wmv9 vs divx?

[bluesix]

I chose divx last year for my web site video files as wmv9 appeared to be to demanding in terms of pc processor speeds. In fact I don't think wmv9 worked on anything less than a pentium 3. Nowadays I am confident most systems meet the minimum requirements for wmv9.

That being true would it be prudent for me to switch from divx to wmv9 encoding? The quality appears similar. I aim for file sizes of about 6mb per minute. Or is divx 5.21 still quite superior?

What about the future? I understand wmv10 will work only for xp users. I don't wish to leave anyone out.

wmv9 also appears to stream better (does divx stream at all)? What about for DRM? which format would work best?

Thanks in advance

bluesix.

[chilledoutuk]

If you want something better than divx use xvid.

Currently the only thing I would consider wmv9 for is hdtv.

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by bluesix
I chose divx last year for my web site video files as wmv9 appeared to be to demanding in terms of pc processor speeds. In fact I don't think wmv9 worked on anything less than a pentium 3. Nowadays I am confident most systems meet the minimum requirements for wmv9.

The minimum really depends on the resolution you use. Though it still does not matter what resoulution you use WMV9 will always take more resources for the same size. And still not produce any better quality.

Originally posted by bluesix
That being true would it be prudent for me to switch from divx to wmv9 encoding? The quality appears similar. I aim for file sizes of about 6mb per minute. Or is divx 5.21 still quite superior?

If you know what you are doing with Divx or Xvid the switch will bring you nothing but greif. At least in my oppinion. Longer encode times just to get the "same" quality. Less portability. Which I believe you understand. It is a thankless and pointless job. Is WM9 going to actually be able to do something MPEG4 can't. In all likelyhood no. Unless you want to DRM your files out the wazoo.

Originally posted by bluesix
What about the future? I understand wmv10 will work only for xp users. I don't wish to leave anyone out.

Unfortunatly by choosing WM that is exactly what you do. I have been to several sites I could not view the contents due to WM where I could have if it were almost anything else. Your fears are justified seing as how Microsoft decided to restrict encoding in true WM9 (not the crippled VFW interface) To Xp and IIRC 2000. It is what Microsoft does best. Excluding their competitors and forcing upgrades needlessly. Now you will still get people like DVD john hacking away making WM9 playable in VLC and such. But at some point Microsoft is going to try and find a way to shut that down as well. With MPEG that is not really a problem. It has always been open from the get go. And it will always be so. Further it is getting to the point where your celphone or PDA will someday soon be playing back MPEG4 content.

Originally posted by bluesix
wmv9 also appears to stream better (does divx stream at all)? What about for DRM? which format would work best?

MPEG4 can stream every bit as good as WM. MPEG by its nature has always been streamable. What has never been stremable is AVI OTOH. But MP4 is. In fact any platform that can run VLC and has a browser that uses netscape compatable plugins can playback or stream in any browser on any operating system. Save for Microsoft IE since they broke compatability in an effort to exclude the competition.

If you are happy with MPE4 stick with it. About the only thing I could suggest is to switch from AVI to MP4 or even Matroska. It "will" stream better and be smaller in most cases to boot. ;)

[temporance]

Originally posted by Neo Neko
MPEG4 can stream every bit as good as WM. MPEG by its nature has always been streamable. What has never been stremable is AVI OTOH. But MP4 is.Ever the pedant, I must disagree!

It is a common misconception that mp4 supports streaming but AVI does not. The reality is that, with the right server and client software, both can be served up nicely over RTP or however you desire. So it's down to what software exists today.

MPEG-4 in the wild today was not encoded with VBV-respecting rate control with parameters suitable for streaming. For that reason it's not so suitable for streaming over a reduced bitrate channel. I agree on your main point, there's no reason why streaming MPEG-4 couldn't be amazing, whether it originates in an AVI or mp4 container. ;)

[SeeMoreDigital]

With regards to streaming... I would take Mpeg4 in MP4 over Mpeg4 or WMV9 in AVI any day of the week!

That said, Mpeg4 in MOV works much better than any other combination I've tried, especially when partnered with QuickTime player.


Cheers

[Nic]

@temporance: Yes, but it wouldn't be easy to stream AVI would it? For a start the header would have to received by the client for it to even know the codecs used, so their could be no easy joining of a stream already in flow. (And there are far more reasons why AVI can't be used easily...And what RTP would have to do with it I don't know, as the difficulties would exist just as much over ATM/TCP/UDP/etc)

No one could say AVI was designed with streaming in mind (same way no one could say MPEG containers were designed with seeking in mind ;) )

@bluesix: At low bitrates (Around 128kbps), you may be better off with WM9. But generally you won't gain anything by moving to WM9 (apart from anyone with Windows can automatically download the codec when they try to play the file). The encoding times are far slower with WM9 too...
...Your best bet is try it and compare. :)

Cheers,
-Nic

[bluesix]

Wow, I can't tell you how I appreciate all the replies. I clearly have been away from this forum far too long.

My target bitrate is 700kbps. Will that still stream? Am I understanding correctly that to stream divx you encode it as an mp4 file? I have never heard of the .mp4 format. Is that an easy thing to do?

Yes I am sure quality will be slightly superior with divx. I don't wish to go to xvid as that requires another download for those that already have downloaded the codec. That is the best thing I can say wmv9 has going for it. That it doesn't require a manual download of anything. I have received a lot of emails from surfers who downloaded the codec but didn't realize you had to double click on it to install it to their machine. As for ease and speed of encoding, there is someone on my staff using pro-coder and is able to batch process wmv files quite easily so that is not an issue.

bluesix.

[temporance]

bluesix, your questions make me thing of this...

http://labs.divx.com/archives/000034.html

... maybe completely unrelated or useless for what you want to do, I haven't tried it.

[LordRPI]

Yes, the plug-in (It's very very beta :()

Keep in mind that the plug-in uses progressive download and therefore is not true streaming. If only the HD flicks at http://www.divx.com/movies weren't in a .zip file....

[SeeMoreDigital]

Originally posted by LordRPI
...Keep in mind that the plug-in uses progressive download and therefore is not true streaming.... Just curious....

Is it possible to change this, so that in future the file ends up in your "Temporary Internet Files" folder, like most other internet files do?


Cheers