I've been saying for ages that the differences in implementations are bigger than between codec standards in the abstract. I got bored yesterday, and did a test encode comparing the best live WMV encode from the launch encoder compared to today's latest Expression Encoder 2 using the VC-1 Encoder SDK.

Here it is, in both Silverlight and direct links:

http://on10.net/blogs/benwagg/What-a-difference-a-half-decade-makes-Live-VC-1-today-and-at-launch/

Plus you can find out what this pretty graph means :):

http://on10.net/Link/0fb41c00-566e-40d8-a5a1-bf822c8005fc/

I've been saying for ages that the differences in implementations are bigger than between codec standards in the abstract. I got bored yesterday, and did a test encode comparing the best live WMV encode from the launch encoder compared to today's latest Expression Encoder 2 using the VC-1 Encoder SDK.

Are codec implementation improvements also occurring with mpeg-2? how many mbits per second for 640x360 for this movie would be required to get rid of the artificacts, when >8?

Are codec implementation improvements also occurring with mpeg-2?
Yes, although the pace of those improvements have slowed down in recent years.

how many mbits per second for 640x360 for this movie would be required to get rid of the artificacts, when >8?
If I did an offline 2-pass VBR encode, 600 Kbps would look pretty darn good; live encoding is about as hard as compression gets.

For live, 1500 Kbps would probably be pretty flawless. But I'd have to try and see. That source file is the same I linked to last month if anyone would like to try their own hand at it.

what about for 1920x1080, offline encode. Since 1920x1080 is 9x 640x360, would 9x600kbps=5.4kbps be sufficient for "pretty darn good" for HD?

I have TWC cable, and they seem to use 15-19kbps for HDTV, 1920x1080, using the older mpeg-2 codec, and blu-ray, which uses all codecs, and usually >20mbps bit rates.

what about for 1920x1080, offline encode. Since 1920x1080 is 9x 640x360, would 9x600kbps=5.4kbps be sufficient for "pretty darn good" for HD?

I have TWC cable, and they seem to use 15-19kbps for HDTV, 1920x1080, using the older mpeg-2 codec, and blu-ray, which uses all codecs, and usually >20mbps bit rates.
Well, TWC is going to use real-time CBR encoding, not high quality offline VBR, so the quality is going to be more like the original demo. Of course, the bits per pixel required for a given quality level goes down somewhat as the image size goes up, as there's less detail per pixel.

If I did an offline 2-pass VBR encode, 600 Kbps would look pretty darn good; live encoding is about as hard as compression gets.

For live, 1500 Kbps would probably be pretty flawless. But I'd have to try and see. That source file is the same I linked to last month if anyone would like to try their own hand at it.

Where can I procure this encoder?

Where can I procure this encoder?
Right here:

http://www.microsoft.com/expression/products/Overview.aspx?key=encoder

It's $199, and a 30-day trial is available.

If I downloaded this would it improve the picture qaulity of my netflix watchnow

If I downloaded this would it improve the picture qaulity of my netflix watchnow
Not at this point; Netflix current uses the Windows Media Player SDK. They have shown some demos of their future Silverlight player, which would take advantage of these improvements.

Not at this point; Netflix current uses the Windows Media Player SDK. They have shown some demos of their future Silverlight player, which would take advantage of these improvements.

Thanks anyway I thought I just came up.