VC-1 Codec

[SQ]

So, long story short I stumbled around Microsoft's website and found VC-1.
Link here. + Wiki entry.

I was wondering if anyone had any validity to these claims(it being a 'better' codec than h.264). I mean, I know that when most people see a .wmv container, they pretty much assume it's gonna suck and continue forward, but I don't care about that stupid stereotype.

Wiki entry says ffmpeg project is working on a free version of this codec. Do you think when they do this the wmv container may become a little more acceptable?

I was debating if this belonged in here or general AMV and I decided... here.. Since i was looking more on opinions of how well the codec works and how good it is rather than just if the AMV crowd might adopt it or not.

[Kionon]

A container is a container is a container.

I've seen some pretty high quality stuff come in WMV, but the size is large.

If the file is a wmv and it's under twenty megabytes, then I predict the worst.

[trythil]

Wiki entry says ffmpeg project is working on a free version of this codec. Do you think when they do this the wmv container may become a little more acceptable?

The VC-1 decoder has been completed (also see here), but I've yet not seen WMV adoption in the AMV community taking off. Maybe this development just needs time to propagate out, but I don't think it's the answer.

WMV has a pretty nasty double stigma: it has a reputation for looking bad (not always true) and for being hostile to other platforms (still true). Microsoft's name being attached to anything also has a very strong polarizing effect.

If you think you can figure out a way to overcome those problems, go for it.

[SQ]

If I were to encode to vc-1 and use the wmv containe,r would other people(with Windows Media Player installed) be able to view it without downloading anything extra?

I encoded to MS' mpeg4v2 codec in an avi container and ran into a problem of a lot of people having to download the thing manually to play it back.

Since MS said it has been integrated into wmv9(if I read that right, I'm not incredibly tech savvy) shouldn't anyone with WMP10+ be able to play this automatically?

[trythil]

If I were to encode to vc-1 and use the wmv containe,r would other people(with Windows Media Player installed) be able to view it without downloading anything extra?

See here: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/window ... patibility

[SQ]

Oho, sweet.

Hopefully I can experiment with this potential awesome in the near future.

[SQ]

Well, while I'm here, Any ideas on the best codec for streaming?
I know flv is really taking off, but otherwise is it still wmv and/or asf?

[Willen]

If I were to encode to vc-1 and use the wmv containe,r would other people(with Windows Media Player installed) be able to view it without downloading anything extra?

I encoded to MS' mpeg4v2 codec in an avi container and ran into a problem of a lot of people having to download the thing manually to play it back.

Since MS said it has been integrated into wmv9(if I read that right, I'm not incredibly tech savvy) shouldn't anyone with WMP10+ be able to play this automatically?

You could stick it into a MKV container, but people would need the file/media splitter installed. AND, iirc, it is possible to cram VC-1 into an AVI file (hell, if people can get H.264 into AVI...).

As for streaming, MPEG-4 SP/ASP (DivX/XviD/3ivX/etc.) is doable, depending on the resolution and bitrate (it is what the codec was originally designed for, along with its original container MP4). See also H.263.

[Keeper of Hellfire]

M$ VC1 imitates h.264 and that way it offers good quality. But in my experience it isn't much better than XviD 1.1.

I wouldn't give too much trust in Microsofts claims, for example:

C'T Magazine, Germany's premier audio-video magazine, compared various codec standards—including VC-1, H.264, and MPEG-4—and selected VC-1 as producing the best subjective and objective quality for HD video.

c't isn't Germany's premier audio-video magazine, it's the premier computer magazine. M$ doesn't tell the issue of the c't magazine, so it's hard to find and read the article to find out what MPEG4 and h.264 implementations were compared with VC1. There exist hughe quality differences between the several implementations. And maybe newer tests show worse results for VC1.

[Zero1]

Just stick with H.264; it's better quality, an open standard and by the MPEG/ITU; and as anyone who has encountered a video file will know, MPEG have been around a long time and know what they are doing.

H.264 + AAC in MP4 ftw