Impressions of WMV-HD?

[TheSeeker]

Just wondering how you fellas felt about the newer WMV-HD codec that microsoft is offering? I see they claim that they can get a 1920x1080p video stream of Terminator 2 to a bitrate of around 8,000KB/s, with little or no loss of quality (yea right). This seems to be absolutely impossible and still keep even decent quality. Considering that current dvd's can be found at this bitrate (although few and far between). Im just extremely skeptical of the whole thing, and would like to hear a professionals opinion on it.

[bond]

claims of commercial codec producers are always marketing lies

how else you can make people spread the word about the codec and post in web forums about video coding? ;)

[scharfis_brain]

WMV-HD deosn't work at 1920x1080.
it work with anamorphic 1440x1080.

the next marketing-lie of 'full' 1080p ....

[TheSeeker]

No doubt, I thought it was too good to be true. Check out this link:

http://www.theperfectvision.com/newsletter/tpv50/hidef_pc.html

They claim full 1920x1080p support. Liers. So do you guys have actual experience encoding with WMV-HD? Those bitrates in that article that the quote are ludicrously low. 5.8MB/s for HD content, with nearly no visible loss of quality. AHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHA Thats almost laughable.

[MvB]

Just watch Coral Reef Adventure and say that again!
It looks absolutley stunning. Sorry, T2 really looks like garbage compared to that.
Not that i'm for this drm crap and stuff, but never seen such a good transfer of an IMAX-Movie.
The bitrate is about 8 MBit/s for that.

[TheSeeker]

I guess everything I know about codecs it thrown out the window? I mean, I was taught that no matter how well the code is written ANY compression of a video stream represents a deviation from the original. And this insane level of compression seems like it would bring a HUGE deviation from the original. It just seems to good to be true thats all. And you know what they say about things that seem too good to be true. They usually arent.

[bond]

i dont expect any clip encoded for advertising a codec to look crap

[MvB]

@bond

there you'ld right. If that wasn't a whole movie (about 46min). And Amazon looks absolutley stunning, too (about 39 min). that are not only clips. I think it's impossilbe to have such movies with scenes only to suit a codec. Did you see that dvd?

[bond]

well of course it could have been that ms chose video sources without caring whether their codec performs well on them, its just not very likely...

[CruNcher]

Hollywood allready evaluated this (they have big machines can transfer hours of very Clean HDTV Scenes to Test and not 250 frame samples from Mid Professional HDTV cams) and VC1 got nice scores in that evaluation phase vs H264 but the Problem is we are still in a very early state of Development (even Microsoft is still improveing VC1) i agree if some say the Development is faster then Mpeg-4 ASP was, that's obvious becaouse economicaly seen it's more important for Hollywood and others especialy in terms of introduceing a new Copy Protection System better DRM and Broadcast Protection. As a Enthusiast of this Community i would say both are allready outdated and the Primetime of Block Based Codecs is slowly fadeing away ;) The Deadline for Hollywood is the End of this Year (USA) everything has to work the Way they wan't it by then. And be sure we will see the Broadcast Flag in that Deadline also be accepted ;) if not then it would have been also possible to stop the War in Iraq, i think you get what i want to say with that :P

[acidsex]

As big a fan of Nero/Ateme as I am, I have to give credit to MS for their WM9 codec. It produces acceptable quality at nearly every resolution and bit rate. One are MS has missed out on I think is incoporating menus and chapters into their WMV container.

To this point I have only seen the docs for creating WM9-HD DVDs with menus and extras. MS has left it up to other companies like Sonic to create a program to incoporate all of the features we have come to expect with traditional DVDs. Sonic only offers a proprietary system in order to create WM9-HD titles that are costly and obviously not meant for small businesses or consumer consumption efectively locking out fair competition among the large and independent film companies.

As an aspiring film maker, all of these things concern me. More importantly, without a market place full of a variety of players for the various codecs, I dont see any of these codecs winning the war.

[bond]

my impression with wmv9 and dvd resolutions at 1cd bitrates (so the typical dvd backup) was that it cant clearly provide better quality than xvid (mpeg-4 asp), so i never saw any reason to use it

[vsv]

1.T2 WMVHD has resolution 1440x816 (2.35 anamorph)
2. wmv codec not better than any mpeg4 asp: Xvid,Divx and Nero Digital
3. Hollywood no need better quality of codec. These guys always choose
better protect content with DRM and possibility make more money.
4.Support x264 as mpeg4 avc as progressive, free codec and mp4 as
better container.

[bill_baroud]

not 250 frame samples from Mid Professional HDTV cams)

If you're talking about the samples i linked somewhere (that you probably already knew), i don't think that the Sony F900, a 100 000$ camera (without lens and without recorder, add another 150 000$), is a "Mid Professional" camera :D
Well that's my 2 cents, no offense mean ;)

[SeeMoreDigital]

Yep... I've been saying for years that Micro$oft has been cheating with their "so called" 1080 samples... they are all (by definition) anamorphic!

I would not go as far to say that 1CD WMV9 encodes at DVD resolutions are not as good as XviD... In my opinion they can be but only if you elect to crank up WMV9's "performance slider" to full (ie: Better Quality) and are prepared to wait for days to obtain a 2-pass encode. When you do this WMV9 generates very watchable encodes with good image background (as well as foreground) stability!

That said, in my opinion, Mpeg4 AVC blows WMV9 away now, in terms of perceivable image quality, encoding speed and general flexibility (when muxed into the appropriate container).


Cheers

[TheSeeker]

So essentially its just microsoft's answer to the divx codec with support for broadcast flags and DRM? They way they have been touting it (and the way lesser mortals perceive it), you'd think it was the second coming of christ.

[Guest]

if not then it would have been also possible to stop the War in Iraq, i think you get what i want to say with that Please observe forum rule 15. Further violations will attract strikes. Thank you.

[SeeMoreDigital]

So essentially its just microsoft's answer to the divx codec with support for broadcast flags and DRM? They way they have been touting it (and the way lesser mortals perceive it), you'd think it was the second coming of christ.Please remember, DivX is company brand name for MPEG-4 (ISO/IEC 14496 Part 2), along with other brand names like XviD, 3ivx, HDX4 and even NeroDigital.

There are other companies developing their very own "high efficiency" video codecs too, such as Real, VP6/7, Snow, Theora, Dirac etc.

And all the above can be coded to offer some form of Digital Rights Management :eek:


Cheers

[Wilbert]

WMV-HD deosn't work at 1920x1080.
it work with anamorphic 1440x1080.
Forgive me for asking an obvious question. How do you know what the encoded resolution is?

[SeeMoreDigital]

Forgive me for asking an obvious question. How do you know what the encoded resolution is?Here's a 1440x816 still from the original 2.35:1 high-def T2 trailer (as posted by M$ a couple of years ago). As you can see, it does not contain any mattes, just like the entire T2 Extreme WMV9 DVD: -

http://img160.echo.cx/img160/6543/t2clip1440x8165ui.jpg


Edit: The newer T2 trailer contains mattes, bringing it to 1080 high... but it's still only 1440 pixels wide.

http://img72.echo.cx/img72/5936/t2clip1440x10809kw.jpg


Cheers

[TheSeeker]

What do you guys think about Microsoft trying to pass off a WMV-HD encoded movie crammed onto a DVD-9 disc as "true" HD content? I mean, I know its high resolution, but at bitrates of even 8,000 KB/s (which is high for WMV-HD i think), it just seems like all we are getting is a heavily compressed second rate version of what we SHOULD be seeing. Or am I totally wrong in that regard? Isn't HD bandwidth more like around 15,000-20,000 KB/s?

[bond]

i think the wmv9-hd dvds have been created only for demonstarting wmv9's capabilities of being a hd codec and making it interesting for hd-dvd and bluray

i dont think that there will be any more such dvds produced

[IgorC]

In 2003 year WMV9 was a good codec. But now comptetion with H.264 High Profile is impossible (in quality terms). There aren't siginifical updates from MS for WMV9 during the last 2-3 years.

[SeeMoreDigital]

Sadly it sounds as though Micro$oft and the HD-DVD forum have banded together.... meaning VC-1 will most probably become a dominant format for HD-DVD.... and not Mpeg4 AVC :scared:

I agree with Bond, I don't think we'll see many more HD-WMV9 movies encoded onto regular DVD-9 disc's. None of which can be spun on the current high-def capable stand-alone players anyway.... because the dopey manufacturers cocked up the WMA Pro (analogue) audio output stage :D

Not a very good start for Micro$oft HD format then!


Cheers

[TheSeeker]

MPEG4 AVC still has a chance to be adopted as the codec of choice for the Blu Ray format though. I dont think anything has been announced as to what codec will be used standard.

[acidsex]

I think both (H.264 AVC and VC1) will be supported on both formats (HD-DVD/Blu Ray) along with HD Mpeg2. The main key will be getting authoring developers to have support for both as far as consumers are concerned. We all know Hollywierd will use whatever codec that they get the lowest cost on.

[TheSeeker]

And then the PLAYER itself has to be able to decode a bunch of different codecs. That will either drive the cost of players way up, or cause dvd studios to use only ONE of the possible codecs when they release amovie. SO maybe we will start getting some HD-DVD movies that play in your player and some that dont due to a different codec being used. Sounds like a mess of trouble to me.

[bond]

both hd-dvd and bluray will use both vc-1 and h.264/mpeg-4 avc

so all players will have to support both formats

what format the hollywood studios will depend also on how much the codecs cost
till now its not known how much vc-1 will cost as the licensingterms havent been finalized till now (also vc-1 hasnt been finalized till now)

[acidsex]

Any chance M$ puts out a VC1 encoder like they did with WM9? Still cant believe has failed to provide a complete solution at this point. They may be the richest but definitely not the brightest bunch.

[bond]

why should m$ create a second vc-1 compliant codec?

[SeeMoreDigital]

I think both (H.264 AVC and VC1) will be supported on both formats (HD-DVD/Blu Ray) along with HD Mpeg2. The main key will be getting authoring developers to have support for both as far as consumers are concerned. We all know Hollywierd will use whatever codec that they get the lowest cost on.Yep, you're all probably right, both Mpeg4 AVC and VC1 will appear on both high capacity disc formats!

But given both Mpeg4 AVC and VC1 offer much high-compressibility over Mpeg2, I don't see the point of bunging either onto an high capacity disc format anyway ;)

Blu-ray and HD-DVD will I'm sure be perfect for storing high-def Mpeg2 content... but this will soon become a "yesterday" format (especially in Europe).

That said, maybe Blu-ray and/or HD-DVD would be useful to store high-def Mpeg2 footage, from Sony's new HDR-HC1 (£1,500.00) HDV camcorder... But what am I saying... next year we'll probably see high-def camcorders encoding to Mpeg4 AVC :)


Cheers

[acidsex]

From what I understand, VC-1 will have support for 2 pass ASP (current ASP WM9 codec only supports 1-pass) and if I read it right somewhere, there are supposed to be some quality changes that would make WM9 and VC1 different. Maybe the article I read was incorrect and if so, then M$ has fogged up even further by takign advantage of pushing a solution now to create WM9 HD titles with menus, chapters, extras. etc....

[Sagittaire]

1) In fact it's impossible to say "X is better Y" simply because nobody never has make test in HDTV.

2) 8 Mbps for 1080p with WMV9 or MPEG4 is an excellent bitrate (in general case for medium compressibility source)

3) Batman Begin (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/content_provider/film/ContentShowcase.aspx) is a real 1080p trailer (1920*816 in 2.35).

[TheSeeker]

2) 8 Mbps for 1080p with WMV9 or MPEG4 is an excellent bitrate (in general case for medium compressibility source)

However Im betting that once someone looks at a video stream encoded with WMV-HD at a bitrate of 8000 on a very nice quality tv that SUPPORTS 1080p, then you might start to see some sort of artifacting. Its like now, some dvd's look great on a regular tv. You take that same dvd that looked great on a regular tv and show it on a decent HDTV and you could very well see some artifacts that you never noticed before.

[Sagittaire]

"constant quality by pixel" use this function bitrate / (pixel^N). IMO N=0.75 is a good value for real source.

example 1:
with real source ...
resize 720*576 q2 MPEG4 ASP -> very high quality by pixel
2.4 Mpbs -> 145

for same quality by pixel
resize 1920*1088 q2 MPEG4 ASP -> very high quality by pixel
145 -> 8 Mbps

example 2:
with this trailer source : Madadascar (http://trailers.divx.com/Dreamworks/Madagascar_HD.zip)
resize 1280*720 q4 MPEG4 ASP q4 -> high quality by pixel
4 Mbps -> 134

for same quality by pixel
resize 1920*1088 q2 MPEG4 ASP -> high quality by pixel
134 -> 7.4 Mbps

Conclusion : 8 Mbps with high quality for 1080i/p is not marketing

PS: here (http://multimediacom.free.fr/Video/VID-3J.avi) real 1080p with only 4 Mbps

[guada 2]

@TheSeeker

Can you can give me a few more information on the material used: the mark of the television (I suppose to overhead projection....), the player DVD used and the connector industries used.

thank you

[SeeMoreDigital]

1) Batman Begin is a real 1080p trailer (1920*816 in 2.35).Yes.... but they still are unable to offer any 1920x1080 encodes with an full 16:9 image... Or some 1920x1080 encodes with an 2.35:1 image and hard encoded mattes!


Cheers

[TheSeeker]

Yes.... but they still are unable to offer any 1920x1080 encodes with an full 16:9 image... Or some 1920x1080 encodes with an 2.35:1 image and hard encoded mattes!


Cheers


Why is that? A limitation of the codec?

[SeeMoreDigital]

Why is that? A limitation of the codec?No... I suspect it's because the CPU's in our PC's together with our video cards are unable to cope with the necessary number crunching involved :eek:

Cheers

[Sagittaire]

No... I suspect it's because the CPU's in our PC's together with our video cards are unable to cope with the necessary number crunching involved :eek:

Cheers

WMV9 PP0 use the same ressource than MPEG4 ASP PP0. My sempron 2500+ O/C 1.75@2.10 can read WMV9 1920*1080*25 + WMA9 Pro 5.1 at 10 Mbps with 80-90%.

With exactly the same trailer (batman begin 1080p) my sempron is unable to read QT7 AVC with mp4 remux.

I don't know why M$ use PP4 for WMV9 default post-process ... ???

[acidsex]

I ran a small test using WM9 and H.264 AVC. Resolution 880x660, 5fps, source was a Lynda.com tutorial file. Length 15 hrs, 37 min.

What I found very intersting was that after the encodes of both, WM9 file size came out to 2.4GB. H.264 AVC Cinema AVC Profile, came out to 4.4GB Quality wise, as much as it pains me to say this, WM9 was hard to tell the difference between it and the source. H.264 AVC had some blocking and was automatically resized in order to get the target bit rate.

I am assuming that Recode treats every file as if it has the frame rate of 23.97 or 29.97 instead of the frame rate from the source. 5fps should not have taken up that amount of space.

I have no idea how that happened but it is what it is. Does anyone know what bitrate from WM9 is the same as the one from Nero's? Example: 1000K in WM9 is equal to what bitrate in Nero?

[KornX]

i cant understand the bitrate hype...
why not using 2MB/s
diskspace is so cheap...
i prefer quality OVER size!!!
(Not always ;) )


KornX