VP6 improvements wanted inquire within..

[Assault]

@ Dolemite

Oh my post wasn't directed to Sirber bur rather to virus. :) I had the impression that virus equated (is that the right word?) closed formats with good quality and open formats with bad quality. So I just wanted to make clear that this isn't the case in my opinion. :p

Assault

[virus]

Originally posted by Assault
I had the impression that virus equated (is that the right word?) closed formats with good quality and open formats with bad quality. So I just wanted to make clear that this isn't the case in my opinion.

I never stated that "VP6 is better than XviD", we were talking about H.264 which, despite being MPEG-4 as XviD, is so different you can call them two different standards (Part 10 introduces a lot of changes over Part 2).
I respect your opinion: it's up to you to decide which codec works best for you. A couple of weeks ago I posted a comparison VP6/XviD in the VP6 6.1.0.2 release thread, stating clearly that VP6 seems better to me under 0.2 bpp, but it's not so detailed at higher rates, because XviD's MPEG quantization keeps more detail... On2 is working on this issue just now. I even posted a list of VP6's "flaws"... :)
I never talked about "open formats with bad quality" too. When usable, optimized H.264 implementations will be ready, I don't expect them to be "bad quality", absolutely. I expect great quality but a very slow encoder (there are a lot of research papers studying H.264 complexity). Why not to try a different road to achieve that "great quality", even if it is not standard-compliant? This is what I think. Just wanted to clarify this point ;)

cheers :)
virus

[Assault]

Originally posted by virus
Why not to try a different road to achieve that "great quality", even if it is not standard-compliant?

Big companies like Microsoft and Real develop proprietary standards since a few years! But did it pay off? What's the result until now? There is no proprietary codec that clearly outperforms the old MPEG-4 Part 2 based XviD (IMO). I sometimes wonder what quality would be possible if such companies developed H.264 instead. ;)

Assault

[bond]

Originally posted by Assault
Big companies like Microsoft and Real develop proprietary standards since a few years!yep and they have exactly the same "problem" as any open standard, which is caused by the so called "backwards compatibility"

after on2 fixed the specs of vp6 they cant really change it anymore without breaking backwards compatibility
meaning according to what virus meant about open standards, it has the same problem with being outdated after some time (and it takes lots of time till a format gets widely used)

I sometimes wonder what quality would be possible if such companies developed H.264 insteadyep thats what i also thought about ... real and on2 deciding to produce a real h.264 compliant codec and not proprieatary formats

look at what a really highly tuned codec, like nero digital, can reach speedwise with mpeg-4 part2, its fantastic
if nero would reduce the speed only a little bit to be able to get more sharpness, it would be still one of the fastest codecs out there

and now imagine a tuned h.264 codec, yeah :D


i think we are now in a transition time, similar to the betamax vs. vhs time, digital coding is becoming a big market in the future, in the long run only one format will succeed and there is a lot of money to earn for a company if their proprieatary format wins (simply look how m$ is pushing their crappy wma9 format as a mp3 successor, tough its prooven that it provides lower quality than aac or vorbis)

lets ensure that the winning format is an open standard, usable for everyone and everywhere!

[MfA]

Apart from RV all the major codecs will be open standards soon.

[virus]

Originally posted by bond
lets ensure that the winning format is an open standard, usable for everyone and everywhere!

OK, OK, agreed, you're right! :rolleyes:
You won. I'm not so ingenuous to discuss a topic anymore with one of this forum moderators ;)
Are you happy now? You bashed one of those stupid newbies who badmouths your beloved standard :D
Let's repeat together:
"Lets ensure that the winning format is an open standard, usable for everyone and everywhere: Ogg Theora!" ;) :D :D
(sorry, this is the only free, open video standard I know of... btw it's based on VP3, released open-source by the devilish On2 Technologies, the same company which is "using their developing power" to develop their crappy non-H.264 codec :D)

goodbye :rolleyes:
virus

[slavickas]

Originally posted by Assault
Big companies like Microsoft and Real develop proprietary standards since a few years! But did it pay off? What's the result until now? There is no proprietary codec that clearly outperforms the old MPEG-4 Part 2 based XviD (IMO). I sometimes wonder what quality would be possible if such companies developed H.264 instead. ;)

Assault

Try xvid in low bitrate cbr scenario and You will see that XviD isn't such wonderful, (but for dvd rips probably it's best imo)

[Sirber]

RealVideo and WMV first purpose was streaming, and it paid off :)

[SeeMoreDigital]

Originally posted by slavickas
Try xvid in low bitrate cbr scenario and You will see that XviD isn't such wonderful, (but for dvd rips probably it's best imo) I've just finished generating a whole of 720x480/576 encode tests, all from the same 2.35:1 PAR DVD source, using an 2pass bitrate of 1000kbps!

RealMedia10 looked the best overall (but still a bit too flat for my taste). But WMV9 came in at a close second!

When you do the same test again, cropping and resizing to 640x272, WMV9 does not fair as well as DivX or XviD.

For me, I find it quite interesting to see how well a codec works when encoding at 720x480/576 image pixel frame sizes!

Originally posted by Sirber
RealVideo and WMV first purpose was streaming, and it paid off Worked for Apple/QuickTime too!

Cheers

[DevilsChild]

What is this obsession with video standards? If it plays on an IBM compatible PC, it's fine with me. It's not like anyone uses this stuff outside of a PC environment. The DVD Forum isn't going to use MPEG-4 for the next generation DVD's. Just what is so great about standardizing video compression?

The most important things for a PC-based video codec are quality/speed/ease of use. End of story.

[stax76]

to me standard would be practical, would make things easier, I like easy things

[bond]

virus
dont put things in my mouth i didnt say

Originally posted by virus
"Lets ensure that the winning format is an open standard, usable for everyone and everywhere: Ogg Theora!"yeah from this point of view (!) ogg (audio and video) is the best thing available
it is as open as mpeg-4 but surely more "free" than mpeg-4 as there are no patents you have to pay for (at least thats the case for vorbis)

[Sirber]

free or not free, here's the real thing we need:

- free codec for home uses, with no fee or licence to pay for.

With:

- Great quality
- Great speed
- Great GUI to handle it

soon Surreal UI will rulz the world, for RV10 and XviD!!! :D

[note: was written with almost no brain vaculty]

[SeeMoreDigital]

Originally posted by Sirber
free or not free, here's the real thing we need:

- free codec for home uses, with no fee or licence to pay for.

With:

- Great quality
- Great speed
- Great GUI to handle it

soon Surreal UI will rulz the world, for RV10 and XviD!!! :D

[note: was written with almost no brain vaculty] Sirber my friend.

If you want to bring peace to everybody here, you are also going to have to incorporate, WMV9, VP6 and DivX into Surreal UI......

That will keep you busy for a few hours more ;)

Cheers

[bond]

Originally posted by SeeMoreDigital
If you want to bring peace to everybody here, you are also going to have to incorporate, WMV9who wants wmv9 here? :D

[Sirber]

Surreal UI will have RV10/9/8, XviD, VP6 and maybe later FFMPWG. I don't want to include WMV9 nor DIVX.

WMV9:
1) Micro$oft technology
2) VCM (not VFW)

DIVX:
1) Pro version not "free": gathor or warez
2) XviD beats the basic version

But, if these compagnies really wants to have their codecs in Surreal UI, my paypal account is ... :D

[stax76]

"2) VCM (not VFW)"

what's the difference?

"1) Pro version not "free": gathor or warez"

firewall should be running on every PC so where is the problem?

it's great you want to include all the features in Surreal UI but I wouldn't underestimate the work required for doing it right. If you don't know how to do this already I suggest to make a generic design and put no codec specific code in your program, use a eval function instead (in .NET it's easy to make a eval function using compiler services, in Delphi there are probably ways as well)

[Sirber]

Originally posted by Dolemite
"2) VCM (not VFW)"

what's the difference?there is a bug with VCM and bitrate
"1) Pro version not "free": gathor or warez"

firewall should be running on every PC so where is the problem??almost no end user run firewalls, also, I don't like to have "adwares" installed.

it's great you want to include all the features in Surreal UI but I wouldn't underestimate the work required for doing it right. If you don't know how to do this already I suggest to make a generic design and put no codec specific code in your program, use a eval function instead (in .NET it's easy to make a eval function using compiler services, in Delphi there are probably ways as well) There is 3 back-end I will use:
1) Helix Producer
2) avs2avi
and 3) FFMPEG

I built the setting system to be easy to update and manage, so I can virtually add any codec.

[SeeMoreDigital]

Originally posted by Sirber
there is a bug with VCM and bitrate I can't honestly say I've noticed this bug. WMV9 VCM seems to work fine or me when I generate 720x480/576 encodes!

As for a firewall. As an WinXP user I always run mine because it's so easy to do!

Cheers

[stax76]

almost no end user run firewalls, also, I don't like to have "adwares" installed.


I don't like adware either but the worst thing are codecs without full VFW, DirectShow and GStreamer support

[Sirber]

but, like I said, if these compagnies want me to include it, brign me money!!! :D