(bad?) news about the SMPTE VC-1 standardisation process

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by neo75903
Was wmv not an inhouse development from m$ it self?

It was and it wasn't. Basically Microsoft took a bunch of technology others had developed and put it together and bam WM9. So the particular way in which the technologies were interfaced was developed by Microsoft. Even though Microsoft did not invent the technologies. We have recently seen history repeat yet again.

Microsoft had the first publicly avalible working MPEG4 based but not compatable codec. MSMPEG4 AKA DivX ;-). Microsoft did not own any of the technologies in the codec. Heck they did not go out of their way to deviate from the MPEG4 specs at the time. As MPEG4 goes today it is a piss poor codec. But at the time this was likened to an ubercodec that litteraly blew the other contenders at the time away. This was known as WMV7 IIRC. (There really was no WMV8 but there were some minor changes to the audio codec and other parts that got massively rounded up to WM8.) WM9 uses alot of the same technologies as MPEG4 part 10 AKA h264. Suprise suprise. Again Microsoft does not own the video coding technology. They just used the same technology in an incompatable way to the developing standard. Only this time they did not get that big of a jump on the actual h264 followup codecs and it was not tuned that well. So WM9 even though it uses advanced algorithms has a hard time competing with/beating moddern MPEG4 ASP codecs. And with the rapidly developing h264 codecs WMV9 will likely be headed for the rubbish bin without some major tweaking. Much like WMV7. The moral of the story is learn from history or be doomed to repeat it. And Microsoft never learns. ;)

Originally posted by neo75903
Dont think they have to pay other licenses. Correct if i am wrong.

Actually they do. I mean after all it is a pittance. From the price gouging they do with Windows anfd MS Office they could afford in 100X the licensing cost easily and still give away their codec. Microsoft pays all licensing for the technologies more or less giving their users free reign to do whatever they want without worry of licensing.

Originally posted by neo75903
That is why i am very careful about wmv, with mpeg4 their is a pool of stakeholders where no one can put their will.

You don't have to worry about WMV in that way. But mind you the devil is still in the details. Whereas you as an end user don't have to worry about licensing manufacturers etc do. Further Microsoft uses you as an end user using their product to lock vendors into their products and technologies. And in the process control the market. In the end it is all a vehicle for their DRM. Even with VC1 an open standard Microsoft would still control the DRM and through that control everyone else.

[stephanV]

Originally posted by Neo Neko
Microsoft had the first publicly avalible working MPEG4 based but not compatable codec. MSMPEG4 AKA DivX ;-). Microsoft did not own any of the technologies in the codec.
They don't? Then why does MS hold patents in MPEG4 visual? (http://www.mpegla.com/m4v/m4v-licensors.cfm)

As MPEG4 goes today it is a piss poor codec.
Some capping people still disagree I believe.

WM9 uses alot of the same technologies as MPEG4 part 10 AKA h264. Suprise suprise. Again Microsoft does not own the video coding technology.
They dont? Perhaps not all of it... but they show up in the list (http://www.mpegla.com/avc/avc-licensors.cfm) here too.

Even with VC1 an open standard Microsoft would still control the DRM and through that control everyone else.
huh? I'm not understanding this again... i thought VC1 was stripped from WMVs DRM...

[Wilbert]

Neko Neko and stephanV, please continue discussing about VC-1 in this thread. Continue your WMV9, MPEG4 bashing discussion elsewhere ...

[bond]

Originally posted by stephanV
They don't? Then why does MS hold patents in MPEG4 visual? (http://www.mpegla.com/m4v/m4v-licensors.cfm)

They dont? Perhaps not all of it... but they show up in the list (http://www.mpegla.com/avc/avc-licensors.cfm) here too.why dont you point to the lists, which show who owns what patents on mpeg-4 technologies? these lists are available on the same homepage you pointed to...
this (http://www.mpegla.com/m4v/m4v-patentlist.cfm) shows that m$ owns only 1 of 197 existing patents on technolgies used in mpeg-4 part2 (the mpeg-la patent pool holds all mpeg-4 part2 patents to my knowledge)
this (http://www.mpegla.com/avc/avc-patentlist.cfm) shows that m$ only owns 1 of 19 patents in the mpeg-4 avc/h.264 patent pool set up by mpeg-la, not showing additional patents owned by other firms in the vialicensing pool (which i didnt find a link to)

i think its save to say that m$ contributed as good as nothing to the technologies used in the mpeg-4 standards, altough they have a very big research department.
instead they decided to use their potential another way and develop and push their own closed format, wmv9, which actually used similar technologies than the mpeg-4 ones. for me this speaks for itself...

huh? I'm not understanding this again... i thought VC1 was stripped from WMVs DRM...well the big question of the future will be if vc-1 will get used widely separated from other m$ stuff, like wma, the .wmv container and the m$ drm?

if yes, than m$ will not have that much control about it anymore, but i doubt that this will happen, because it needs much more to set up a complete media framework (including drm, audio, container aso) which companies and end users would be willing to use, than only an open video standard, like vc-1, standardising a raw video bitstream. i dont see who should currently develop an alternative framework around vc-1, which could stand a chance against m$'s? i think vc-1 will mainly only be used in hd-dvd and bluray (if it doesnt get removed from the specs), the other usage of it will only be small compared to the usage of wm9 or real's/apple's stuff

if no, than m$ will have control about its usage, as than users and producers of content will be tied to m$'s other technologies, which m$ of course has the full control of. i think thats the more likely scenario, as m$ has pushed wm9 that far already, that its already widely supported and used.

[stephanV]

Originally posted by bond
this shows that m$ owns only 1 of 197 existing patents on technolgies used in mpeg-4 part2 (the mpeg-la patent pool holds all mpeg-4 part2 patents to my knowledge)
this shows that m$ only owns 1 of 19 patents in the mpeg-4 avc/h.264 patent pool set up by mpeg-la, not showing additional patents owned by other firms in the vialicensing pool (which i didnt find a link to)
Because it is completely besides the point... there is a difference between nothing and a little.


i think its save to say that m$ contributed as good as nothing to the technologies used in the mpeg-4 standards
Based on what information? I dont know what the patents are about... perhaps its nothing important, perhaps its very important... but i wont post false information or nearly false information out of hatred. In any case, they *did* contribute...

but ill listen to Wilbert now and let you have your party :)

[neo75903]

Hmm this is interesting. It comes down to the point if M$ has a hidden agenda if there is any, or is it for once trying do to something good?
Am I the only one here who is a bit sceptic about m$ or are there more ppl thinking the same?

[bond]

Originally posted by stephanV
Based on what information? I dont know what the patents are about... perhaps its nothing important, perhaps its very important...you should know what patents are when you use them for arguing against other people ;)
to make it short: patents are everything that counts when it comes to who owns a technology
read an encyclopedia to find out more about it

there is a difference between nothing and a littleyes you are right and neo neko was wrong: there is indeed a difference between 0.0% contribution and 0.5% contribution (as its the case for m$' contribution to the technologies used in mpeg-4 part2) :D
still this doesnt change the point that m$ contributed as good as nothing (to be exact 0.5%) to the mpeg-4 technologies

but i wont post false information or nearly false information out of hatred.so you dont "hate" people arguing negatively about m$' business policies, feeling the need to attack them when possible? come on, we know you love to ;)

[bond]

Originally posted by neo75903
It comes down to the point if M$ has a hidden agenda if there is anywell there is no hidden agenda. m$ simply does what every company would do if it would have the power m$ has atm.
still this doesnt make it any good, and sometimes m$ goes so far that it violates anti-monopoly laws, as it was the case in europe, for which m$ was fined to pay 500 million euros (~the same amount in USD) by the european union, stating that m$ "forecloses the [digital media] market to competitors", "controlls markets" and "reduces consumer choice" (these are quotes from the european union statement on the fine)

or is it for once trying do to something good?lol, m$ is not the salvation army, they have to earn money
they opened up wmv9 because the dvd forum forced them to do so, otherwise wmv9 wouldnt have been used in the hd-dvd specs

[stephanV]

*sigh*

Originally posted by bond
you should know what patents are when you use them for arguing against other people ;)
Dont get insulting now... but perhaps i should have made myself more clear. I know what patents are... but Microsoft's patent? What kind of technology is it about? Is it a vital aspect of MPEG4? Or is not so important? Do you know?

If you dont... then you cant say this:

there is indeed a difference between 0.0% contribution and 0.5% contribution

Because then you would say every single patent has an equal amount of significance, which i find highly unlikely. Again... i don't know how important the patent is...


so you dont "hate" people arguing negatively about m$' business policies, feeling the need to attack them when possible? come on, we know you love to ;)

No... what i do hate is people spreading all sorts of crap that then will believed by more gullible people who then will spread that around again so i have to read the same shit and lies over and over again... You can be against MS all you want, but theres no need to confuse people more then they already are. Also note that I have not mentioned one word about MS business policies in this thread. It's not what this is about, at least not for me but i guess for everyone else it is.

Party on...

[bond]

Originally posted by stephanV
Dont get insulting now...it wasnt meant as an insult. i assume there are lots of people who dont know what patents are, and i couldnt see from your posts that you actually knew it

anyways i found your post stating that neo neko posts out of hatred pretty insulting...

I know what patents are... but Microsoft's patent? What kind of technology is it about? Is it a vital aspect of MPEG4? Or is not so important? Do you know? If you dont... then you cant say this: Because then you would say every single patent has an equal amount of significance, which i find highly unlikely. Again... i don't know how important the patent is...well here they are:
mpeg-4 part2 (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,748,789.WKU.&OS=PN/5,748,789&RS=PN/5,748,789)
mpeg-4 avc (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,563,953.WKU.&OS=PN/6,563,953&RS=PN/6,563,953)

No... what i do hate is people spreading all sorts of crap that then will believed by more gullible people who then will spread that around again so i have to read the same shit and lies over and over again... You can be against MS all you want, but theres no need to confuse people more then they already are. Also note that I have not mentioned one word about MS business policies in this thread. It's not what this is about, at least not for me but i guess for everyone else it is.so you get that upset because neo neko stated that m$ owns no technology used in mpeg-4, altough they own 2 patents? come on, thats too heavy nitpicking ;)

[adam]

I haven't looked at the substance of Microsoft's patent in relation to the other mpeg4 patents, and I have no idea how much MS contributed to development on mpeg4, but you can't determine this just from the number of patents they hold. That single patent could easily be worth 100 times more then all the other patents combined, and it could easily be the result of a much larger contribution on their part then the other patent holders. This is something that would need alot more investigating before it could be used as evidence for or against Microsoft's contribution.

You wouldn't conclude that someone has more money because they have 99 bills in their wallet as opposed to someone who only has 1, because for all you know the second guy might have a 100 dollar bill.

[SeeMoreDigital]

Nicely put Adam.


Cheers

[bond]

ok as i really want to avoid having to write a scientific pater, weighting all mpeg-4 patents scientifically according to their significance, for being able to really 100% surely, not critisizably, not nitpickably say how much m$ contributed to mpeg-4, i give up and state:

yes, guys you are right, its indeed possible that m$ is a major contributor to mpeg-4. it can indeed be that m$ wanted mpeg-4 to be the strongest possible competitor to be able to stumb wmv into the ground. sorry that i thought that having 1 out of ~200 patents would be a sign for only a small contribution. its not like m$ had to submit only 1 patent for being able to keep their hands in mpeg...

bond stands corrected

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by Wilbert
Neko Neko and stephanV, please continue discussing about VC-1 in this thread. Continue your WMV9, MPEG4 bashing discussion elsewhere ...

No worries on my part. I learned some time back to just ignore stephanV on stuff like that. Nit picking over such minor things that have no real bearing on what was said warrants no debate. Whether they own none or 1 pattent does not change the fact that much/most of the technology used in the actual codecs is not theirs. And as has been said that 1 technology they have (possibly the same technology in both MPEG4 parts) is of quite possibly of debatable to no real importance.

The purpose was not really to bash etc. But an observation of similarities to past events among new recent events. Yes I am biased against Microsoft. I don't hide that. But if someone were to ask me my honest oppinion WMV9/VC-1 is not a bad codec. As I said previously it is comparable to current MPEG4 ASP codecs. It just will not hold it's own against mature MPEG4 part 10 codecs. Personally I would not use WMV9 for non technical reasons. But I will not deny that there are some times and circumstances where it is a good choice. Just not on my hd-dvd etc. :P

[adam]

Sorry if I'm adding to anything off topic, but I did a patent search on Microsoft and mpeg4. Here is the 1 patent listed on that site. It is mostly Greek to me but it doesn't look like it pertains specifically to mpeg4? It seems its for an object-based video coder (still sounds cool to me) and MS didn't invent it, they bought the patent.

http://users3.ev1.net/~CavemanLawyer/741949.htm

But I also got 105 other hits showing Microsoft patents which expressly reference mpeg4. Again I have no idea how much MS has contributed to mpeg4 development, and personally I don't care as long as the end product satisfies me, but read the description of that patent list again. Its the list of patents included in the License Portfolio. Just because they aren't charging licensing fees for any given patent that doesn't mean the patent doesn't exist. Looks like MS has got lots of patents dealing with mpeg4, as I'm sure alot of those other companies listed do too.

[shlezman]

1. The M$ patents listed by bond are ridiculous and almost meaningless.
The second one, wouldn’t stand without a good lawyer(s) behind it.
The first is used for video objects coding, and nobody uses this stuff.
These patents are used only for putting the greasy hands into the patent pool.
M$ know that the media market is their entry into the CE market and that's why they opened the VC-1/9 and pushing hard on the SMPTE and DVD-forum.

2. The WMV codec is a VERY powerful standard that can and will compete with H.264 but the big mistake of MS is that they are M$. I'll explain.
They didn’t want to open the standard and thought that using politics and influence they can put a closed standard into the committees but they were wrong and missed the train. By the time they opened the standard for review, the H.264 was almost mature and many firms were already working on implementing it while the only implementation of VC-1 was WMV9 and a lousy one. If M$ opened their standard earlier they could beat the H.264 and have several implementation of encoders.

scorpion will always be a scorpion :)

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by adam
Sorry if I'm adding to anything off topic, but I did a patent search on Microsoft and mpeg4. Here is the 1 patent listed on that site. It is mostly Greek to me but it doesn't look like it pertains specifically to mpeg4? It seems its for an object-based video coder (still sounds cool to me) and MS didn't invent it, they bought the patent.

Hmmm not at all suprising. Most of Microsoft's most valuable pattents and products were bought from non-Microsoft employed creators. (DOS, Windows NT/XP, The entire MS Office Suite, Internet Explorer, and much much more were not created by Microsoft. Rather they were "purchased" by Microsoft or in some cases just outright "taken" from their creators to put it nicely) Most of the recent pattents they have gotten themselves are for silly things that often should not be pattentable in the first place.

Originally posted by adam
http://users3.ev1.net/~CavemanLawyer/741949.htm

This appears to pertain to a method of using sprites/shapes along with previous motion estimation data to calculate transparent/unchanged macro blocks that can be skipped durring encoding/decoding to speed up the process. Not an unimportant part of the specs. And quite possibly the same pattent is responsible for their 1 listing for MPEG4 part 10 as well.

[stephanV]

Originally posted by Neo Neko
Whether they own none or 1 pattent does not change the fact that much/most of the technology used in the actual codecs is not theirs.
Then why don't you just put it like that? It would be certainly more accurate then "not any". But even then, so what? None of the patent holders in MPEG4 has the majority of patents... a group of patents doesnt make a codec either...

The purpose was not really to bash etc.
Right... :) (the words "piss poor" dont come over as very moderate, neither does the rest of you post)

And quite possibly the same pattent is responsible for their 1 listing for MPEG4 part 10 as well.
Nope, thats a different patent... bond just posted a link a few post up ago.

The point is not that I'm a "nitpicker", the point is you just seem to... uhm... "assume" a lot while posting... but ok...

[skal]

Originally posted by shlezman

2. The WMV codec is a VERY powerful standard that can and will compete with H.264


Sorry, i have to disagree. It can't compete technically
with h264. Have a look at the VC9 specs hanging around
on the net. It still contains DivX3.11 stuff (intra-cbp
prediction) and VLC tables! And the rest.. well... adding
tons of layers of additional MB filtering won't help
but the final blurring, to put it mildly. And most of
VC9 oh-so-cool(tm) features are not even generated by WM9
serie (variable-block transforms, etc...) I've never
met a VC9 bitstream containing such.

Now, what was behind the curtain. Back at the time when
MS submitted its VC9 standard to SMPTE, i joined this
organisation as Simple Observer, and could sneakpeak
at the discussion. Well, to put it simply, the only
answer the MS representative was opposing to technical
critics was: "Look, WM9 has been sold to millions of
customers by MS. They can't all be wrong.".

Hope you appreciate.

And no, MS was *not* willing to supply reference decoder
(not to speak about encoder), nor human resources to
help SMPTE assess the draft's value. Lawyers are sooo
expensive ye know ;)

So, yes, MS opening VC9 is just a pitiful attempt
to put a step in the door of broadcasting/DVD industy,
a juicy market MS was still not present in for good.
The key point is that they already have the codec
ready-to-market if VC1 is approved, unlike its competitors.

Skal


(Oh, and yes: MS's patents in MPEG4 are ridiculous.)
(StephanV: don't feel obliged to answer).

[Wilbert]

@Skal,

Would it be possible for other companies to make a VC-1 codec (or people making an open source one)?

What about WMV10? Is WMV10 also VC-1 compliant?

[Soulhunter]

Originally posted by shlezman

The WMV codec is a VERY powerful standard that can and will compete with H.264...

Yeah, that was a good one... :p


Bye

[shlezman]

Originally posted by skal
And most of
VC9 oh-so-cool(tm) features are not even generated by WM9
serie (variable-block transforms, etc...) I've never
met a VC9 bitstream containing such.


That's exactly what I'm talking about !!!

The standard on the technical side IS capable of delivering a good coding, I cant make a real comparison and get conclusion from looking at the specs alone. The problem is the reference software is CLOSED and nobody can start coding from scratch such standard (and ever nobody will).

Judging by the WMV9 implementation it is obvious that the encoder is inferior to others, but I'm sure someone (like skal maybe) could squeeze a couple of bits out of it if the code was available.

M$ was greedy and didnt play it's cards well, now they are trying to fix it with their handymen (lawyers and bankers).

[skal]

Originally posted by shlezman
That's exactly what I'm talking about !!!

The standard on the technical side IS capable of delivering a good coding



Maybe, but for the sake of discussion, i propose you another
explanation: these oh-so-cool features are just smokescreen,
and even MS didn't implement it, most probably.
You know, a little like RRV, NEWPRED, etc... in MPEG4-v2.
Oh, and interlaced coding seems to have been introduced at
the very last minute in VC1.



I cant make a real comparison and get conclusion from looking at the specs alone.


You can get solid hints, nevertheless: most of the features in VC9
are also present in H264, but much more coherent and fit to their purpose.

(let's not get into the details here. Or maybe just an example:
compressed bitplane coding of 1-bit syntax elements in VC9 is very
pallid compared to h264's CABAC.)


The problem is the reference software is CLOSED


Honestly, i think the problem is even worse: i doubt
that MS has a full-featured encoder themselves. And at
last, if they have, they don't want to show it even
to SMPTE members.


and nobody can start coding from scratch such standard (and ever nobody will).


Come'on, writting at least a syntax parser for VC1 isn't that
hard. And very enlightening.


Skal

[shlezman]

@skal
Damn !!!! You got me in a point where I have to protect M$ in a technical debate I WILL NOT (well maybe abit).

I know VC9 is not as good as H.264 (I've already implemented a H.264 codec and I know how good it is) but some powerful features are present in VC9 (Var-Trans Loop-Filter Overlap-Trans) that COULD place it in a position that competes with RV9 and H.264. That's as much as I go in that matter.

I'm afraid that M$ will surprise us in that matter, I'm already surprised that CE products start supporting WMV9 and in a couple of years most of the DVD's will support the format together with RV9 and AVC (with or without the DVD forum blessings).

Sometimes the quality isnt that important to people but the availability of the software, and windows IS available.

[bond]

Originally posted by Wilbert
Would it be possible for other companies to make a VC-1 codec (or people making an open source one)?when it gets approved as official open standard by smpte it would of course be possible (and i am sure people will do it). thats why the dvd forum wanted wmv9 to become an open standard, to not only have to rely on m$ being the only one providing the codec, but having competition (which lowers prices and helps the quality)
of course everyone writing a vc-1 compliant codec will have to pay licenses to the patentholders, which i assume will group in a patent pool (as it was done with mpeg-4), which propably will be managed by mpeg-la (which also manages the mpeg-4 licenses)

of course this does NOT include the windows media AUDIO codecs, NOR the .wmv container, NOR the DRM developed by m$

What about WMV10? Is WMV10 also VC-1 compliant?does wmv10 already exist? if its backwards compliant to wmv9 (like using the same decoder) than yes, it is/will be vc-1 compliant
if m$ decides to release a non compliant codec, than it will be of course a new, different codec (imagine divxnetworks releasing divx6, which is not mpeg-4 compliant: it would be a new, different codec).

i am almost sure than m$ will bring out a new, modified wmv codec, that is not compliant to the open vc-1 standard, cause thats what they always did: exclude competitors.
they have the power to push a new not compliant codec and being the only one to make money with it, so why shouldnt they do it (creating wmv9 and not choosing mpeg-4 was the same tactic)

[JonLech]

VLC playing WMV9 content using the VC1 reference decoder:

Screenshot 1 (http://nanocrew.net/img/vlc-wmv3.jpg)
Screenshot 2 (http://nanocrew.net/img/vlc-wmv3-5th.jpg)

[Nic]

Well done Jon ;)

I assume that is of your own making.... I heard (from Gildas Bazin) that you bought a copy of the standard (did you get source code with that?)

Anymore details? :)

Cheers,
-Nic

[neo75903]

@shlezman:
U R right about that, technical superiority does not means it will succeed on the market. M$ Windows is an good example of that and M$ knows it better then anybody else. Who uses the codec at its highest quality settings anyway? I for example use 500kbps for my videos and dont really care the quality is a 'bit' less then another codec.
I use XVID because i think it is one available for everybody, two future proof, by this i mean the codec will be around for next 10 years for example.
This cannot be said when using for example Real's codecs. What happens if real goes bankrupt? there i am, ten years later, no where i can play my files anymore unless i get an win2k/xp pc working somewhere.
Same for WMV9, if there are more providers for this format, i might consider using it. But then it has to be:
- more providers, like open source alternatives.
- available on different platforms, who says we are still running windows in ten years? Linux or something else might have taking over the world by then :)

@JonLech:
Nice work, VideoLan is getting better and better.

[Neo Neko]

Videolan has grown to a great project. It along with Mozilla and OpenOffice are really giving Microsoft reason to worry about their future. All that is left is gaming. And the Wine/transgaming crews are slowly working on that for the companies who don't support it. The Linux desktop is really starting to mature.

I saw the shots were on a fedora core background. Funny that. I would have placed John as a Slackware, Debian, or even Gentoo guy rather than fedora. But then that is the great thing about distros.

[shevegen]

Thats the power of SOURCE
hehe

Well MS is a slow colossos.... Linux is much
much faster. I especially hope that the kernel gets
much more attention... dont know how many lines of
real code are in it now, i think about 5.6 million
lines of code (didnt include comments :P )

a huge thing

[keel]

Those that have not seen this might be interested:
http://www.mpegif.org/public/interop/round6.php

26 companies have participated in recent AVC/H.264 interoperability testing.
What's intriguing is that 7 companies did not want their participation made public.
Would be interesting if Microsoft was one of them....my gut reaction is not, however....

Nice to see HE-AAC and consideration for AVC High Profile in there.

Does anyone know the status of VC-1 at SMPTE?
It seems to be lagging more and more behind AVC.

[JonLech]

The SMPTE VC-1 reference decoder (http://www.smpte-vc1.org/TestMaterials.html) is now available.

[skal]

so what?

[bond]

The SMPTE VC-1 reference decoder (http://www.smpte-vc1.org/TestMaterials.html) is now available.yeah noone likes vc-1/wmv9 and avc/h.264 kicks its ass clearly (well wmv9 doesnt even beat xvid clearly) but still on a quality board like doom9 ;) this info has to be covered:

draft specs for vc-1 are now officially publically available under a "trial publication" (http://www.smpte.org/smpte_store/standards/trialpub.cfm):
- VC-1 Compressed Video Bitstream Format and Decoding Process (http://www.smpte.org/smpte_store/standards/pdf/s421m.pdf)
- VC-1 Bitstream Transport Encodings (http://www.smpte.org/smpte_store/standards/pdf/rp227.pdf) (specs for placing VC-1 in MPEG-2 Program and Transport streams)
- VC-1 Decoder and Bitstream Conformance (http://www.smpte.org/smpte_store/standards/pdf/rp228.pdf) (also covering the reference decoder (where tf is the encoder?) and the conformance bitstreams available under the link already provided by jon)

[fccHandler]

where tf is the encoder?
I believe it's rare that such standards will provide a reference encoder, or even specify the encoding process at all. Usually the encoder is only vaguely defined as any process which produces the compliant bitstream described in the spec. Thus developers are encouraged to implement their encoders from scratch, using all kinds of different technologies and methods (even proprietary ones), and this diversity is a good thing. There can be no "perfect" encoder, so it's always possible for any existing implementations to be improved.

I personally like WMV9, so I'm finding all of this documentation very interesting. Thanks for the links!

[IvS]

I just don't understand comments like "yeah no one likes VC-1" and frankly I'm pretty tired of the "I'm anti-MS too (oh wait, "M$" because it's cool to be sarcastic like everyone else)" approach which is widespread accross pretty much all multimedia forums nowdays.
I just wonder what makes people think the MPEG consortium is so much better than Microsoft, as in "not evil" in layman terms. It's comprised of some of the most influencial multimedia technology companies in the world, including companies that are a major part of the beloved MPAA and RIAA.
I couldn't care less about what Mr. Everyday DVD Ripper thinks what would be best. From what I've heard from developers (and that includes XviD and x264 developers) VC-1 specs seem very decent and very comparable/similar to H.264's specs aside from some things.
Anyway, I'm just writing this to insert a little more sense into this thread. Let me finish with some noteworthy IRC quotes that may shatter some myths and baseless opinions.


<pengvado> ShyK: try reading the standards. there are very few differences between vc1 and h264 other than some features of h264 that are missing in vc1.
<pengvado> and most of those differences were part of some draft or other of h264


<Manao> sysKin: fades are also perfectly handled in h264
<Manao> especially with ateme's implementation
<MfA> vc-1 can do it in less bits


<sysKin> what I want is good qulity anime, and vc1 has smaller trasform sizes -> no ringing
<sysKin> 8x8 is still the base, but it can go down to 4x4
<sysKin> generally, VC1 is *really* fun to develop
<sysKin> like inloop deblocker: can be turned on or off for each macroblock and for each frame
<sysKin> do it right and it's the best of both worlds
<sysKin> also, it's got a qpel mode that is not sharper than mpeg-4's halfpel
<sysKin> and it's got halfpel mode that is sharper than mpeg-4's one
<sysKin> and it's got uniform quantizer that should work like charm with trellis
<sysKin> (and old quantizer too)


* sysKin shouldn't say that but 4-tap VC-1's filter is what he likes best

[skal]

IvS,

please, cut it on the proof-by-authority, grab the specs (thanks Bond, btw), implement it and make
an opinion of your own. And note that the beginning of this thread also contains technical
arguments that are not just hand-waving and childish MS-bashing.

bye!
-Skal

(oh, and btw: IMHO, vc1's 4-tap filter has the big disadvantage of being not separable. And
specified in the wrong horizontal/vertical order. all IMHO.).

[IvS]

"Proof" has nothing to do with anything. I happened to have some meaningful quotes to reaffirm my post, if you don't like that, that's too bad, just please don't tell me to "cut it". I (like most people) am not able to just go ahead and "implement things on my own", so instead I brought quotes from people who actually have experience with a "thing or two" and you can decide on your own what to make of that, I never stated "hard facts" because there aren't any, so as you say, "IMHO".
And please note that I never said there aren't any meaningful posts on this thread.

[bond]

guys cool down ;)

[vlada]

In MPEG-4 standard you have an MP4 container, MPEG-4 Advanced Audio Coding and of course MPEG-4 AVC. The VC-1 is only a standard for video encoding/decoding. It is not a full multimedia solution like MPEG-4 is. So in addition to this, MS has to standardise WMA sound compression and ASF container. It has not been done yet, AFAIK.

It's probably not possible to say, that WMV9 is an implementation of VC-1. WMV9 codec was developed before VC-1 standards were put on paper. VC-1 is based on WMV9, not the other way. Because of this, I don't believe too much can be improved in this format. WMV9 has probably all features, that VC-1 allows.

Btw. I heard something about VC-1 support in VLC player. Do you know anything about it?

[bond]

smpte defines how to place vc-1 in mpeg ps and ts, so they indeed define a container (or better said simply take the mpeg-2 container)

m$ has been forced to openspec wmv9, yeah "forced", they will surely not open the specs for wma9

apart from that wmv9 is indeed a subset of vc-1, so vc-1 can do more than wmv9, which makes it indeed possible to say that wmv9 is an implementation of vc-1

on the other hand someone already said that vc-1 is basically a copy of h.264 with some modified things. i heard this pretty often already and i think it also fits m$'s old tactic of copying technologies, modifying it a little bit and than selling it as an own proprieatary format trying to control the market alone

[IvS]

If you think Microsoft "copied" h.264 you're wrong, and obviously haven't examined the specs, which are unfortunately not obtainable by everyone, even though SMPTE is all about "openness".
The fact that Microsoft, like others, uses widely used algorithms and progresses with the times, doesn't mean it's ripped off anyone, even though you may like to think that.
By the same "logic," you can say Ogg Vorbis is a ripoff of MPEG standards. It too is based on MDCT and various methods used in MPEG standards. MPEG is not the holy grail of innovation, advanced mathematics and audio/video technology.

[bond]

the specs are publically available as i posted in this thread already,
as you seem to know the vc-1 and avc specs pretty well, IvS, i would be happy to hear from you, IvS, the major technical differences between avc and vc-1 ;)

[IvS]

I'm sure I don't need to tell you bond, you're the expert ";)".
Also, "Access to this is restricted and obtained through the SMPTE Statement of Participation." Plus that site only has a reference decoder and samples, not full specs. By full specs i mean something like C24.008-VC9-Spec-CD1.pdf.

[FFWD]

the specs are publically available as i posted in this thread already,
as you seem to know the vc-1 and avc specs pretty well, IvS, i would be happy to hear from you, IvS, the major technical differences between avc and vc-1 ;)Here they are :
http://home.wanadoo.nl/mvp35/S3_P3_Jeffrey_slide_10.png