9...and even the 5.1 (theoretically 7.1 sound).

Will there be a codec comparison soon ? Please doom...

sb

Fullfilled? I wouldn't say fullfilled. A step closer maybe.

I think the main reason divx5 has its own forum is because it sports a large following. I'm not sure this is the case with wm9 or others.

Anyhow, why would you need someone else to compare something for you? Sure, opinions can open up new angles for ones mind but I'd advise you to go ahead and see for yourself.

[Neo Neko]

When there is no forum specifically for a codec etc this is the place for it. As you can see from the volume of RV9, WM9, Hdot264, and SS h264 related posts giving any of them their own forum is unnescessary. Perhaps some day. But not now.

As to WM9 superiority. It is overhyped. It is a step up from WM8. But it does not blow the more advanced MPEG4 codecs out of the water. In fact all the professional comparrisons I have seen between WM9 and MPEG4 involved more specifically Apple Quicktime MPEG4 which is one of the least developed and low quality MPEG4 codecs in existance today. So all of their reviews have to be taken with a large grain of salt. In fact I have sincere doubts that WM9 could consistently outperform Divx 5+ and the dev versions of Xvid.

[Sgt_Strider]

Originally posted by Neo Neko
When there is no forum specifically for a codec etc this is the place for it. As you can see from the volume of RV9, WM9, Hdot264, and SS h264 related posts giving any of them their own forum is unnescessary. Perhaps some day. But not now.

As to WM9 superiority. It is overhyped. It is a step up from WM8. But it does not blow the more advanced MPEG4 codecs out of the water. In fact all the professional comparrisons I have seen between WM9 and MPEG4 involved more specifically Apple Quicktime MPEG4 which is one of the least developed and low quality MPEG4 codecs in existance today. So all of their reviews have to be taken with a large grain of salt. In fact I have sincere doubts that WM9 could consistently outperform Divx 5+ and the dev versions of Xvid.

Doesn't WM9 compresses file better? Even if its pq is on par with xvid/divx5, isn't this good enough already?

[sirbender]

I use Winnt 4 / 98 and Media Player 6.4 or 9...both have worse performance on my PIII450 as the Linux Xine Player which plays movies > 600x400 in good quality...is there a faster player for Windows ?

[deXtoRious]

Getting back to the title, ANY NEWS FROM THE WM9 VFW CODEC??? :D

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by Sgt_Strider
Doesn't WM9 compresses file better?

Not particularly.

Originally posted by Sgt_Strider
Even if its pq is on par with xvid/divx5, isn't this good enough already?

A codec does not get a forum on those grounds alone. Usage dictates more. It's usage is minimal ATM. So this forum is sufficient for all the traffic it generates. Currently there is just as much reason to have a VP3/4/5 or RM9 forum as there is a WM9 one. None.

[trbarry]

From the posts and my own simple experiments a couple months ago WM9 does show potential. But it didn't seem any better than Xvid and has a couple of really negative things going against it.

The insistance on using WMA for audio is really annoying, no matter how good M$ may think it is.

And the lack of any codec support that integrates it gracefully into our other tools is also a show stopper.

Amirm from Microsoft promised in this forum somewhere a couple months ago that both of those would be addressed, with a target date now slightly passed. But I'm still hoping.

In the mean time, the lack of many posts about it pretty much shows they have not really been able to drum up much interest so far. So there is still probably no point in a forum for it. But I'm personally still willing to give it another try if they follow through on Amirm's promises.

- Tom