It is the MP3 of video. Except that it isn't being used significantly my major content producers. Not a lot of content from commercial publishing is released in mp3 either.
I hate to nitpick but it really makes it hard to take your arguments as unbiased. It gives the whole thing a bit of a playground namecalling flavor.
It's a fact of the media and consumer electronics industry that a technology such as a codec needs to be adopted and governed by an industry organization.
Microsoft is certainly not the first company ever to take its proprietary technology and open it up to standardization. Control of what? It's already been established here that Microsoft has little more to gain financially by supporting VC-1 than it does by supporting H.
It doesn't own VC-1 standardization nor licensing. Microsoft's chief investment into VC-1 right now is into its encoder implementation. You're speculating, or at the very least misintepreting Ben's words.
Nobody ever said that and it's certainly not true. In fact, I would like to point out that an H. The fact that it hasn't yet made it into a standard Windows release has been more a result of tight schedules and strict release guidelines than of some conspiracy plot to thwart H. Vista DXVA 2. Future releases of Windows are pretty much guaranteed to have some form of H.
And let me remind you that you are now recklessly speculating. I hate to be blunt, but that's a pretty ridiculous statement - which once again doesn't do any favors to your many other valid arguments presented thus far. Do you seriously think Microsoft would've put all its money and resources into producing the Zune only so it could secure support for a codec standard it doesn't own in a market of limited product penetration just compare the number of portable media player owners to the number of people who own cell phones or PCs?
Right, because if H. Sorry, but in my opinion having multiple codec standards benefits the consumer by urging the codec implementers to continually keep improving their quality and efficiency.
No, but the cost to plan, develop, test and support Ogg Vorbis might be. Technology resources might be free, but human resources aren't. And for what? But Ogg Vorbis? Yeah, not so much.
This wasn't entirely without merit - codecs such as Voxware were notorious for having memory leaks and bugs which their parent company never bothered to fix. I'm not saying it was a decision which benefited WMP users, but it certainly wasn't entirely unwarranted. Well, I think you both have a point. MPEG-2 is still the de facto standard for digital broadcasting, archiving, digital tape storage, etc.
Personally I think VC-1 is useless; its only advantage is lower playback processor requirement, which it gets at the cost of a massive loss in quality or better said, a much higher bitrate required for the same quality. And with computers constantly getting faster, a lower processor requirement becomes a useless feature in the long-term.
Yet without competition, we'd probably still be using something like VP3. So in that sense, VC-1 for the win.
If so, from a technical standpoint, what's the use of VC-1? If that's the case, one would assume VC-1 would then have a clear edge. It'd be interesting to see a real test though. XviD HD encodes at reasonable bitrates and the decoding is lightning fast. ASP seems to do the trick just fine. And no, I'm not saying VC-1 is a superior design over H. Rather than make sweeping "codec X is better than codec Y" statements, I think it's far more appropriate to evaluate every codec in a specific encoding context.
Eh i don't find it ok sure VP3 isn't better as VC-1 but the time it was released it was a match for Mpeg-4 ASP and ON2 allways fought against multi billion dollar companies and Open Sourced VP3 for Theora with less resources and does great if you ask me just look the flash deal it's research is top and now look the size of Microsoft Research and Compare it with On2 hehe ; also Real Video is based on H.
Btw do you know why Bill Gates has this Vision of the Future and why he writes so cool books about it is because he stands at the first line with MS Research and gathers all his Intel about the Future from them :P it's not our Future he Visionizes it's the Future MS Research creates for him.
I'd assume so at first, too, but There are claims by some members of this board Sagittaire that x at some of its lowest or fastest quality settings decisively outperforms XviD at its slowest and best. You're right, it would be very interesting to see if these claims hold, and if Baseline AVC the stuff I was talking about is as good as max-quality XviD.
Cruncher, I always feel like I'm going to run out of breath when reading your posts. What is the size of On2's codec team? What is the size of Microsoft's codec team? I know the answer to that second question - but I'm curious if you do, since you seem to be comparing one against the other.
Not sure how though. While it's easy to think of Microsoft as one bottomless pool of people and cash, one has to understand that individual product teams within Microsoft are always finite in their resources. That's just a classic case of MS being unable to get its PR act together. One has nothing to do with the other. What is your complaint about Dashboard AVC playback anyway? Hint: Long after H.
Dark Shikari yes i know that but that wasn't my point my poin't was that VP7 would have been existed anyways but you compare VP3 with VC-1 that's strange and even if VC-1 wouldn't exist VP7 would as it is a direct contender to H.
And what does Microsoft to compensate such things and that since years they buy other innovative companies with such brains in them like Seadragon,iview Not sure why you're making a connection between MS Research and Xbox Dashboard. See the question about max bit rate, resolution, and frames per second. Those restrictions sound to me like you haven't your own Design under Controll and are sorry to say blind to improve it it really sounds ridicoulus for what the Power this Machine has and o wonder is able to playback HD-DVD bitrates 30 Mbps from the HD-DVD Player or are these values only for DVD-Drive playback this i could understand but nothing is mentioned of HDD or DVD drive in this faq so the moment Sonys PS3 seemes less restricted in Video Playback Power then the Xbox to me sad sad ; Why do you think people create firmware hacks or try to run Linux, yes lifting such restrictions is the answer, because the Power of these machines allows more and to see that the Vendor that creates them doesn't make fully use of them is hurting some people you can call them Home Researchers ;.
It was designed to be a good codec, not to beat any particular existing standard :. Okay, challenge accepted :. Let me know when your comparative clip is avaliable. I hope that Manao or Sagitaire can make a good "encoding" answer.
And I hope that the Ateme team good developper can answer too by a nice encoding file Ben, you can find on this forum trailer of Batman Begins x encoded two years ago in h ateme at 3Mbps.
Elephant Dreams coded by x p24 2Mbps may be better than vc1;. Of course, the longer it takes, the better our encoder will get in the interim The version everyone is working with is over a year old at this point, and there's no reason to expect we aren't advancing as fast as x :. Elephant Dreams coded by x p24 2Mbps may be better than vc1; Would you happen to have a valid link to this encode? The version everyone is working with is over a year old at this point, and there's no reason to expect we aren't advancing as fast as x : Mind providing an updated encoder preferably simple exe so we can actually test it against the "new guys?
Well I can make that quickly with x at p. But you don't use the best possible VC1 implementation here. I think that VC1 can produce very better result at 2 Mbps. From which version of Elephant's Dream did you create your encode? So that people are working from the same source. Also, aside from peak bitrate which has some rationale, why should the same settings e.
Average bitrate at Kbps for video. Peak bitrate at Kbps with large buffer. Well I think that here Rate Control is unrestricted with these parameters. Less blocking for high motion. More Sharp too I think. It's really quick encoding with x with classic profil and without particular optimisation. The only thing I've been able to find is 22G worth of individual png files.
Which would clearly be the highest quality source to work from, but 22G is a large chunk of my monthly bandwidth quota to use up. Where can I download that? Yeah, I just used the released codec since it was mainly as a tutorial about using the registry keys with it. Assuming some good H. Better to make that for my challenge at p I'll go back and do a new one with the new codec. Again with this new codec no one can use?
How is it a fair testing environment without all candidates available? How do we even know the results aren't "doctored" or specifically tailored to this source clip? Provide the codec you used please, benwaggoner.
Sorry, just reading through posts backwards in my hotel room :. I'm travelling today, but I'll download it tomorrow. I obviously can't release an in-progress binary if that's what you're asking :. The codec will be included in commercial products before long, so you'll be able to get your hands on it.
Also, for codecs, the real conformance point is the bitstream, right? Even if it isn't clear how a clip was made, it's still a valid test. But I understand your concern, and will provide as many details as I can. And you can feel free to ignore it if you wish :. Hi Ben, are you sure you can do better with VC1?
I read your weblink, you're " an expert in video compression ". H is more efficient than VC1. Can't let this thread die just yet. Too important! I have a question for the two reps from Microsoft. Furthermore it was childish, stupid and unprofessional of me. My apologies. However, even though you and Ben are perfect gentlemen, and I've been very impressed, unfortunately that's the only thing I agree with you.
I still say that VC-1 is not beneficial at all to the industry - basically there for Microsoft's profitable objectives. Yes, it's an "open standard" but it was initially implemented for competitive reasons, not to improve upon an existing standard. Even as an "open standard" Microsoft still stands to gain through branding, positioning and leverage with VC It's not hard to see this as a marketer. No, there's no room for VC-1 and H.
Yes, there's multiformats of others, but for a reason - called progress. VC-1 is NOT progress - it's fragmentation. But I have one question if you can answer it. If VC-1 is truly an "open standard" that MS has "no control" over, can you at least convince me that they are not biased towards it?
Never mind what they package with Windows for now, but if Microsoft is truly respectful of standards, truly being a good sumaritan out there, then why don't they also create an implementation for H. It is, after all, a standard, something that should be ingrained in an operating system at least, and would redeem them somewhat if they truly don't have profitable intentions, or market leverage, with VC How about their version of H.
I still say Zune's position is for "format" - an indirectly profitable strategy for MS, much more so than "selling portables" So, if they have the right intentions with respect to standards, and the "MS MO" isn't stealing, or anything else untoward, and according to you apparently have the capabilities of making great codecs, what's stopping Microsoft from embracing this wonderful standard of H.
You say there's a place for both of them right? Prove it. Which they? Of course we're biased towards it :. But not in any way that would preclude emperical analysis. We do have H. But there's a really high bar to include anything in Windows, especially due to test cost that's a WHOLE lot of fuzz testing, performance tuning, etcetera. VC-1 was designed to be the codec we wanted for the PC ecosystem. Still, consumers who want to play back H. Also, we certainly would like to have our VC-1 efforts be profitable.
But that's true for everyone selling H. You overestimate how importing digital media formats themselves are to Microsoft if you think we'd engage on something as big as the Zune with THAT as the primary goal! By combining 8x8 dct, lowered inloop strength, encoder-side grain retention tweaks such as deadzone in x , and CAVLC, H. The existing WMV9 implementation might competely blow the reference JM software out of the water, and optimized VC-1 implementations might exist someday, but compared to all of the existing commercial implementations of H.
Licensing costs seem to trump hardware encoding and decoding costs, anyway, making dual formats a very unattractive proposition. Although the standard is here to stay, it seems like you've entrenched into a position that will leave you permanently playing runner-up, outside of initial successes of pushing it for HD-DVD clients.
You probably would have had even greater success building an advanced H. But I guess you have your investments sunk and can't very well pull out now, which is understandable.
It just sucks that the market will be more fragmented now. The main things it didn't were 2-tap chroma H and VC1 have identical chroma mc, except that VC1's mvs are rounded to qpel while H uses 8thpel.
Thanks for your response Ben. I think the industry would have been very welcoming of an MS version of H. All current implementations of H. All in the name of greed It's hardly greed codec licensing is a rounding error at best for revenue for a compay like Microsoft.
We've had our Windows Media stategy for years, and a big installed base of players to support. Introducing a new codec implementation would force another, painful, multi-year cycle of upgrades to get everyone up to speed. At best, it'd take a year or two before we could have more customers using a new codec, meaning we'd have to split our development and test resources during that period. And H. Given VC-1 and H. Plus we promised when WM9 was released that we'd stick with those core codecs for at least five years.
Nice so the codec will finish soon ; WMV9 release There's plenty of room for improvements within VC-1 still. Ah, scalable codecs.
As for MPEG-7, that's pretty agnostic about format, despite the name. I mean MPEG-4 systems. So the VC-1 codec in a. Of course, it wouldn't be compatible with any existing players, and it's not like any of the innovative things around the MPEG-4 file format e. BIFS ever came to fruitiion. Of course, it wouldn't be compatible with any existing players. Not sure, some hardware players may play it. Let me know what you find out.
The spec is only a few months old, so I'm not sure if there are shipping products using it yet. However the lack of industry support for VC-1 isn't only caused by technical reasons in my opinion. Now comparing H. The real point is to compare implementations. Absolutely not of course : And I don't even mention that implementations are improving with time.
Finally all can be said is that at the present time the best implementation of standard "A" is better than the best implementation of standard "B" for the application "C". Make you own choice for "A", "B" and "C" ;. How I can find the stream from Kyrion? Google used to drop H. But later, it gets the support back in Chrome It enables interoperability with most video-capable mobile devices and browsers, which is great for industry acceptance.
You can use it for P2P video calls, and integrate audio, video, and text communication within a web or mobile application in real-time. But H.
And in return, QuickTime embraced open standards and built H. The primary reason was that AVC delivered the best video quality at that time while at a much lower data rate than its peers. Another reason for H. And Apple was planning to join this trend and take the lead in the market of H.
Of course yes. Apple promised to build H. For example, SlideShare, and many other programs that utilize the QuickTime architecture can use the H. This is a question that should have been asked 10 years ago. As for now, modern devices surely meet its hardware requirements as it is a universal standard codec in our digital life. And an Internet-sized content at 40kbps - kbps runs on the most basic of processors, like those in smartphones and consumer-level computers.
As mentioned above that H. And MP4 usually refers to a video format or format container. YouTube officially claims that the best video formats is MP4 with H. So you have to deal with the video bitrate carefully to reduce quality loss as much as possible. And it provides integrated support for both video transmission and storage. You might or might noticed that it has been adopted in all most all multi-media fields:.
MEPG A method of defining compression of both video and audio data. It consists of several standards parts. MPEG-4 Part is one of them and used to define video compression. Will H. This is a question we'll ask every time new codecs come up but never settled down. Some thought it might be replaced by HEVC. But as for the year , AVC still has its place. And Plex still only transcodes to H. In retrospect, plenty of video codecs are knocked out, such as H. At least now H.
And it is reasonable to predict that when codecs wtih a higher compression ratio went viral on every application and device, the battlefield would turn to the patent pool. But, as some talents have developed open source encoders x. Just wait and see whether it can survive in the next video codec revolution. Cecilia Hwung is the marketing manager of Digiarty Software and the editor-in-chief of VideoProc team. She pursues common progress with her team and expects to share more creative content and useful information to readers.
She has strong interest in copywriting and rich experience in video editing tips. Create cinematic videos and beyond. Pavtube ByteCopy. Related Articles. What You May be Interested. Free Trial. Tweet 0. Popular Topics. Pavtube Youtube. New media comments. Plex Disc BD-R. Princo DVD-R. Kodak BD-R. Copystars BD-R. Newest guides. Top ffmpeg lossless commands. How does a video codec work? How to capture anything with Obs Studio.
0コメント