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

[bond]

seems there are some problems with the standardisation of VC-1 (derived from M$'s wmv9):

read more here (http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=50500181)

[Wilbert]

Now, there is speculation that delays or licensing problems for VC-1 could prompt either — or both — of the DVD industry groups to simply delete the Microsoft technology from their specifications.
What's bad about this?

[Nic]

For those who don't want to read it all, choice quotes are:


But now that the WMV9-based VC-1 has been put to the test in the arduous SMPTE standardization process, VC-1 is "perceived as behind in quality and behind in licensing terms, compared to H.264/MPEG-4 AVC," one source said.


Microsoft has given the impression that its WMV9 and SMPTE's VC-1 are one and the same, but there are differences. Windows Media includes many things that are not part of VC-1, including digital rights management, metadata, a playlist and a user interface. VC-1 is purely a video compression algorithm.


The test bit streams currently provided by Microsoft are not enough, one critic said. "There are elements in a VC-1 bit stream, provided by Microsoft, that are simply not there."

And simply: "Microsoft knows better than that" ;) yeah...right.

-Nic

[fccHandler]

To me this news is bad. I'm not a Microsoft hater. I really like WMV9, and I thought it had a bright future. Now I'm not so sure...

[communist]

Now, there is speculation that delays or licensing problems for VC-1 could prompt either — or both — of the DVD industry groups to simply delete the Microsoft technology from their specifications.
Oh please pretty please let that come true.
Not to be a M$ hater but if we still havent learned a lesson after all (the 'software sabotage', 'licensing issues', 'embrace extend extinguish', FUD crap) etc. then we deserve to die in a M$ only situation.

[Sirber]

I hope too M$ won't become the standart on that. :)

[stephanV]

Isnt this:

"VC-1 may be interesting at some point in the future, but [our] members have shown that [H.264/MPEG-4] AVC is technically superior," said Richard Mavrogeanes, founder and chief technology officer of VBrick Systems Inc., and a board member of the MPEG Industry Forum and the Internet Streaming Media Alliance.


and this:

In addition to transport and conformance documents for VC-1, the SMPTE group still needs a reference software decoder and reference bit streams to ensure interoperability among different VC-1 implementations. This work is not yet completed. Nor are there any signs of a reference encoder for VC-1.

a contradiction? They say it is inferior, but there isnt even a reference decoder for it yet... so how can they possibly know? Of course its MPEG people that say that...

I would certainly regret if VC-1 wouldnt come through... it's only an extra option to choose from.

[Tommy Carrot]

Originally posted by stephanV
I would certainly regret if VC-1 wouldnt come through... it's only an extra option to choose from.
Or it would just increase the cost and the confusion. H.264 has undoubtedly superior quality to WMV9, so i cannot see any point to include VC-1 in the specs.

[stephanV]

vc1 is not WMV9, WMV9 would be an implementation of VC1

it would increase costs? like H.264 is that cheap... dont be silly :)

confusion? i think that even within H.264 theres room enough for confusion... there certainly was with MPEG4 anyway. o wait, theres where the confusion already starts :p

[dragongodz]

a contradiction? They say it is inferior, but there isnt even a reference decoder for it yet... so how can they possibly know?
no contradiction at all its just you misunderstand the statement. they say H.264 is TECHNICALLY better. that means better algorithms etc.
if you need proof then look at wmv9(which is what vc-1 is based on, so i assume pretty much the same algoriths) compared to the immature H.264 encoders being worked on.

I'm not a Microsoft hater. I really like WMV9, and I thought it had a bright future. Now I'm not so sure...
just because someone thinks MS has no place in or trying to make hteir proprietry codec a part of future consumer video standards doesnt make them a MS hater.

[stephanV]

Originally posted by dragongodz
no contradiction at all its just you misunderstand the statement. they say H.264 is TECHNICALLY better. that means better algorithms etc.
How can you say an algorythm is technically better if you dont put it to the test? you can make some estimations at best... he said clearly they had *shown* H.264 was superior. read it again.

[dragongodz]

vc1 is not WMV9, WMV9 would be an implementation of VC1
no wmv9 came first. MS then took the algorithms and called it vc-1.

it would increase costs? like H.264 is that cheap... dont be silly
look at the way MS liscences to big business some time. they may not look like much to start with but they can become very expensive once you are stuck with paying.

[Tommy Carrot]

Originally posted by stephanV
vc1 is not WMV9, WMV9 would be an implementation of VC1
But why would MS made a crappy implementation from it? Ok, i know, wmv was earlier, then was the specs created from it, but still, ATEME after ~1 year development made a codec which is significantly better than WMV9, which is a result of years of development. This tells me h.264 has much more potential than VC-1, and this is what i heard from developers as well.

edit: ehh, dragongodz was faster. :D

it would increase costs? like H.264 is that cheap... dont be silly :)
I'm not talking about license cost, but that supporting 2 different codecs would increase the cost of the hardware players (and yes, we would have pay for the additional license too).

[dragongodz]

How can you say an algorythm is technically better if you dont put it to the test? you can make some estimations at best... he said clearly they had *shown* H.264 was superior. read it again.
of course they tested it, where does it say they didnt ? infact go back and read yourself, MS provided test bit streams.

supporting 2 different codecs would increase the cost of the hardware players
yes they would have to pay licensing to support playback of each type aswell as actual hardware costs of chips supporting each aswell.

[stephanV]

Originally posted by dragongodz
no wmv9 came first. MS then took the algorithms and called it vc-1.


And? While XviD is MPEG4 that doesnt mean MPEG4 is XviD. VC1 is the standard, WMV9 is an inplementation. It would not impossible to build a new encoder from VC1 that is superior to WMV9. And if WMV9 = VC1, they wouldnt have to look for a reference decoder and encoder right? Things are not as simple as you put it.

[edit]Dragongodz, please read the article first yourself.

The test bit streams currently provided by Microsoft are not enough, one critic said. "There are elements in a VC-1 bit stream, provided by Microsoft, that are simply not there."


furthermore, how can test bit streams be produced or decoded without a reference decoder/encoder

ill stop now

[dragongodz]

And? While XviD is MPEG4 that doesnt mean MPEG4 is XviD. VC1 is the standard, WMV9 is an inplementation.
no vc-1 is the MS's attempt at making a standard from wmv9 encoding. absolutly nothing like xvid and mpeg4.

And if WMV9 = VC1, they wouldnt have to look for a reference decoder and encoder right?
that shows you still misunderstand. vc-1 is not intended to go in an avi container. so yes they need a reference encoder and decoder for the intended format.

Things are not as simple as you put it.
and its not as hard to understand as you make out.

[dragongodz]

how can test bit streams be produced or decoded without a reference decoder/encoder
MS OF COURSE has an encoder. they have not provided a reference version though. as for decoding it could simply be a raw bitstream which is in no way what is needed for the final format.

ok enough from me. either people understand these things or they dont. i am not interested in explaining the meaning of life to them. :D

[stephanV]

aaaaarrggghhh

WTH do codec APIs have to do with this?

the bitstreams provided by Microsoft are *not* compliant, either because they contain things that shouldnt be there, or because they miss out on things. I cant really tell from the article. Its kinda weird that you fail to see this. This got exactly nothing to do with codec APIs or containers.

this really is my last comment

[Wilbert]

Hmm, this is a bit confusing discussion.

I'm sure you will correct me if I say dumb things.

WMV9 can't be an implemention of VC1, because WMV9 supports features that VC1 doesn't (like drm, metadata, a playlist and a user interface). However you could say WMV9 minus that stuff is an implementation of VC1 (of course you should look at the VC1 specsheet to draw this conclusion).

the bitstreams provided by Microsoft are *not* compliant,
From the article:

The test bit streams currently provided by Microsoft are not enough, one critic said. "There are elements in a VC-1 bit stream, provided by Microsoft, that are simply not there."

I think that the bitstreams provided by Microsoft are VC1-compliant, but it doesn't use all features (or the most important ones) which are available in VC-1.

So, which features are they talking about?

It would not impossible to build a new encoder from VC1 that is superior to WMV9. And if WMV9 = VC1, they wouldnt have to look for a reference decoder and encoder right?
Yup, I agree.

Did they make VC1 in such a way that WMV10 (minus drm etc. stuff) is also an implementation of it?

[dragongodz]

Wilbert - ok i wasnt going to reply anymore but since you posted that i will make a last comment. so to what you said. yes,exactly. :)

This got exactly nothing to do with codec APIs or containers.
who said it did ? i already said it but you obviously missed reading it or didnt understand. vc-1 is the algorithms and coding mechanisms developed and used in wmv9. it is those that we are talking about.

Its kinda weird that you fail to see this.
really ? i found it kind of weird you dont understand the need of a reference encoder and decoder. let alone fail to understand how a test can be done when its stated test bit streams were provided. these are MS provided streams so even though they may lack some possible potential features of full vc-1 they are still usable to base an initial comparison with. :D

[stephanV]

Originally posted by dragongodz
who said it did ?
You suggested it here (a few posts up):


that shows you still misunderstand. vc-1 is not intended to go in an avi container. so yes they need a reference encoder and decoder for the intended format.

which is ridiculous, they dont need a reference decoder for the specified format... they still need a reference decoder, period. If it were only for the specified format, they just had to wrap the decoder in the right api... that shouldnt be too difficult.

vc-1 is the algorithms and coding mechanisms developed and used in wmv9. it is those that we are talking about.
Apparantly it is not, otherwise it wouldnt be so difficult creating good bitstreams.


i found it kind of weird you dont understand the need of a reference encoder and decoder.

Have you read nothing i said??? I'm saying the test is invalid because there still isnt a reference decoder. How can you suggest then that i do *NOT* understand the need of it?

let alone fail to understand how a test can be done when its stated test bit streams were provided. these are MS provided streams so even though they may lack some possible potential features of full vc-1 they are still usable to base an initial comparison with. :D
Indeed i cannot understand how a valid test can be done if there is no reference decoder, which is clearly stated in the article. Certainly i cannot understand how any valid conclusions can be drawn from such a test if even the bit streams themselves are not good, which again is clearly stated in the article.

I just asked a simple question, which was: "Can you describe the whole of a picture if you only have seen part of it?"

My answer would be no, but it seems you have more imagination than me.

[Wilbert]

Indeed i cannot understand how a valid test can be done if there is no reference decoder, which is clearly stated in the article.
Why do you need a reference decoder? Either the provided bitstreams are sufficient (to show the possibilities/quality of VC-1) or they are not. In both cases you just need a decoder which is able to decode the provided samples.

Perhaps you meant reference *encoder*?

[stephanV]

so for *serious* testing you wouldnt necessarily have to use reference decoder? right...

ive seen 3ivx decode XviD a few times... it wasnt pretty...

what im trying to say is, testing should be done properly... but lets assume the decoder did it ok... that still wouldnt negate the fact that the bitstreams arent proper (in the sense that they are complete)

of course... the decoder also defines the standard in a way so...

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by Wilbert
Hmm, this is a bit confusing discussion.

I'm sure you will correct me if I say dumb things.

WMV9 can't be an implemention of VC1, because WMV9 supports features that VC1 doesn't (like drm, metadata, a playlist and a user interface).

Methinks you have confused WMV9 and WMP9. ;) WMV9 is a video codec. It encodes and decodes things you can see. You can't "see" DRM. You can only get pissed off at it. If DRM is an inexorable part of WMV9 how is it that the WMV9 VFW codec comes with no DRM? Further the video bitstream is a silly place to put metadata. That is generally left to the container. And indeed Windows Media files can contain metadata as well as DRM even if there is no video present. I have very little doubt that it would be possible to create a WM file devoid of all video and audio containing only DRM and metadata. :P

I suppose we should chalk it up to Microsoft's inability to give their products decent names. It is hard for some to derive the difference of the meaning between WMP9, WMV9, WM9, WMA9, WMA9-PRO, etc.

It will be the subject of chicken and egg debates for some for years to come. But it has been and always will be this way. VC1 is a standard derived from WMV9. So by and large WMV9 does equate to VC1. But that does not preclude VC1 equating to something else in the future that has little to do with WMV9. ;)

My personal view of the issue is that it is all good news indeed. It will result in less expensive consumer hardware for all of us. Coming from the need for less complex hardware and less total licenses to aquire. It should also guarontee us better quality videos. MPEG4 part 10 is superior to VC1 and WMV9. Even immature consumer space h264 tools can equate the quality of professional WMV9/VC1. How much better will professional h264 be? And I must admit this all tickles my anti-ms fancy quite a bit. ;) They have tripped over their own hubris once again.

[dragongodz]

which is ridiculous, they dont need a reference decoder for the specified format... they still need a reference decoder, period. If it were only for the specified format, they just had to wrap the decoder in the right api... that shouldnt be too difficult.
god, you really dont understand do you ?
a reference encoder and decoder is needed for combatibilty for the use in the future. so the encoder for content producers so they can produce in spec streams. decoder for people like hardware makers to be able to play such streams properlly, also to show if other implamentations(if they ever happen) also produce proper streams. i already said i am not interested in explaing everything to people so either you understand that or dont, i wont waste my time trying to explain everything to you.

Apparantly it is not, otherwise it wouldnt be so difficult creating good bitstreams.
says who ? because MS didnt use all possible features ? that proves nothing. you would have to ask MS why they didnt.

so for *serious* testing you wouldnt necessarily have to use reference decoder? right...
no they are enough for an initial idea of what the quality is like. of course not fullproof which is why they complained MS has NOT given them a reference decoder.

how any valid conclusions can be drawn from such a test if even the bit streams themselves are not good, which again is clearly stated in the article.
who says they are not good ? they do not have all features etc that vc-1 is meant to apparently. it would be like not providing some test streams using cabac with H.264, it doesnt make it bad just incomplete display of all features.

what it comes down to is MS have shot themselves in the foot. they want to be a part of the next generation but want to take their time and do things how they want. they did not provide all the things needed to be seriously considered so the only people to blame for any problems etc is MS itself. so i dont understand why you are trying to defend them and their screw ups so hard.

[keel]

Originally posted by bond
seems there are some problems with the standardisation of VC-1 (derived from M$'s wmv9):

read more here (http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=50500181)
What the article did not mention is that, in addition to

"...Microsoft's attempts to "railroad" participants in the SMPTE process...."
Microsoft also donated $100,000 to the SMPTE Foundation at about the same time they submitted VC-1 to SMPTE for standardization
http://www.smpte.org/foundation/foundation.cfm

It must just have been a coincidence

[stephanV]

Originally posted by dragongodz
god, you really dont understand do you ?
a reference encoder and decoder is needed for combatibilty for the use in the future. so the encoder for content producers so they can produce in spec streams. decoder for people like hardware makers to be able to play such streams properlly, also to show if other implamentations(if they ever happen) also produce proper streams. i already said i am not interested in explaing everything to people so either you understand that or dont, i wont waste my time trying to explain everything to you.
And what have i said that contradicts this? I think its you who don't understand it... and if you don't want to "waste" your time in "explaining" "everything" then don't do it. I understand perfectly well why a reference encoder and decoder are needed... it is you who thinks not having these is stull good enough for testing, as you said here:

no they are enough for an initial idea of what the quality is like.

An initial idea... right...

uhm...

if you have an *initial idea* you wont call your own algorythm "superior"... you wouldnt use such strong terms (perhpas something like: "appears to be better")... which was my whole point... but you don't seem to grasp that... you're the one bringing all kinds of stuff into this i never even mentioned. (AVI? who was talking about AVI? and what the hell does it have to do with this?)

But don't waste anymore time on me... I've seen that your intellectual and reasoning skills far exceed those of mine. I bow to you.

[Wilbert]

it is you who thinks not having these is stull good enough for testing, as you said here:
I think it is you who don't grasp it. Not having a reference decoder is good enough for the streams that MS provided. Assuming the streams are just WMV9, the standard WMV9 decoder will do fine.

Perhaps MS didn't provide any 'better' streams, because they didn't update their codec yet.

Your example
ive seen 3ivx decode XviD a few times... it wasnt pretty ...
is not comparable to this, because XviD is not a standard. The idea of a reference decoder is that it can decode any stream which is VC-1 compliant. Of course if other people/companies produce their own VC-1 encoders, it's nice to have a reference decoder.

[virus]

If you add CABAC to XviD, you'll end up with a better codec, because you've added a feature that is proven to work better than previous ones. Still, this codec will be "technically inferior" to a good H.264 Main profile codec, because H.264 allows other encoding tools (like a better MB partitioning, or multiple reference frames) which are proven to increase further the codec efficiency.

Much in the same way, the SMPTE added some features to WMV9, but still they perceive VC-1 as "technically inferior", probably because they know that their codec lacks some tools that make H.264 a better standard. You don't really need a reference encoder/decoder to prove that. The SMPTE engineers probably already tested the new features and I assume they know their stuff much better than us ;)

Anyway, unfortunately I don't think VC-1 will suffer too many setbacks, even facing these problems. From a commercial standpoint, it's going to be a winner. M$ has such a long tradition in selling poor software... man, they successfully sold "technically inferior" operating systems for 20 years... :)

cheers
a M$ hater :)

[unmei]

@keel: i doubt it has too much relevance in the process.
Microsoft has tons of money and i think beside them donating or shelling out a lot in the weirdest places, they actually also do support that sort of organisations. Sure the chance that they support a org which they think is important is much higher, and submitting a request for standardisation to an org is acknowledging the importance of that org IMO.
I hope the SMPTE knows better than to bend over for $100K, i don't know how big the structures at SMPTE are, most likely not ISO style, but still.. that amount is probably not really going to make a big part of the budget.
Actually i think it is rather surprising they accepted to turn a commercial product into a standardised one. I don't think you or me can go to IEEE or ISO and give them something and they would make it into a standard. Maybe SMPTE accepted only under some condition like M$ had to pay one engineer of the board working on the standardisation process ;)

[dragongodz]

An initial idea... right...
yes an initial idea. i dont like analogies in general but you seem to need one.
an apple growers gives you 6 apples saying they are representative of his crop which he wants you to buy. now 6 apples of course isnt going to tell you what every apple is like but you can draw some early conclusions. if the apples are all great then you can easily say his crop may be good. if they are all half rotten you can also easily say it doesnt look good for the rest of his crop. why ? because it is in his interest to give you good examples since he wants to sell them to you. now if he doesnt do that then that is his fault. until you see the crop there is no way of knowing if the sample is entirly accurate of course so you can not draw a 100% conclusion from it. you can only draw an initial idea of the potential.

you still fail to see this as a MS problem even though it is they that provided the test streams(feature complete or not) and have not provided a reference decoder to decode them either. so your arguements of any invalidity of any conclusions can all be drawn back to MS. yet here you are defending them to death.

But don't waste anymore time on me... I've seen that your intellectual and reasoning skills far exceed those of mine.
finally something we agree on. :D

time wasting finished.

[Mug Funky]

hmm... bickering aside, i think this is good news.

if microsoft want their codec to be lauded above all others, they have to work to make it good, just like everyone else.

this will help keep them honest (or at least mitigate the effects of their dishonesty, which isn't exactly the same thing but is as good as anyone can hope for from a company such as MS).

anyone who feels VC-1 or WMV9 has been unfairly treated, i invite you to prove conclusively that it is better than h-264.

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by Mug Funky
hmm... bickering aside, i think this is good news.

if microsoft want their codec to be lauded above all others, they have to work to make it good, just like everyone else.

this will help keep them honest (or at least mitigate the effects of their dishonesty, which isn't exactly the same thing but is as good as anyone can hope for from a company such as MS).

anyone who feels VC-1 or WMV9 has been unfairly treated, i invite you to prove conclusively that it is better than h-264.

Mug I think you are going to be hard pressed to get anything more than a "Microsoft says it is so it must be" out of most supporters. And a few might try to confuse you with miniscule PSNR differences.

[Mug Funky]

...which is probably why the SMPTE is having difficulties with VC-1

nothing worse for marketing guys than a healthy dose of scientific method (albeit from engineers :)).

like the whole "SACD is teh shizzle - it's s000 much better than PCM" argument - it all dissolves into a bunch of stupid, obtuse graphs and Sony/Philips (mostly Sony) marketing crap.

of course, i hold PSNR as the ultimate model of the human visual system. hehehe. and somehow i doubt that VC-1 will even deliver higher PSNR than h-264.

[stephanV]

I'm not defending MS to death... it's you who are participating in "MS - ooh bad" discussions. I couldnt care less about that... I have no more sympathy for MS than i have i have for MPEG.

I just find it funny that when a member of MPEG says something it is immediately agreed upon.

Of course, some people prefer bending over to a horse instead of a bull.

[RadicalEd]

Originally posted by stephanV
when a member of MPEG says something

More like "when a member of MPEG finally calls MS on something we've all known for a long time".

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by stephanV
I'm not defending MS to death... it's you who are participating in "MS - ooh bad" discussions. I couldnt care less about that... I have no more sympathy for MS than i have i have for MPEG.

I just find it funny that when a member of MPEG says something it is immediately agreed upon.

The answer is simple.

1. The MPEG consortium has a track record of reliability.
2. They rarely if ever overstate their products capabilities.
3. They are generally platform neutral allowing everyone to participate equally.
4. They are formed from some of the biggest R&D companies on the face of the planet.
5. And most importantly they have not pissed everyone off.

OTOH

1. Microsoft has a track record awful with respects to reliability.
2. It is step 1 for Microsoft to over state each and every product.
3. They are highly platform specific. (IE theirs)
4. They are formed from some of the biggest IP abusers who have developed next to no real IP of their own.
5. And most importantly of all they have pissed off almost everybody.

Individual MPEG consortium members have indeed generated bad blood of their own on their own. But the consortium on their own has been very fair and equitable even if we quibble over licensing fees.

[Mug Funky]

far as i see, i'd rather pay licensing fees to an R&D based consortium than a marketing based corporation

R&D these days usually means "find an everyday object and add the internet to it"

BEHOLD! the internet-fridge. what a stroke of goddamn genius! every home in the world needs one of these!

the only thing i think MPEG slipped up on was the sfb21 problem in mp3, and the assumption that nobody can hear over 16k... but that's a pretty small gripe to have, really.


stephanV: correct me if i'm wrong, but you appear to be arguing for the sake of arguing. this doesn't strike me as all that constructive.

[keel]

Originally posted by unmei
@keel: i doubt it has too much relevance in the process.
....I hope the SMPTE knows better than to bend over for $100K, i don't know how big the structures at SMPTE are, most likely not ISO style, but still.. that amount is probably not really going to make a big part of the budget.
Actually i think it is rather surprising they accepted to turn a commercial product into a standardised one.

Well, you are probably right. Even I won't bend over for $100k! And if it was significantly more, it would really look like a payoff.

However, $100k can buy some good will among fence-sitters. It shows how mulit-pronged MS's maketing tactics are. It's hard to believe the donation was not totally coincidental. (It was for a good cause, anyways)

Naturally, we'll probably never know what really happened/is happening behind the scenes.

[stephanV]

Originally posted by Mug Funky
stephanV: correct me if i'm wrong, but you appear to be arguing for the sake of arguing. this doesn't strike me as all that constructive.

constructive huh?

I just wondered about something, then other people came (or rather one person) who found it necessary to drag in all sorts of unrelated stuff (I'm still puzzled about that AVI comment)... perhaps I shouldnt have responded to that, but that would defy the purpose of having a forum I think.

[Wilbert]

First, dragongodz doesn't come with all sorts of unrelated stuff (although I don't understand his avi comment either). Second, I suggest we go back to On Topic mode.

[neo75903]

I dont mind if M$ codec is taken into the standard as long:
- it is not a property of one company, prefer mpeg4 because more companies have a role to play.
- no hidden costs or license issues.
- open API's, for example no backdoors for m$ to make their encoder better, just fair competition.
- Clear definition of wmv9, as pointed out in previous posts, wmv is just a container as well, what you put in it is another business. I hope m$ is not using this trick to make things m$ compatible, as their attempt with java.
- Implementations possible for all platforms like unix/linux/Mac/... .

[shevegen]

Well still video stuff is quite confusing to me but this is one of the best analogies i have read so far:

an apple growers gives you 6 apples saying they are representative of his crop [...did cut out to not spam ...] until you see the crop there is no way of knowing if the sample is entirly accurate of course so you can not draw a 100% conclusion from it. you can only draw an initial idea of the potential.

thx for that :>

[shevegen]

@neo75903
dont think that MS wants to make any of your points come true. There i believe, was just too much invested into the video section for MS, and they really "like" this expansion.

But I would find it a tiny bit funny (malicious joy!) if MS would fail to become standard with their solution though... ;)

[neo75903]

@shevegen:
I dont agree with you. Maybe M$ is weak at Electronics, but the market for as media provider is still wide open. The next step to an internet connected player is just one step away when the market is flooded with wmv compatible appliances. Who do you think those media providers will turn to when they want to stream wmv?
It is only the question whether M$ has given all the technical data for a third company to write a similar server?
DRM has already thrown in by Apple to prevent Real offering a similar service.
So the question is rather, how much credits can we give m$?

[bond]

i would be interested in what companies actually hold patents on vc-1 (mpeg-la is working on a patent pool atm)? anyone having infos on this? vc-1 isnt that different to the mpeg technologies, so i am pretty sure there are more patent holders than only m$

[unmei]

From the article:
There are 12 of them at the moment, according to the MPEG LA licensing agency.
..but don't ask me who..

[bond]

Originally posted by unmei
From the article:
..but don't ask me who..ups, should have been reading the article more closer myself
thanks :)

i wonder how/if m$ payed all these patentholders for using their technologies for wmv9? anything known on that?

[neo75903]

Was wmv not an inhouse development from m$ it self?
Dont think they have to pay other licenses. Correct if i am wrong.
That is why i am very careful about wmv, with mpeg4 their is a pool of stakeholders where no one can put their will.

[bond]

well, m$ used technologies which where not developed by them in wmv9, thats why there seem to be 12 different companies holding patents on the technologies used in wmv9
the same goes for realvideo... all these codecs are very similar to mpeg-4 (eg they use b-frames, inloop filtering aso...)

if you want to use technolgies owned by someone else you have to pay the other one for being allowed to use it (thats what the mpeg-4 licenses are), in the case of an openstandard everyone knows what technologies are used and therefore everyone can check whether he owns patents and can ask for money for everyone who uses the openstandard
with a closed format, like wmv9 was a long time and like realvideo still is, its not easy to find out what tech gets used. still m$ would have to pay all the patentholders now known to mpeg-la even if wmv9 is closed (or they dont pay them, as noone knows whether m$ uses their patents, but i doubt that would be legal)

[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