RSSMicrosoft VC-1 Codec Now a Standard
By Nate Mook | Published April 3, 2006, 4:47 PM
The VC-1 video codec proposed and developed by Microsoft was officially released by the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers on Monday, paving the way for the technology to be used by next-generation DVDs. Microsoft submitted the Windows Media Video 9-based codec for standardization in September 2003.
Microsoft's rationale for embracing standards was to provide the industry with better access to high-quality video compression. This move would for allow easier adoption of Windows Media, as companies would no longer be forced to contact Microsoft directly. Devices such as home video cameras or set top boxes can natively support VC-1, without Redmond's direct approval.
Licensing fees will still be required through the SMPTE, and Microsoft will receive royalties for the use of its patents.
A number of companies have already implemented VC-1, including MovieBeam and Modeo, a live TV streaming service for cell phones and other portable devices. VC-1 has also been selected for inclusion in both HD DVD and Blu-ray. Warner Bros. Studio already announced its intention to encode movies in the VC-1 format.
Still, the over two-year process to standardize WMV9 as VC-1 was not easy, explained Peter Symes, SMPTE Engineering Vice President. "The work was contentious at times, and initially some people thought that SMPTE would just 'rubber stamp' the Microsoft document. In fact, many individuals and organizations contributed to the final documents over the two-year development period," he said.
Over 120 individuals representing over 75 media and entertainment companies took part in the process. Microsoft contributed encoder and decoder source code to SMPTE, along with other documentation and resources.
"The SMPTE VC-1 standard went through a very rigorous and formal open due process procedure involving committee members from all segments of the Media, Entertainment and Computer industries” added Mike Dolan of Television Broadcast Technology (TBT), who chaired the main ad hoc committee. "This process has resulted in a clear, comprehensive and completely open standard for development of compressed video bitstreams."
Microsoft's WMV9 format now becomes an implementation of the VC-1 standard.
Redmond competitors RealNetworks and Apple have beaten down the path of standardization as well. Apple is pushing for MPEG-4, which forms the basis of its own QuickTime format, to dominate as the next generation multimedia standard. MPEG-4 will also be a supported format on both HD DVD and Blu-ray discs.
Those defending VC-1 (WMV9) telling that's better than H.264 (MPEG-4 Part 10) either don't know what they are talking about or are Microsoft employees,indeed.
The DiVX 3.11Alpha "hack" actually was Microsoft MPEG-4 based Codec.... WMV9 is an evolution of that Microsoft MPEG-4 codec, nothing more than that.
Microsoft is cheating as usual.
Score: 0
|H.264 main profile offers noticeably better compression than VC1, but requires about 70% more CPU power to decode. That's VERY significant for cell phones/PDAs and fairly significant for laptops. H.264 base profile compresses a little bit better than VC1, and requires a little more CPU power (~15%).
It's good to have choices.
Background material: http://eetimes.com/news/...tml?articleID=184417360
Score: 0
|Completely unnecessary. We already have H.264.
Score: 0
|H. 264 is pretty processor intensive compared to WMV9. They both look great and I doubt given a blind, so to speak, well designed test many people would realibly be able to tell which was which.
Score: 0
|The difference between the two is pretty minimal, and H.264 looks better. Given that we've got dual core processors and GPUs that decode video in hardware, it's kind of silly to complain about a 10% performance difference between VC-1 and H.264.
264 made it out first. VC-1 is unnecessary in light of that.
Score: 0
|WMV9 has been around for quite some time. It might have just gotten SMPTE approval but it's not new. Anyway by your "first" logic, I guess all we need are black Ford Model T's.
Also "H264 looks better?" Better at what? What resolution, what bandwidth, what frame rates? You've said nothing because you apparently have nothing to base your information on but some sort of obvious bias.
Score: 0
|Do a web search for "Video Compression: Evaluating System Tradeoffs with H.264, VC1, and other Advanced Codecs"
The link you find will take you to a 55 minute video seminar that explains things a bit. You will need to do a free registration.
Score: 0
|Or not: http://www.bugmenot.com/
Score: 0
|Actually, I have a VC-1 DVD, which I bought like two years ago (Terminator 2 WMVHD). The picture is unbelievably good on my 1920x1200 native resolution monitor. I guess H.264 wasn't necessary since we already had WMVHD years ago?
Score: 0
|Well...I guess you don't want to learn anything. It's a CMP seminar and it's actually pretty informative.
Score: 0
|Well then your eyes are clearly better than mine since you can actually see a perceptible difference in the two. Not everyone has dual-core processors now, either, so performance does and always will matter.
Score: 0
|You're missing my point: H.264 was standardized before VC-1. That's where I'm getting "H.264 was here first" from.
As for H.264 looking better, compare VC-1 video samples to H.264 video samples. VC-1 is pretty good, but comparing 720p H.264 to VC-1 shows that H.264 looks better--to me, anyway.
Score: 0
|... Indeed, the penetration of dual core processors isn't the point right now. The fact is, most people will be introduced to the HD media center via Windows Vista. Most people upgrade their OS when buying a new computer. By the time Vista comes out, and by the time most people upgrade, dual core will be standard, and the relative performance of H.264 and VC-1 will be meaningless: they'll both be perfectly servicable.
Score: 0
|What's Xvid based on? It has higher quality images and lower processor usage than both, so lets just kill all the standards and make everything unprotected Xvid content!
Score: 0
|Send me a link to your comparisons if they are on the web. If not, please tell me how you came upon a 720p comparison of the same material encoded by a third party.
Score: 0
|You should check
http://www.compression.r...decs_comparison_en.html - this is subjective comparison. Generally everyone SEE difference :)
Need codec for slow processors? Use DivX or XVid . Need codec for fast processors? Use x264.
There's no need for VC-1, WMV 9 or anything like that.
Also, as it was said before, mainprofile H.264 is much easer to decode and could be used on many almost-slow or not-that-fast devices. And to decode H.264 Highprofile you need only ~1Ghz+ proc, and also many new GPUs have built-in H.264 support. That's why H.264 is so...actual.
Score: 0
|Desides, totally agree with you
Tried it, Tested it
Score: 0
|AVC is already there, noone needs this WMV9 based crappy VC-1 codec to be used.
Note: mpeg-4 is not owned by apple and it is not only apple who is pushing the standard, nero used mpeg-4 too and it has been much better than wmv9 which became just a standard.
Why does MS have to mess everything up
for more info check these links:
http://www.iis.fraunhofe...echinf/mpeg4/index.html
http://www.mpegif.org/
Score: 0
|So what do you base your "crappy VC-1 codec" comment on? Have you done some high end encoding of HD content or other video content with all the codecs and have some experiences to share? And just what in your links is so compelling?
If you are going to post an opinion...have something more than the word "crappy" to back up your views.
Score: 0
|He just searches for all the posts with Microsoft in them, and assumes everything MS does, is evil.
VC1 and H264 can live together, they are not aimed at the same audience. H264 requires more CPU to decode, VC1 is more suitable for mobile devices.
Score: 0
|Dude! You are my new BetaNews Hero! Thank you! :)
Score: 0
|whoa dude, best bashing ever :) ....
*** thumbs-up ***
now for mr. UTAKER
how'bout a nice warm cup of STFU
Score: 0
|FYI: yes i have done the high end encoding and decoding!
Score: 0
|and how about you know some technical details before opening up your mouth?
Score: 0
|EU now bans HDDVD and BluRay.
Score: 0
|The only concern I have is about image and audio quality. If it's okay, then I have no issues with it.
Besides I have no plans to go for a BluRay / HD DVD player for many years yet. I can't see anyone else rushing out to by them either, when you can pick up a usuable DVD player in the local supermarket for less than £20!
Score: 0
|LOL!!!! That would be halarious.
Score: 0
|Yah, not to mention, the image quality wouldnt look any better on my 12 year old (and counting) tv in the family room which refuses to die.
Score: 0
|LOL @ refuses to die... it knows you want it to... you gotta nurture it... make it think you love it. Then it will try to sucker punch you with a repair bill, and you dodge it and follow-up with an uppercut flat-panel TV! :) Plasma takes the crown!
Score: 0
|what ???
whats that EU .... ???
you need whose media player to view your dvds ???
PFFF...PFFFFFFFFWAHAHAHAHAH ....
Score: 0
|MPlayer!
VideoLan!
Media Player Classic!
Windows Media Player!*
*May not support some platforms.
Besides, if MS did even a half-decent job(as many people have alone), then all codecs are still installed and working - just the front-end media player is gone.
But we all know how well MS does things. :)
Score: 0
|