Windows Media Video 9 Encoder DMO 10.00.00.3473

[IgorC]

There is ACE Mega CodecS Pack 6.00 - Professional Edition - PREVIEW RELEASE 19
Windows Media Video 9 Encoder DMO 10.00.00.3473 - What is it?Will be A new demo codec WMV 10?

[McoreD]

Not sure, but however if you have WMP10 Public Beta installed you will see two new codecs in Windows Media Encoder:

Windows Media Video 9 Advanced Profile and Windows Media Video 9 Image v2.

Windows Media Video 9 Advanced Profile is extremely slow beating the current WMV9 codec.

[Sagittaire]

Very interessing ... test in progress ... ;-)

[SeeMoreDigital]

I don't know about you guys but I think the new WMP10 Beta GUI looks bloody awful!!!

WMP9 is much better looking.


Cheers

[damrod]

yes but they got something in common : both player sucks!!! :-)


why do people want wmp9/10 when they can use mpc i wonder....

[Neo Neko]

1.
Originally posted by IgorC
There is ACE Mega CodecS Pack 6.00 - Professional Edition - PREVIEW RELEASE 19
Windows Media Video 9 Encoder DMO 10.00.00.3473 - What is it?Will be A new demo codec WMV 10?

CODEC PACKS BAAAAD. Stear clear of those things for best results.

2.
Originally posted by SeeMoreDigital
I don't know about you guys but I think the new WMP10 Beta GUI looks bloody awful!!!

WMP9 is much better looking.


Cheers

WMP9 is better looking than WMP10. WMP8 is better looking than WMP9. WMP7 is better looking than WMP8. And WMP6.4 is better looking than the bunch of em. :p

3.
Originally posted by damrod
yes but they got something in common : both player sucks!!! :-)


why do people want wmp9/10 when they can use mpc i wonder....

Perhaps I can shed a little light on this. I used to be one of those people. Though that was almost a decade ago.

A. Most people are blisfully ignorant to the problems with Microsoft. They only see what Microsoft want's them to see. For instance those warm fuzzy ambiguous Microsoft commercials playing of late. I mean if they don't make you get ulcers from the outrage at the gual Microsoft has. Or your face is not hurting from laughing so hard at how little the image in the commercials match the real Microsoft image. Well you could only be ignorant.

B. The rest either have distincly different moral values. Less morals. Or no morals at all. And believe that in business the ends justify the means. [They are fraught with double standards] And don't have a problem with monoculture, stagnation, lack of innovation, and general anti-social behavior.

I fell under category A back in 1994 or so. Up to that point I had grown up using MS DOS and MS Windows. I thought Apple's suit against Microsoft was rediculous and that Internet Explorer was the greatest thing. Since that time I brushed up on my PC history and found more than a little that I did not like. In fact when it came to Microsoft I could not find any of their history I liked. So I made a 180 switch.

They key thing to remember with type As is not to get fanatical with them. It will turn them off quick. Take your time and educate them slowly as the opportunity presents itself. And 9 times out of 10 they will find plenty to not like about Microsoft and become more active in seeking alternatives. With type Bs it is important to remember that your efforts are basically always wasted. It does not matter how reasonable and intelligent your arguments are. They are playing with a different deck. Unless you can somehow instill them with similar morals.

But that is enough for off topic talk. ;)

[SeeMoreDigital]

Originally posted by Neo Neko
WMP9 is better looking than WMP10. WMP8 is better looking than WMP9. WMP7 is better looking than WMP8. And WMP6.4 is better looking than the bunch of em. :p Ha, ha!

I love reading your anti Micro$oft posts... I wonder what they think about them?

Cheers buddy

[Sagittaire]

Customize your WMP exactly like winamp
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/9Series/GettingStarted//Personalization/Skins.asp

WMP isn't a good player not because it isn't beautiful but because it's too heavy ...

[CruNcher]

And you dont have to forget that you can Playback WMV HD DVDs only with it and with the new WINDVD6 i cant Playback my DRMed Tomb Raider 2: The Cradle of Life WMV HD DVD with any other player then those btw they used Windows Media Video 9 Professional to encode it with 8 mbit :(

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by Sagittaire
Customize your WMP exactly like winamp
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/9Series/GettingStarted//Personalization/Skins.asp

WMP isn't a good player not because it isn't beautiful but because it's too heavy ...

Well the main clincher for me was that as of WMP7 and later they removed the codec interface. No longer can I go in and adjust my codecs decoding properties in any version of WMP after 6.4. Something I do highly regularly. When I watch movies I tend to watch them full screen. And when I listen to music I tend to have the program minimised or in the background. So skins for such programs are worthless to me. Leave it to Microsoft to remove usefull features and add useless ones. Now that is innovation.

On topic I have not had a chance to test the updated codecs to see if they perform any better outside of their ungodly slowness. Recent storms here with 70 mile an hour straight line winds caused power fluctuations that fried my main systems mother board. To bad I could not find that out till 3 days later when the power was restored. :P

[Sagittaire]

Windows Media Video 9 Advanced Profile

Speed: encoding << 1 fps with very simple script in 640*272
Quality: Not better than WMV9 VCM

for very better looking skin with WMP try here
http://www.theskinsfactory.com/skinsfactory/?page=vportfolio&type=wmp

For the futur i think ...
Helix DRM -> Real Player
Microsoft DRM -> Windows Player
Apple DRM -> Quick Time Player

[IgorC]

I agree that WP10 is so heavy. But WMV9 isnºt so bad. Doom´s test showed us that is better than Divx 5.1.1 and Xvid. I hope that WMV 10 will be preety better than WMV 9 and even Real 10.

http://www2.uol.com.br/sepultura/site_videos/SEPULTURA-Mindwar-high.wmv - look this one

[Doom9]

Doom´s test showed us that is better than Divx 5.1.1 and Xvid.ahh.. you're mistaken there. XviD is clearly better than WMV9 in my eyes.. as for DivX5 the difference is smaller.

And there's no WMV10. With MS trying to make WMV9 a standard, they've effectively put a stop to development.. all they can do now is add additional profiles, but which would in turn anger their licensees as you have to throw the old chips away.

[kilg0r3]

Originally posted by IgorC
[B]I agree that WP10 is so heavy. But WMV9 isnºt so bad. Doom´s test showed us that is better than Divx 5.1.1 and Xvid. I hope that WMV 10 will be preety better than WMV 9 and even Real 10.

--- Bleep ---

[Sagittaire]

they've effectively put a stop to development.. all they can do now is add additional profiles

Why? WMV9 VCM (No Bframe) is very better than WMV9 WME9 (With Bframe). For me the WMV9 with Bframe can be still largely improved.

[Doom9]

perhaps I didn't chose the proper wording. But the specs are set.. this doesn't limit coding efficiency, but they cannot add features that would break compatibility with existing decoders. The MPEG-4 simple and advanced simple profiles were specified ages ago, codecs got better but they have to stick to the specs for those streams.. you can't just go adding H.264 features to a MPEG-4 ASP codec. MPEG only adds new profiles on rare occasions (the AVC/H.264 profile is such an addition).. and it means major re-development. I doubt WMV9 licensees would be thrilled to have to re-engineer their chips from scratch about a year after the initial specs were published.. and there aren't many chips to begin with. I've had some long discussions with the CEO of DXN about hardware profiles and learned that new profiles are a major problem.. they were afraid that if they advance too fast, they'd lose their OEMs. Obviously, this also applies to MS.

And there's an upper limit to how far you can go if the specs are set. We've pretty much reached the end of the line in MPEG-2 encoding with encoders like CCE (progressive) and Procoder (interlaced). MPEG-4 progress is also slowing down. And with those MPEG standards we have dozens of manufacturers trying to push the envelope.. with an MS standard you just have MS. I'll include WMV9 again in the next comparison but I'd be surprised if anything changed since a year ago.. something which cannot be said about a bunch of other codecs (XviD, (DivX), 3ivX, VP6).

[Sagittaire]

A codec can really improve with an enormous gain of quality without changing originals specifications:

DivX 4.0.0 -> DivX 5.1.1
XviD Devapi3 - > XviD 1.0.1
RV9 - > RV9 EHQ

and why not WMV9 -> WMV9 Advanced Profil

I think that WMV9 uses specifications more advanced than MPEG4 V2: WMV9 and RV10 are codecs whose specifications are between MPEG4 V2 and MPEG4 V10 ...

[stephanV]

remeber that MPEG4 SP and MPEG4 ASP are not really part of the same specification. if i'm right SP lacks b-frames and some other things (QPEL, GMC) otherwise we wouldnt have to call them differently.

the same would hold for WMV9, the features must already be within the normal specification, otherwise youre bound to get compatibility issues. calling it "WMV9 advanced profile" wouldnt change things a bit if the specification wouldnt change. all that can be done now is getting the max out of the specification as it is.

and doom9 is right of course

to quote DigitAl from this thread (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=78197&highlight=player):
Yeah, you try telling all your CE partners you just broke all their devices, and several million consumers that their new DivX Certified players won't actually play new DivX movies...

Not gonna happen

You need to stop focusing on the next best feature, and start considering the benefits in compatibility.

commercial codec developers are not too fond of adding features that break compatibilty with their own hardware devices. and with good reason of course, they need to make money.

[SeeMoreDigital]

Originally posted by stephanV
remeber that MPEG4 SP and MPEG4 ASP are not really part of the same specification. if i'm right SP lacks b-frames and some other things (QPEL, GMC) otherwise we wouldnt have to call them differently. You can always refer to bonds excellent descriptions, which can be found here (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=73022#post461587)

Originally posted by stephanV
to quote DigitAl from this thread (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=78197&highlight=player):

commercial codec developers are not to fond of adding features that break compatabilty with their own hardware devices. That quote from DigitAl56K has now been superseded by comments from thekid!

It's DivX's own fault anyway for creating such narrow minded form of certification in the first place. They built a rod for their own back and now they have no room for movement or improvement. But more importantly, they've confused the Mpeg4 profiles for other player and software manufacturers who don't know which direction to move in either!


Cheers

[stephanV]

Originally posted by SeeMoreDigital
That quote from DigitAl56K has now been superseded by comments from thekid!

hardly, thekid in that thread:

But for right now, we are trying to deliver the best possible user experience through hardware that we can. In doing so we might be excluding some of the higher end features but they are being sacrified for the greater good of playing (most) DivX files on all your DivX devices.

stay tuned for some bigger, better, super advanced profiles in hardware and in software

so... when will that be? i believe DivX 5.2 is coming out soon, so we'll have to wait for that then. But if it will have to play on all DivX certified devices you can forget about your 3wpt-GMC. Mind you that thekid was more or less talking about AAC in AVI a month ago (where was it, o yeah here (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=76500&highlight=AAC)). now how mpeg4 compliant is that? DivX people have little problem with breaking MPEG4-specs (and why should they?), and i think we will find out the same holds for Nero certified devices.

the business of making money appears to be different from the business of being compliant and interoperable.

[SeeMoreDigital]

Well I'm wondering what exactly bigger, better, super advanced profiles in hardware and in software for existing hardware users will mean!

Hardware profiles that allow say, 1WP GMC (S-VOP), Qpel or multiple B-VOP's... who knows!

Unless DXN introduce an new encoder that clearly separates existing Mk1 DivX 'certified' player users from proposed new player users, they are gonna create one hell of a mess for all DivX users!

As it is their existing hardware profiles only allow 1B-VOP and not even their own 1WP GMC (as for Qpel forget it). So it's difficult to see where they can go without "breaking compatibility with their own hardware devices" - which is what DigitAl56K was going on about!

As for AAC, thekid said "maybe"!

One thing is for sure, if they don't handle their new codec release properly... it will be make or (quite literally) break time for DivX (DXN) and they'll leave behind a lot of confused and angry Mpeg4 customers!


Cheers

EDIT: But we are seriously digressing from the point of this thread. Personally I can't see myself using WME10 for the reasons Doom9 already explained. And I certainly wont be testing any more of their beta's for them... What about you?

[Doom9]

DXn will most likely introduce a new profile that includes multiple B-frames, QPel and GMC.. the old profiles will remain, but if you don't see a "DivX gold profile" (or whatnot) logo on the player, you can't play content that was encoded using the gold profile. There will definitely be new profiles in the future that go in the direction of MPEG-4 ASP.. but as it takes 12 months for a chipset generation to be developed those things won't happen overnight. But Mediatek has certainly raised the bar with their chipsets so others will follow sooner or later.

[stephanV]

Originally posted by SeeMoreDigital
EDIT: But we are seriously digressing from the point of this thread. Personally I can't see myself using WME10 for the reasons Doom9 already explained. And I certainly wont be testing any more of their beta's for them... What about you?

WMV is not a codec for DVD-rippers who aim at filling a DVD. It is first of all a streaming format and therefor should aim for low bitrates (<400 kbps). and to be quite honest, in that area WMV9 is certainly one of the better codecs IMO.

but personally i can't see myself testing any beta of MS.

[SeeMoreDigital]

Originally posted by stephanV
WMV is not a codec for DVD-rippers who aim at filling a DVD. It is first of all a streaming format and therefor should aim for low bitrates (<400 kbps). and to be quite honest, in that area WMV9 is certainly one of the better codecs IMO. Agreed!

There's no way I'm gonna spend all day 'backing' up a DVD to either WMV9 .wmv or WMV9 .avi ;)

With regard to streaming, I don't think it even does this particularly well. I'd rather view a QuickTime or Real Media file any day.

But we'll have to see what Mpeg4/AVC brings us!


Cheers

[stephanV]

Originally posted by SeeMoreDigital
With regard to streaming, I don't think it even does this particularly well. I'd rather view a QuickTime or Real Media file any day.

i beg to differ, but each to his own of course. :)


But we'll have to see what Mpeg4/AVC brings us!
Cheers

well, it will have to do a lot better than that mpegable version there is now... that doesnt come even near WMV9.

[SeeMoreDigital]

Originally posted by stephanV
i beg to differ, but each to his own of course. :) Can you point me to some WMV9 streaming content please, so I can revise my comments.

Originally posted by stephanV
well, it will have to do a lot better than that mpegable version there is now... that doesnt come even near WMV9. Is it really that bad... Blimey!


Cheers

[snowcrash]

Originally posted by Neo Neko

They key thing to remember with type As is not to get fanatical with them. It will turn them off quick. Take your time and educate them slowly as the opportunity presents itself. And 9 times out of 10 they will find plenty to not like about Microsoft and become more active in seeking alternatives. With type Bs it is important to remember that your efforts are basically always wasted. It does not matter how reasonable and intelligent your arguments are. They are playing with a different deck. Unless you can somehow instill them with similar morals.

But that is enough for off topic talk. ;) [/B]

Hey, since you're so vehemently anti Microsoft, err excuse me, "educated" about how bad Microsoft is, and so active in seeking Microsoft alternatives, then I can only assume that you don't use any Microsoft products, like Windows for one. Am I correct? Because really, if you haven't done so already, you should delete all Microsoft software for your computers, including Windows, go burn any Windows CDs you might have, and then install some non-MS operating system. I know you won't miss any of the MS stuff, because it's all so horrible.

[Sharktooth]

Originally posted by snowcrash
Hey, since you're so vehemently anti Microsoft, err excuse me, "educated" about how bad Microsoft is, and so active in seeking Microsoft alternatives, then I can only assume that you don't use any Microsoft products, like Windows for one. Am I correct? Because really, if you haven't done so already, you should delete all Microsoft software for your computers, including Windows, go burn any Windows CDs you might have, and then install some non-MS operating system. I know you won't miss any of the MS stuff, because it's all so horrible.
Hehe, 100% agreed. BTW, i'm not anti-something. I just want to have the freedom of choice.