Welcome to Doom9's Forum, THE in-place to be for everyone interested in DVD conversion.

Before you start posting please read the forum rules. By posting to this forum you agree to abide by the rules.

 

Go Back   Doom9's Forum > Video Encoding > MPEG-4 AVC / H.264

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 11th June 2009, 04:16   #81  |  Link
benwaggoner
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,769
Quote:
Originally Posted by hajj_3 View Post
any news on Silverlight3 going GOLD yet? Have you not made a decision on when you will start making a 64bit version yet? You got a nice tasty 64bit IE8 begging for it and if you released it im sure firefox and chrome 64bit betas would be released, maybe even safari.
Silverlight 3 will be 32-bit only. You're correct that it's easy engineering, but it's a big increase in testing,

And it's not like 64-bit browsers are lots better at browsing or anything.

And it'll be a while until people don't need to run Flash. Until then, everyone's gong to be running 32-bit browsers for consumer media, and hence that's the only way they'd get Silverlight as well.

If we see the market share of 64-bit browsing go up, I'm sure we'll do it, but we haven't seen enough benefit in being 64-bit to justify dropping other features in favor of 64-bit.
__________________
Ben Waggoner
Principal Video Specialist, Amazon Prime Video

My Compression Book
benwaggoner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th June 2009, 04:53   #82  |  Link
hajj_3
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,124
the 64bit browser market wont increase until you and adobe release 64bit versions. I'm sure if you released a 64bit beta on here we could do loads of the testing for you, microsoft is still pulling healthy profits, surely you can afford to hire some testers? Theres no point creating a 64bit browser and then not supporting it with your own products. If you release a 64bit beta you will probably shame adobe into making a 64bit version as they wont want to see the competition with a better product in more way than just 1. You'd get some nice PR and publicity being the first to release a 64bit plugin, silverlight may then catch on instead of being a niche which is likely how it will stay as it wont be installed by default on windows7 like with .net not catching on fully until it was installed in vista by default as websites dont want users to download 8mb or so to be able to use their website.

Any news on it getting close to going gold yet?

Last edited by hajj_3; 11th June 2009 at 04:56.
hajj_3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th June 2009, 04:54   #83  |  Link
Snowknight26
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,430
Quote:
Originally Posted by benwaggoner View Post
If we see the market share of 64-bit browsing go up, I'm sure we'll do it, but we haven't seen enough benefit in being 64-bit to justify dropping other features in favor of 64-bit.
So its a case of 'A after B only if B after A, where B after A only if A after B'. I believe the main reason for the lack of 64-bit browser market share is because of the lack of 64-bit addons such as flash, and now Silverlight.
Snowknight26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th June 2009, 05:30   #84  |  Link
benwaggoner
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,769
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowknight26 View Post
So its a case of 'A after B only if B after A, where B after A only if A after B'. I believe the main reason for the lack of 64-bit browser market share is because of the lack of 64-bit addons such as flash, and now Silverlight.
Indeed. But I don't think anyone would run a 64-bit browser who wants to run Silverlight but wouldn't also want to run Flash, yet.

Give us another six months and we'll see where we are .

Also, what are you imaging is going to be better/different about 64-bit browsing? For databases, I'm sold, but the real-world perf difference is small (~10%?) for apps that don't need 2+ GB of RAM. Browsers don't need that much.
__________________
Ben Waggoner
Principal Video Specialist, Amazon Prime Video

My Compression Book
benwaggoner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th June 2009, 06:36   #85  |  Link
Snowknight26
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,430
Quote:
Originally Posted by benwaggoner View Post
Indeed. But I don't think anyone would run a 64-bit browser who wants to run Silverlight but wouldn't also want to run Flash, yet.
I meant that in terms of both Silverlight and Flash.

Quote:
Originally Posted by benwaggoner View Post
Also, what are you imaging is going to be better/different about 64-bit browsing? For databases, I'm sold, but the real-world perf difference is small (~10%?) for apps that don't need 2+ GB of RAM. Browsers don't need that much.
I can't say as I don't particularly have anything in mind apart from databases, but just having a complete 64-bit 'ecosystem' sounds appealing. No more 32-bit legacy support, no more instruction set architecture mixing.
Snowknight26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th June 2009, 10:19   #86  |  Link
hajj_3
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,124
10% is quite big in my oppinion, especially for 64bit atom cpu's in netbooks! you can just release a beta and leave it in beta for a while and im sure doom9 people and partners will find the bugs for you, im sure if you do that flash development will suddenly speed up immediately then we can all enjoy 64bit browsers, instead we have got 32bit IE as the default IE on vista and now even the brand spanking new windows7. Im sure if you released an x64 silverlight 2.0 then we'd have flash x64 already and you could have made the default IE in windows7 x64 the x64 version

Last edited by hajj_3; 11th June 2009 at 13:44.
hajj_3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th June 2009, 16:57   #87  |  Link
Dark Shikari
x264 developer
 
Dark Shikari's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 8,666
Quote:
Originally Posted by hajj_3 View Post
10% is quite big in my oppinion, especially for 64bit atom cpu's in netbooks!
And it'll be more than 10%, as extra registers tend to help more on in-order CPUs.
Dark Shikari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th June 2009, 20:02   #88  |  Link
benwaggoner
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,769
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Shikari View Post
And it'll be more than 10%, as extra registers tend to help more on in-order CPUs.
...balanced against having optimization efforts split over two different ISAs .

Also, I'm not sure how much time browsers actually spend being CPU bound. Javascript parsing, sure, but I imagine most of the non-snappy is due to networking or other issues.

DS, just curious, what kinds of speedups do you see in x264 from 64-bit? It's a very different domain, of course.
__________________
Ben Waggoner
Principal Video Specialist, Amazon Prime Video

My Compression Book
benwaggoner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th June 2009, 20:04   #89  |  Link
Dark Shikari
x264 developer
 
Dark Shikari's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 8,666
Quote:
Originally Posted by benwaggoner View Post
DS, just curious, what kinds of speedups do you see in x264 from 64-bit? It's a very different domain, of course.
10-15%, from what I recall.
Dark Shikari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th June 2009, 23:56   #90  |  Link
hajj_3
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,124
send dark shikari some $$ in a suitcase, i'm sure he'll code an x64 version for you, with his optimisation skills i reckon he'd get it 20% faster.

Last edited by hajj_3; 12th June 2009 at 00:36.
hajj_3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th June 2009, 08:53   #91  |  Link
benwaggoner
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,769
Quote:
Originally Posted by hajj_3 View Post
send dark shikari some $$ in a suitcase, i'm sure he'll code an x64 version for you, with his optimisation skills i reckon he'd get it 20% faster.
I suspect we're all better off not distracting him from making x264 better !
__________________
Ben Waggoner
Principal Video Specialist, Amazon Prime Video

My Compression Book
benwaggoner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th June 2009, 08:58   #92  |  Link
Dark Shikari
x264 developer
 
Dark Shikari's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 8,666
Quote:
Originally Posted by benwaggoner View Post
I suspect we're all better off not distracting him from making x264 better !
Don't worry, Facebook and Corecodec are doing a good enough job at that already.
Dark Shikari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th June 2009, 09:53   #93  |  Link
Gabriel_Bouvigne
L.A.M.E. developer
 
Gabriel_Bouvigne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Paris - France
Posts: 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Shikari View Post
10-15%, from what I recall.
Which is about we we got for LAME btw, just by recompiling.
Gabriel_Bouvigne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th June 2009, 17:54   #94  |  Link
benwaggoner
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,769
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gabriel_Bouvigne View Post
Which is about we we got for LAME btw, just by recompiling.
But bear in mind that compression is normally CPU bound; 10% faster code makes for 10% faster compression.

Browsers spend most of their time waiting for the user to do something, the network to deliver something, or wishing Flash would stop doing so much . So being 10% faster for CPU bound operations may only mean 1% faster for doing any particular task.
__________________
Ben Waggoner
Principal Video Specialist, Amazon Prime Video

My Compression Book
benwaggoner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th July 2009, 05:07   #95  |  Link
Razorholt
Cyberspace Citizen
 
Razorholt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 457
GPU or not, 64 or 32 bit the bottom line is that a lot of people are not finding silverlight THAT impressive. I'm sorry but I may join the group or angry Netflix customers who are about to look at Blockbuster as an alternative - well, maybe not, but...

http://silverlight.net/forums/t/93943.aspx

So, why silverlight (2 or 3) makes the video so choppy? I know it does because I experienced it first hand. It's really unwatchable. Is there any plan to fix that issue before Microsoft releases s3?

Maybe it's due to the mp4 container? Any hints on how to encode the videos in order to avoid the chops then?


Thanks,
- Dan
Razorholt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th July 2009, 22:16   #96  |  Link
hajj_3
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,124
Silverlight 3 is out NOW: http://silverlight.dlservice.microso...ilverlight.exe

any decision been made to start development on 64bit version yet benwaggoner?
hajj_3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th July 2009, 22:31   #97  |  Link
benwaggoner
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,769
Quote:
Originally Posted by hajj_3 View Post
Razoerholt, maybe see if that improves your experience.

Of course, it won't use GPU compositing/scaling until Netflix updates the player with that flag on.

Quote:
any decision been made to start development on 64bit version yet benwaggoner?
It really gets down to the stack rank of the feature list, where we weigh impact versus dev/test cost.

So, pitch me on why this feature is super important !
__________________
Ben Waggoner
Principal Video Specialist, Amazon Prime Video

My Compression Book
benwaggoner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th July 2009, 23:06   #98  |  Link
hajj_3
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,124
I believe its more important than adding additional features as Silverlight3 64bit would push adobe to act and release a 64bit version of flash which would then lead to 64bit versions of Firefox and Chrome and would allow 64bit windows users to use 64bit browsers which would give a significant performance increase. Also 64bit silverlight would allow videos to be smoother on 64bit netbooks which are becoming very popular but have very slow cpu's.

its unlikely they we will see a video and audio standard in HTML5 due to browser vendors not agreeing on theora or h264 and due to licensing costs firefox and opera would be unable to ship h264 capability. So flash and silverlight will be staying with us for quite some time, especially as there seems to be no word from MS whether they will choose h264 or theora in IE9 which with 60% of the browser share would pretty much force the other browser makers to use the same video standard. My suggestion for this would be for google, apple and MS to donate mozilla the licensing costs for h264 for firefox then they could all use h264 which is far better for the end user as mobile devices have h264 hardware decoding support and the video quality is better and could use lower bitrates so less bandwidth would be used.

So to re-iterate a 64bit silverlight would be very helpful for netbooks and would force adobe to bring out a 64bit flash far earlier than their 18month approx current timeframe which would lead to 64bit browsers.

think thats a pretty convincing argument dont u think?

You could then make 64bit IE the default IE in vista and windows7 with their next service packs.

silverlight3 seems very good already there's not that much that shouts out in wanted features more than a 64bit version, i'm sure it wouldn't take that much coding and testing, especially now silverlight3 32bit is complete.

MS has the power to make the internet so much better by making h264 the default codec in HTML5 standard and integrated into IE, Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Opera and has the power to force adobe to release a 64bit flash which would then allow 64bit browsers they just need to spend a little of their $$$. Google's Chrome browser will be getting h264 integrated and youtube will be going h264 atleast for browsers that have h264 integrated which would save them alot of money as they serve 1billion videos a day and adobe's flash requires alot more servers i believe so its financially beneficial for them to scrap flash and use h264 that will be integrate in chrome and safari.

Last edited by hajj_3; 9th July 2009 at 23:18.
hajj_3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th July 2009, 23:17   #99  |  Link
benwaggoner
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,769
Quote:
Originally Posted by hajj_3 View Post
So to re-iterate a 64bit silverlight would be very helpful for netbooks and would force adobe to bring out a 64bit flash far earlier than their 18month approx current timeframe which would lead to 64bit browsers.
Well, I don't know if 64-bit browsing really would make that much of a performance benefit for Netbooks. And if we're worried about Netbook performance, there are other things we could do that would help 32-bit and 64-bit OS users on Netbooks by a bigger factor than 64-bit native relative to the dev/test cost.

Not to say we're not going to do it, or not going to do it on any particular schedule. I'm just tring to explain how we weigh things in figuring out the feature list for particular releases.

Oh, and here's some SL3 media info from me:
http://on10.net/blogs/benwagg/My-Sil...amingMediacom/
__________________
Ben Waggoner
Principal Video Specialist, Amazon Prime Video

My Compression Book
benwaggoner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th July 2009, 23:25   #100  |  Link
hajj_3
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,124
do you have any info on whether MS has decided to integrate h264 or theora in IE9? The other browser vendors have already decided but there doesn't seem to be any information on the internet of what MS has decided to do, with a 60% browser share and plenty of money to pay for h264 licensing costs, especially with windows7 already having h264 support in WMP11. Or maybe you could pass on my query to a colleague from a relevant department.

If MS does decide to integrate h264 in IE9 and h264 becomes a standard in a future HTML standard then i presume silverlight will still carry on as h264 wont have gpu decoding support or anything i PRESUME?
hajj_3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
flash, h.264, silverlight

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 19:17.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.