seems there are some problems with the standardisation of VC-1 (derived from M$'s wmv9):
read more here
Now, there is speculation that delays or licensing problems for VC-1 could prompt either — or both — of the DVD industry groups to simply delete the Microsoft technology from their specifications.
What's bad about this?
For those who don't want to read it all, choice quotes are:
But now that the WMV9-based VC-1 has been put to the test in the arduous SMPTE standardization process, VC-1 is quot;perceived as behind in quality and behind in licensing terms, compared to H.264/MPEG-4 AVC,quot; one source said.
Microsoft has given the impression that its WMV9 and SMPTE's VC-1 are one and the same, but there are differences. Windows Media includes many things that are not part of VC-1, including digital rights management, metadata, a playlist and a user interface. VC-1 is purely a video compression algorithm.
The test bit streams currently provided by Microsoft are not enough, one critic said. quot;There are elements in a VC-1 bit stream, provided by Microsoft, that are simply not there.quot;
And simply: quot;Microsoft knows better than thatquot; yeah...right.
-Nic
To me this news is bad. I'm not a Microsoft hater. I really like WMV9, and I thought it had a bright future. Now I'm not so sure...
Now, there is speculation that delays or licensing problems for VC-1 could prompt either — or both — of the DVD industry groups to simply delete the Microsoft technology from their specifications.
Oh please pretty please let that come true.
Not to be a M$ 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.
I hope too M$ won't become the standart on that.
Isnt this:
quot;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,quot; 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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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. quot;There are elements in a VC-1 bit stream, provided by Microsoft, that are simply not there.quot;
furthermore, how can test bit streams be produced or decoded without a reference decoder/encoder
ill stop nowAnd? 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.
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.
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
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. quot;There are elements in a VC-1 bit stream, provided by Microsoft, that are simply not there.quot;
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?
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. |
Post at 2011-4-15 14:53
| This Author's Posts Only
