What is the dominant codec between HD/BR? [Text View]

WirelessGuru

01-26-08, 09:13 PM

I would venture that VC-1 is designed for use on a PC whereas AVC is designed for use in broadcast HD. CABAC may get just 5% extra efficiency, but in the world of broadcast HD where bandwidth is at a premium it makes a difference.

As for a third more efficient, I would say that VC-1 uses less than half of the computing power that AVC requires at equivalent bitrates without any GPU assist, but that is what VC-1 is designed for.I'm confused... Why would AVC be optimized for broadcast television by being less efficient with mathmatical algorithims used? Doesn't the codec still need to be decoded client side? So, the cable operators may be able to squeeze in one more channel by using AVC, but the consumer will end up flipping the bill by having to support higher priced client side processing.

I'm not saying VC-1 is necessarily better either. It seems there is give and take. But honestly, you and Amir are both so delusional about your own projects concepts that AVS is just a big marketing billboard for your products with enthusiasts having to sift through all the slanted commentary and make decisions for themselves. Therefore I'm not sure what purpose insiders serve to this community any longer. Every thread lately has gone from consumers fighting about Blu-Ray vs HD DVD to insiders fighting (and less civily at times) about whose product is superior.

I've had enough. :mad:

amirm

01-26-08, 09:25 PM

I would venture that VC-1 is designed for use on a PC whereas AVC is designed for use in broadcast HD.
And that would be a dead wrong assumption :). AVC was designed so that there could be an "open" standard to compete with then Real Networks and Microsoft codecs for streaming on the web. For this reason, tremendous focus was put on CIF (quarter resolution SD) in development of the standard. This is why AVC did so poorly for HD testing in DVD forum tests. Later, a profile was quickly added (HP) to compensate for this.

As for broadcast, higher computational complexity makes it a lot harder to build a good real-time encoder. So a lot of implementattions take short-cuts to get real-time. The stream is still compatible but not of optimal quality as you might have in a software solution.

CABAC may get just 5% extra efficiency, but in the world of broadcast HD where bandwidth is at a premium it makes a difference.
VC-1 achieves the same efficiency but uses different algorithms to get there. It is a bit like using an 8-cylinder car to compete with a 6-cylinder with supercharging. Both can put out the same horsepower and torque but the latter will be lighter and potentially use less fuel. That is the VC-1 story.

As for a third more efficient, I would say that VC-1 uses less than half of the computing power that AVC requires at equivalent bitrates without any GPU assist, but that is what VC-1 is designed for.
Not sure what the backhanded compliment is about. VC-1 was designed and used in Digital Cinema on 30 foot screens while AVC was being finished for CIF applications (320x240). This is why we are able to perform so well. We tuned and optimized its ability to scale so well and at the same time, needed to make it very efficient so that it would run with no hardware assist on existing PCs.

amirm

01-26-08, 09:29 PM

I'm not saying VC-1 is necessarily better either. It seems there is give and take. But honestly, you and Amir are both so delusional about your own projects concepts that AVS is just a big marketing billboard for your products with enthusiasts having to sift through all the slanted commentary and make decisions for themselves. Therefore I'm not sure what purpose insiders serve to this community any longer. Every thread lately has gone from consumers fighting about Blu-Ray vs HD DVD to insiders fighting (and less civily at times) about whose product is superior.

I've had enough. :mad:
While I appreciate the sentimens (I do, really :) ), one of us backs opinions with math and technology descriptions: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9931723&&#post9931723

Ultimately, if you want to be free of insider spin, you need to invest in the time and energy to understand what makes these things tick. Alas, these are complicated technologies and while I have on many occasions attempted to distill them down to layman terms, there is only so much that can be simplified. Invest the energy to learn them though, and you will be ahead of 99% of the people here....

Kram Sacul

01-26-08, 09:40 PM

Maxpower1987

01-26-08, 09:53 PM

Kram Sacul

01-26-08, 10:00 PM

Exactly. There shouldn't be a difference.

Maxpower1987

01-26-08, 10:37 PM

And that would be a dead wrong assumption :). AVC was designed so that there could be an "open" standard to compete with then Real Networks and Microsoft codecs for streaming on the web. For this reason, tremendous focus was put on CIF (quarter resolution SD) in development of the standard. This is why AVC did so poorly for HD testing in DVD forum tests. Later, a profile was quickly added (HP) to compensate for this.

Streaming AVC, YouTube just started using that a month or so ago, I can't think of any others that have it available. High Profile may have been last minute but it is still very competitive with Microsoft's implementation of VC-1/WMV9, I have no doubt that it will remain to be competitive with the amount of competition between different providers AVC.

As for broadcast, higher computational complexity makes it a lot harder to build a good real-time encoder. So a lot of implementattions take short-cuts to get real-time. The stream is still compatible but not of optimal quality as you might have in a software solution.

Open standards vs. WMV9... a lot of politics as you are probably aware.

VC-1 achieves the same efficiency but uses different algorithms to get there. It is a bit like using an 8-cylinder car to compete with a 6-cylinder with supercharging. Both can put out the same horsepower and torque but the latter will be lighter and potentially use less fuel. That is the VC-1 story.

I would rather have the 8 cylinder with the option to supercharge when required, but tbh this isn't the best analogy as both CODECs, IMO, are equivalent for the most part and the only reason VC-1 won't be used in broadcast is that it is based on WMV9 and the politics that it comes with.

Not sure what the backhanded compliment is about. VC-1 was designed and used in Digital Cinema on 30 foot screens while AVC was being finished for CIF applications (320x240). This is why we are able to perform so well. We tuned and optimized its ability to scale so well and at the same time, needed to make it very efficient so that it would run with no hardware assist on existing PCs.

Not a backhanded compliment, I don't really do that kind of stuff. Think about it, if VC-1 and AVC can produce the same image quality at 30Mbps but VC-1 uses half of the computational power of AVC to decode, that really is a good thing and you shouldn't take offense if I point that out...

Maxpower1987

01-26-08, 10:45 PM

I'll say this now, I hope that MS continue to develop PEP and make it easier for post houses to use so that through competitive pressures AVC continues to evolve at a similar rate rather than Thompson, Panasonic, Sony etc... sitting back if MS don't put in the hours.

PEP is a great product and I do believe that the inclusion of VC-1 in the BD spec is worthwhile even if some of the companies involved in the BDA have a greater interest in the successful adoption of H.264/AVC as the next-gen CODEC standard.

I just wish that MS would put as much effort into their new OS as they do into PEP... long live Windows XP! :D

Maxpower1987

01-26-08, 10:58 PM

I'm confused... Why would AVC be optimized for broadcast television by being less efficient with mathmatical algorithims used? Doesn't the codec still need to be decoded client side? So, the cable operators may be able to squeeze in one more channel by using AVC, but the consumer will end up flipping the bill by having to support higher priced client side processing.

They may be less efficient now, but the potential gain is very large, and this can't be ignored for broadcast where a single standard could be in place for 10 or more years. I'm not saying that WMV9 won't get have these kinds of gains, but the biggest problem was that broadcasters figured that there wasn't anything stopping MS from putting the biggest improvements into the next implementation of WMV (WMV10, 11, 12 or whatever MS chooses to name it) which would not have to be compatible with VC-1.

I'm not saying VC-1 is necessarily better either. It seems there is give and take. But honestly, you and Amir are both so delusional about your own projects concepts that AVS is just a big marketing billboard for your products with enthusiasts having to sift through all the slanted commentary and make decisions for themselves. Therefore I'm not sure what purpose insiders serve to this community any longer. Every thread lately has gone from consumers fighting about Blu-Ray vs HD DVD to insiders fighting (and less civily at times) about whose product is superior.

I have absolutely no interest in which CODEC is approved as the next-gen standard, I feel that in this case competition is the way we are going to see improvements in either VC-1 or AVC. I had hoped that the broadcasters would see past the politics of VC-1 and put both in to their spec as both are worthy, so that stations could use either AVC or VC-1, but alas it was not to be..

John Haghighi

01-26-08, 10:58 PM

I just wish that MS would put as much effort into their new OS as they do into PEP... long live Windows XP! :D

Vista SP1 is just fine, you'd be able to post faster if you were running Vista with the somewhat improved TCP stack :D down with XP!

Maxpower1987

01-26-08, 11:02 PM

Vista SP1 is just fine, you'd be able to post faster if you were running Vista with the somewhat improved TCP stack :D down with XP!

XP SP3 is even better.

Ubuntu though, is the One OS to rule them all, One OS to find them, One OS to bring them all and in the darkness bind them...

2Channel

01-27-08, 02:20 AM

snip.......

Open standards vs. WMV9... a lot of politics as you are probably aware.

snip.......

Are you saying that AVC is an open standard but VC1 isn't? Can you expand on that?

dr1394

01-27-08, 05:59 AM

Are you saying that AVC is an open standard but VC1 isn't? Can you expand on that?
Although VC-1 is a SMPTE standard, it's not nearly as open as the H.264 standard. For example, I can download a reference decoder and encoder for H.264 here:

http://iphome.hhi.de/suehring/tml/

I can read about the entire history of H.264 here:

http://ftp3.itu.ch/av-arch/jvt-site/

Including the latest and greatest specification way before it's published by ITU (and for free):

http://ftp3.itu.ch/av-arch/jvt-site/2007_06_Geneva/JVT-X201.zip

And I can participate in a mailing list here:

http://lists.mpegif.org/pipermail/mp4-tech/

The same does not exist for VC-1.

Ron

dp2070sb

01-27-08, 06:56 AM

VC-1 vs. AVC is moot if you have a good analog portion on your display.

Any of the panasonic or pioneer plasma displays over 2K at current market prices will be more than adequate to display great pictures and you'll be hard pressed to distinguish one codec or the other at ~10ft. away.

Maxpower1987

01-27-08, 07:40 AM

Are you saying that AVC is an open standard but VC1 isn't? Can you expand on that?

Like the good doctor says, VC-1 is still a Microsoft backed CODEC, there hasn't been much significant input from any company other than MS, not nearly on the same scale as H.264/AVC.

William

01-27-08, 07:49 AM

Why does MPEG-4/AVC/H.264 have three different names? :confused: Are there any differences (technical, practical, proprietary, or other) at all between them or are they all exactly the same?

Maxpower1987

01-27-08, 08:15 AM

Why does MPEG-4/AVC/H.264 have three different names? :confused: Are there any differences (technical, practical, proprietary, or other) at all between them or are they all exactly the same?

MPEG4 is a generic term, it is also used for Divx ;), Xvid and a bunch of other CODECs but that is MPEG4-Part 2, AVC is shorthand for Advanced Video Coding and H.264 refers to ITU-T name. AVC is MPEG4-Part 10...

The reason that all three names are applicable as it is a joint standard developed by ITU-T, ISO/IEC MPEG.

This isn't my strong suit so I'll let the good doctor or Amir to give a better explanation and for them to point out the many mistakes I probably made getting my standards mixed...

Disclord

01-27-08, 09:05 AM

Disclord

01-27-08, 09:09 AM

Like the good doctor says, VC-1 is still a Microsoft backed CODEC, there hasn't been much significant input from any company other than MS, not nearly on the same scale as H.264/AVC.

Do you think other companies would have something truly valuable to offer to Microsoft in improving VC-1? Or do you think MS is doing as good as it gets?

When a standard is published by SMPTE, does that mean it is then "open" for others to help and improve upon - with compatibility, of course - or does that mean they have just published it and nothing else?

Maxpower1987

01-27-08, 09:53 AM

But, as long as it's not done in a 'nasty' or 'smart-assed' way, don't you want your mistakes corrected? I certainly do - I don't like having and passing along incorrect information. BTW, I'm not trying to be snarky or anything, just honestly asking the question.

I wouldn't have said it if I didn't...

Disclord

01-27-08, 10:06 AM

I wouldn't have said it if I didn't...

Oh, I see - reading it, I took it to mean just the opposite. Of course, that's one of the hazards of the internet!

Maxpower1987

01-27-08, 11:59 AM

Do you think other companies would have something truly valuable to offer to Microsoft in improving VC-1? Or do you think MS is doing as good as it gets?

When a standard is published by SMPTE, does that mean it is then "open" for others to help and improve upon - with compatibility, of course - or does that mean they have just published it and nothing else?

Well as an open spec any company can contribute to it as long as SMPTE think it is a valuable addition to VC-1, atm not many companies are doing so because AVC is so established as the open spec CODEC. Personally I think MS are doing a great job, VC-1 and PEP have come on leaps and bounds from the first HD DVDs that used it.

The reason it was published and opened up was that it would never be considered for use in broadcast or Blu-ray/HD DVD if MS put it forward as WMV9. Part of opening up the spec is that any company can now make a contribution to it if they feel it is a worthy addition, or at least they can put it forwards to SMPTE.

amirm

01-27-08, 12:25 PM

Although VC-1 is a SMPTE standard, it's not nearly as open as the H.264 standard. For example, I can download a reference decoder and encoder for H.264 here:

http://iphome.hhi.de/suehring/tml/
Max, you are making up your own definition here. FHG could go and write a VC-1 encode and decoder tomorrow and offer it on the same site. All you are pointing out here is that someone decided to take the spec and write something to it. As long as the same option is available with VC-1, which it is, then it qualifies for the same.

So it is clear, the industry has three requirements for something being open (which DVD forum enforce):

1. The specification needs to be available to anyone (although a fee for the copyright and such may be applicable). VC-1 SMPTE spec is offered by SMPTE and hence qualifies.

2. The specification must belong to a third-party, trusted organization. This is to avoid having a company be slow or otherwise not cooperative with its competitors. With SMPTE owning the spec (but not the patents -- see #3), this qualifies for VC-1.

3. There must be RAND licensing, preferably through a third-party. MPEG-LA licenses VC-1 through Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory (RAND) terms. Just like it is for MPEG standards.

I can read about the entire history of H.264 here:

http://ftp3.itu.ch/av-arch/jvt-site/
So what? History of VC-1 is some place too.

Including the latest and greatest specification way before it's published by ITU (and for free):

http://ftp3.itu.ch/av-arch/jvt-site/2007_06_Geneva/JVT-X201.zip
That was the policy of ITU. SMPTE is slightly different but it is also an accredited standards forum under the IEEE charter.

And I can participate in a mailing list here:

http://lists.mpegif.org/pipermail/mp4-tech/
And SMPTE had a reflector (mailing list) that went on for nearly two years as the members analyzed the spec and suggested changes and improvements until the standard was ratified. Many companies contributed including some of Microsoft competitors like Sony.

The same does not exist for VC-1.

Ron
Per above, most of it does exist and was required to exist or DVD Forum and BDA would never touch VC-1. They are the toughest judges for this stuff. Last thing any of them wanted was to be beholding to Microsoft. Indeed, every VC-1 implementation I know of, sans Sigma to some extent, was developed independently using the SMPTE spec, in some cases without ever contacting us (e.g. NEC decoder used in Toshiba players). That is the best test of an open standard. Whether you can implement it without any cooperation from the original purveyor.

By the way, SMPTE has a great track record of standardizing technologies developed by companies. For example, SDI which is the standard serial digital interface in every production and broadcast facility was designed by Sony but later opened up in SMPTE. Ditto for DVC-pro tape format from Panasonic, etc. So while you all may not have heard of SMPTE much, its role in Audio and video is far, far greater than that of ITU and MPEG. There is a reason SMPTE stands for Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers and the others are not :).

amirm

01-27-08, 12:52 PM

MPEG4 is a generic term, it is also used for Divx ;), Xvid and a bunch of other CODECs but that is MPEG4-Part 2, AVC is shorthand for Advanced Video Coding and H.264 refers to ITU-T name. AVC is MPEG4-Part 10...

The reason that all three names are applicable as it is a joint standard developed by ITU-T, ISO/IEC MPEG.

This isn't my strong suit so I'll let the good doctor or Amir to give a better explanation and for them to point out the many mistakes I probably made getting my standards mixed...
That's all correct. Here is a more complete history and picture.

There are two major standards bodies for development of video codecs (from scratch). One is MPEG which you all know about and the other ITU. You may not have heard of ITU much but they have developed some of the fundamental codecs which are then used by MPEG variants.

After MPEG-2, there was a long gap until first version of MPEG-4 was developed. During that time, there was this time period where there was pessimism as to whether better codecs could be developed. So MPEG set its sights low on development of a more efficient codec, and got distracted at the “systems layer” attempting to solve world hunger with fancy techniques like object coding. These other features found no use (sadly as Microsoft holds some of the key patents there :) ), so folks started to focus on the core codec. There, they found it to only be 20-30% better than MPEG-2 which was nowhere near good enough to compete with Microsoft and Real Networks on the web.

At the time, Microsoft was very much behind MPEG-4 standardization as our patent position indicates. However, we quickly realized that you don’t get to build the best, if you have to please everyone in the committee. Folks want to be part of the patent pool so that they can make money from it later so you have no choice but to accept submissions which sometimes don’t improve performance. This was the case with one of the final changes to MPEG-4, which somewhat degraded performance yet was the only way to get it ratified. Jaded, and worried that Real Networks would develop something better without being tied to a standard, we also started to develop advanced codecs on our own which the final revision became WMV-9 or VC-1.

Apple adopted MPEG-4 part 2, Jobs claimed it was the best, which of course, it was not. They liked MPEG-4 because Quicktime file format was used as the wrapper for it so they thought they would put their weight behind it. Rest of the industry after a while, moved on, realizing that MPEG-4 was not competitive in this manner. But Divx, as Max mentions, did adopt MPEG-4 since they were in a pickle. I won’t expand why but read the wiki on that and maybe you realize why :).

Meanwhile, Microsoft and Real blaze ahead, leaving MPEG-4 in the dust performance was and deployment wise. ITU realized that they needed to do something here and created the H.264 group to this time go all out. Target was to not worry about implementation cost but to find the best efficiency for internet streaming applications.

Sometime later, MPEG realized that the situation was not good. MPEG-4 was floundering and ITU was pulling ahead technologically. So they got smart and joined forces with ITU to finish that standard. This became known as JVT since it was a “joint” effort. So for a while, we started to call this standard JVT and that is where this other name comes from.

The work eventually finished (under the leadership of Dr. Sullivan from my old team by the way :) ), and folks got really, really clever. What they realized was that despite poor performance, “MPEG-4” was a very catchy name. People had automatically assumed it meant that it was twice as good as MPEG-2 (MPEG-2 * 2 = MPEG-4!). Never mind that the thing was only 30% better. So what better thing to do than to call this new standard, once it was finished, MPEG-4! Who cares that it was a completely different and unrelated thing to the original MPEG-4 spec. Folks know marketing whether they work in MPEG or not :). To keep them a bit clear, the original MPEG-4 was called “Part 2” and this new one, “Part 10.”

Of course, those of us in the industry hated that because no one knew what we were talking about when we said MPEG-4. So folks started to use another name which had started to become popular, namely, AVC.

So there you have it. H.264, JVT, AVC, MPEG-4, MPEG-4 Part 10, all refer to the same thing.

This is also good time to remove another spin from anti-MS people :). MPEG has incredible marketing and deployment power all by itself. In many governments, MPEG has power of “law” meaning people have to use it over alternatives. It also gets automatic entry into other standards without anyone blinking. Many companies use it because “if it is good for everyone else, it is good for me.” The old adage that “you can’t get fired if you buy IBM” very much applies here: “you can’t get fired if you go with MPEG.” Add to this the fact that many companies believe they can make more money licensing patents for MPEG relative to VC-1, and you see why AVC is used so much more than VC-1.

Indeed, I am not aware of losing any technical shoot out that led to more deployment of AVC in applications like Satellite and broadcast. People would just automatically go for MPEG-4 AVC = 2* MPEG-2 without ever looking at VC-1. In early days, we put a lot of effort in getting the word out in broadcast circles and for a while, VC-1 was way ahead of AVC. But we needed to focus our energy some place, and optical became it. And you can see that the merits of the technology shows up here. The level of effort that it took to get it accepted here though, was incredible given the power of MPEG name (which got AVC into both HD DVD and BD without proving its merits at the time).

Finally, there is a totally incompatible version of AVC called the HP or FRext. This was an incompatible enhancement of AVC done to make it competitive with VC-1 for HD applications. This addition came after the standard was fully ratified which frankly, is unheard of. You go through years of evaluation and standardization so that you include everything you need in there to get the job done. To go back and add a bunch of incompatible features – borrowed from your competitor (VC-1) no less – is unprecedented. But this was, like BDA profiles, quietly pushed into the standard and proponents of AVC pushed it into both DVD Forum for HD DVD and BDA as the required profile. However, the HP profile is not mandatory or used in other places AVC exists. I am not too sure about it right now but as of a while ago, DirectTV and Apple where using non-HP profiles.

So there, you can go and brag about your knowledge of history here at the water cooler and impress your friends especially since a lot of the nuances above don’t exist in any wiki or web site…. :)

ECH

01-27-08, 01:07 PM

That's all correct. Here is a more complete history and picture.

There are two major standards bodies for development of video codecs (from scratch). One is MPEG which you all know about and the other ITU. You may not have heard of ITU much but they have developed some of the fundamental codecs which are then used by MPEG variants.

After MPEG-2, there was a long gap until first version of MPEG-4 was developed. During that time, there was this time period where there was pessimism as to whether better codecs could be developed. So MPEG set its sights low on development of a more efficient codec, and got distracted at the “systems layer” attempting to solve world hunger with fancy techniques like object coding. These other features found no use (sadly as Microsoft holds some of the key patents there :) ), so folks started to focus on the core codec. There, they found it to only be 20-30% better than MPEG-2 which was nowhere near good enough to compete with Microsoft and Real Networks on the web.

At the time, Microsoft was very much behind MPEG-4 standardization as our patent position indicates. However, we quickly realized that you don’t get to build the best, if you have to please everyone in the committee. Folks want to be part of the patent pool so that they can make money from it later so you have no choice but to accept submissions which sometimes don’t improve performance. This was the case with one of the final changes to MPEG-4, which somewhat degraded performance yet was the only way to get it ratified. Jaded, and worried that Real Networks would develop something better without being tied to a standard, we also started to develop advanced codecs on our own which the final revision became WMV-9 or VC-1.

Apple adopted MPEG-4 part 2, Jobs claimed it was the best, which of course, it was not. They liked MPEG-4 because Quicktime file format was used as the wrapper for it so they thought they would put their weight behind it. Rest of the industry after a while, moved on, realizing that MPEG-4 was not competitive in this manner. But Divx, as Max mentions, did adopt MPEG-4 since they were in a pickle. I won’t expand why but read the wiki on that and maybe you realize why :).

Meanwhile, Microsoft and Real blaze ahead, leaving MPEG-4 in the dust performance was and deployment wise. ITU realized that they needed to do something here and created the H.264 group to this time go all out. Target was to not worry about implementation cost but to find the best efficiency for internet streaming applications.

Sometime later, MPEG realized that the situation was not good. MPEG-4 was floundering and ITU was pulling ahead technologically. So they got smart and joined forces with ITU to finish that standard. This became known as JVT since it was a “joint” effort. So for a while, we started to call this standard JVT and that is where this other name comes from.

The work eventually finished (under the leadership of Dr. Sullivan from my old team by the way :) ), and folks got really, really clever. What they realized was that despite poor performance, “MPEG-4” was a very catchy name. People had automatically assumed it meant that it was twice as good as MPEG-2 (MPEG-2 * 2 = MPEG-4!). Never mind that the thing was only 30% better. So what better thing to do than to call this new standard, once it was finished, MPEG-4! Who cares that it was a completely different and unrelated thing to the original MPEG-4 spec. Folks know marketing whether they work in MPEG or not :). To keep them a bit clear, the original MPEG-4 was called “Part 2” and this new one, “Part 10.”

Of course, those of us in the industry hated that because no one knew what we were talking about when we said MPEG-4. So folks started to use another name which had started to become popular, namely, AVC.

So there you have it. H.264, JVT, AVC, MPEG-4, MPEG-4 Part 10, all refer to the same thing.

This is also good time to remove another spin from anti-MS people :). MPEG has incredible marketing and deployment power all by itself. In many governments, MPEG has power of “law” meaning people have to use it over alternatives. It also gets automatic entry into other standards without anyone blinking. Many companies use it because “if it is good for everyone else, it is good for me.” The old adage that “you can’t get fired if you buy IBM” very much applies here: “you can’t get fired if you go with MPEG.” Add to this the fact that many companies believe they can make more money licensing patents for MPEG relative to VC-1, and you see why AVC is used so much more than VC-1.

Indeed, I am not aware of losing any technical shoot out that led to more deployment of AVC in applications like Satellite and broadcast. People would just automatically go for MPEG-4 AVC = 2* MPEG-2 without ever looking at VC-1. In early days, we put a lot of effort in getting the word out in broadcast circles and for a while, VC-1 was way ahead of AVC. But we needed to focus our energy some place, and optical became it. And you can see that the merits of the technology shows up here. The level of effort that it took to get it accepted here though, was incredible given the power of MPEG name (which got AVC into both HD DVD and BD without proving its merits at the time).

Finally, there is a totally incompatible version of AVC called the HP or FRext. This was an incompatible enhancement of AVC done to make it competitive with VC-1 for HD applications. This addition came after the standard was fully ratified which frankly, is unheard of. You go through years of evaluation and standardization so that you include everything you need in there to get the job done. To go back and add a bunch of incompatible features – borrowed from your competitor (VC-1) no less – is unprecedented. But this was, like BDA profiles, quietly pushed into the standard and proponents of AVC pushed it into both DVD Forum for HD DVD and BDA as the required profile. However, the HP profile is not mandatory or used in other places AVC exists. I am not too sure about it right now but as of a while ago, DirectTV and Apple where using non-HP profiles.

So there, you can go and brag about your knowledge of history here at the water cooler and impress your friends especially since a lot of the nuances above don’t exist in any wiki or web site…. :)

This is good info, thanks :D
As the old saying goes "All That Glitters Ain't Gold"

Disclord

01-27-08, 01:21 PM

Although I don't know what it means exactly, I recall that "Object coding" was thrown around in the past quite a bit as the next big "thing" in compression and getting much better performance at low bitrates. What is object coding?

As a non-industry person I was always confused by the MPEG names - and at first assumed that each higher number meant "better" performance and higher definition - like MPEG-2 is 'better' than MPEG-1. The names applied and the variations applied to a single standard all have the look of 'designed by committee' or standardized and named by the EU, so no one will be left out or any company offended.

Amir, where are the MPEG standards law? That's kinda scary.

amirm

01-27-08, 01:30 PM

Although I don't know what it means exactly, I recall that "Object coding" was thrown around in the past quite a bit as the next big "thing" in compression and getting much better performance at low bitrates. What is object coding?
There were two ideas:
1. Extracting an item and encoding it separately from the rest of the image. Think about finding a person on screen and then encoding it separately from its background.

2. Encoding different picture elements, say, a person in front of the green screen, the new background and titles, all separately.

Seems like pretty cool stuff until you realize that in #1, by the time you transmit to the receiver what the object looks like (i.e. its outline), you waste so many bits that any gain in efficiency is long lost. The thing makes for good demos but on real material, it doesn't perform. On #2, the workflow doesn't match the system. People don't compress thing one element at a time but rather, put together the entire picture, make sure that is what they like, and then encode the whole thing. Folks did not fully understand the problem set and built a solution for something that didn't exist.

As a non-industry person I was always confused by the MPEG names - and at first assumed that each higher number meant "better" performance and higher definition - like MPEG-2 is 'better' than MPEG-1.
Indeed. MPEG-2 is not better than MPEG-1. It simply allows higher resolution images but at the core, its algorithm is very similar to MPEG-1.

Amir, where are the MPEG standards law? That's kinda scary.
Mostly in Europe and Asia. If you recall, phone companies and TV broadcasting rights belonged to the governments before privatization. To avoid corruption and have simple rules to follow, standards groups like MPEG are given strong priority (so that the government worker doesn’t give the business to his brother’s company :) ). A shotgun approach to solving the problem…..

Logan5

01-27-08, 01:32 PM

MPEG2 can look fantastic at high enough bitrates (Kingdom of Heaven is a reference example) and there is some suggestion that it currently produces the most pleasing results for retaining the film grain structure.
I have to agree with you. I wouldn't have thought MPEG2 was of much use until I received "One Six Right" on HD DVD. For those who don't know, One Six Right is a fantastic documentary about general aviation, centering on the Van Nuys airport.

The air-to-air photography is stellar, so I was shocked to see that the disk is encoded in MPEG2. I don't know if it is available in Blu-ray, but if it is I would highly recommend it for those on that side of the fence, too.

Disclord

01-27-08, 01:43 PM

There were two ideas:
1. Extracting an item and encoding it separately from the rest of the image. Think about finding a person on screen and then encoding it separately from its background.

2. Encoding different picture elements, say, a person in front of the green screen, the new background and titles, all separately.

Seems like pretty cool stuff until you realize that in #1, by the time you transmit to the receiver what the object looks like (i.e. its outline), you waste so many bits that any gain in efficiency is long lost. The thing makes for good demos but on real material, it doesn't perform. On #2, the workflow doesn't match the system. People don't compress thing one element at a time but rather, put together the entire picture, make sure that is what they like, and then encode the whole thing. Folks did not fully understand the problem set and built a solution for something that didn't exist.

Indeed. MPEG-2 is not better than MPEG-1. It simply allows higher resolution images but at the core, its algorithm is very similar to MPEG-1.

Mostly in Europe and Asia. If you recall, phone companies and TV broadcasting rights belonged to the governments before privatization. To avoid corruption and have simple rules to follow, standards groups like MPEG are given strong priority (so that the government worker doesn’t give the business to his brother’s company :) ). A shotgun approach to solving the problem…..

And another problem is, besides names, that a user often associates a certain codec's performance with its main use - so, for MPEG-1 that is usually Video-CD and for MPEG-2 it's DVD - since DVD obviously looks better than Video CD, and since DVD uses MPEG-2, well, then that must mean that MPEG-2 is 'better' than MPEG-1, right? :)

William

01-27-08, 02:00 PM

And another problem is, besides names, that a user often associates a certain codec's performance with its main use - so, for MPEG-1 that is usually Video-CD and for MPEG-2 it's DVD - since DVD obviously looks better than Video CD, and since DVD uses MPEG-2, well, then that must mean that MPEG-2 is 'better' than MPEG-1, right? :)
I thought that MPEG-1 was limited to a low fixed data bit rate where MPEG-2 could use a higher VBR.

dr1394

01-27-08, 06:26 PM

Indeed. MPEG-2 is not better than MPEG-1. It simply allows higher resolution images but at the core, its algorithm is very similar to MPEG-1.

Come on Amir. That's an utterly ridiculous statement and you know it.

Ron

dr1394

01-27-08, 06:30 PM

Finally, there is a totally incompatible version of AVC called the HP or FRext.
So using your definition, Advanced Profile VC-1 is a totally incompatible version of VC-1.

Ron

dr1394

01-27-08, 06:41 PM

Max, you are making up your own definition here. FHG could go and write a VC-1 encode and decoder tomorrow and offer it on the same site. All you are pointing out here is that someone decided to take the spec and write something to it. As long as the same option is available with VC-1, which it is, then it qualifies for the same.

There is a reference encoder and decoder for VC-1. SMPTE made it a requirement and Microsoft contracted ARM to implement it. Why can't a regular person (that is, non-SMPTE member) download it?

Ron

benwaggoner

01-27-08, 06:45 PM

I thought that MPEG-1 was limited to a low fixed data bit rate where MPEG-2 could use a higher VBR.
Nope, VBR MPEG-1 has been around forever. I did a bunch of it for a Grolier's CD-ROM encyclopedia title, gosh, 10+ years ago.

Moore's Law is a great thing. I remember how excited I was the day PCs were finally fast enough to decode MPEG-1 @ 320x240 in real-time, and we could finally start phasing out Cinepak :).

benwaggoner

01-27-08, 06:48 PM

Come on Amir. That's an utterly ridiculous statement and you know it.

What are you thinking of?

MPEG-2 mainly added interlaced + >8-bit DCT precision IIRC. For progressive content, it was a pretty minor upgrade.

Maxpower1987

01-27-08, 06:52 PM

amirm

01-27-08, 07:07 PM

So using your definition, Advanced Profile VC-1 is a totally incompatible version of VC-1.

Ron
For progressive? Of course not. Progressive stream was never modified in the process of standardization.

You have seen standards be modified the way AVC was with HP extensions?

benwaggoner

01-27-08, 07:12 PM

Wow, I thought I was the only person in the world that used the Grolier encyclopedia instead of Encarta! Must have been about 1996 at the time, seems like yesterday now.
How was the video :)?

(that said I think I would have worked on the edition after that one. I remember doing a lot of archival sports video, like Babe Ruth).

Disclord

01-27-08, 07:13 PM

Nope, VBR MPEG-1 has been around forever. I did a bunch of it for a Grolier's CD-ROM encyclopedia title, gosh, 10+ years ago.

Moore's Law is a great thing. I remember how excited I was the day PCs were finally fast enough to decode MPEG-1 @ 320x240 in real-time, and we could finally start phasing out Cinepak :).

And the ones that were not were sold as if they could - my partner bought a Pac-Bell PC back in October of 1995 that had a big sticker on it that said "Watch movies on VideoCD!" - that's why he picked that particular PC - when he got it home, it couldn't play a single VideoCD without stuttering and other problems! Now that I think about it, the sticker just said to "watch VideoCD's" - it didn't say that PC would actually play them! :)

I was watching VCD's via my Philips CDI-910 CD-I player - my family got to be a 'test' family for the CD-I player, the Full-Motion video card and Kodak PhotoCD. That was a FUN time!

BTW, can a video encoded with Windows Media be played on an HD-DVD player? I'm thinking specifically of that 2mbp/s "Elephants Dream" clip. I'd like to see it on my projector.

dr1394

01-27-08, 07:23 PM

For progressive? Of course not. Progressive stream was never modified in the process of standardization.

And likewise, the Main Profile stream was never modified in the process of H.264 High Profile standardization.

You have seen standards be modified the way AVC was with HP extensions?

There's a lot of versions of H.263 (H.263, H.263+, H.263++).

Ron

amirm

01-27-08, 07:49 PM

And likewise, the Main Profile stream was never modified in the process of H.264 High Profile standardization.
:confused: I am confused what point you are making Ron. The HP extension invalidated the core stream. Extension work after a standard is finished is meant to address new features like higher color depth, etc. Not to go back and reverse a decision already made to use only 4x4 blocks (see more below).

I find it amazing that I am arguing with someone in the field on this point. AVC design was sub-optimal for HD encoding, period. It was fixed, and fixed in a hurry after the codec did poorly in DVD Forum tests. How can someone imply this was all fine and dandy?

There's a lot of versions of H.263 (H.263, H.263+, H.263++).

Ron
Another play with words it seems :). Those were not added at the last minute to replace the fundamental standard just developed.

Keep in mind that alternative block sizes were examined and rejected through standardization of AVC. It was not until real-life testing in DVD Forum showed the people making the wrong call, that they were added in. This is also unique in that sense.

On our side, we were already encoding HD content and such, and knew full well that multiple block sizes were absolutely necessary to do well in all situations. So we used them in VC-1.

Maxpower1987

01-27-08, 07:59 PM

How was the video :)?

(that said I think I would have worked on the edition after that one. I remember doing a lot of archival sports video, like Babe Ruth).

I just remember being amazed that I could view any sort of video on my old 150MHz Pentium Pro with an original 3dfx 6MB Voodoo card! Cutting edge stuff...

I'll have to dig up the CD for old times sake.

Disclord

01-27-08, 10:17 PM

I just recalled that MPEG-1 was used in RCA/Philips/Thompson's HDTV system - they added a few things to it and called it MPEG ++.

William

01-27-08, 10:21 PM

I just recalled that MPEG-1 was used in RCA/Philips/Thompson's HDTV system - they added a few things to it and called it MPEG ++.

Was it +-19Mbps and DD 5.1 also? Seems I remember someones proposal with MPEG audio.

Topweasel

01-27-08, 10:39 PM

You don't need to have access to the original video masters in order to notice the obvious flaws and macroblocking in a bit-starved VC1 encode - see Blood Diamond for example. Are you implying the macroblocking was in the original master -- that it was director's intent? Well you need to educate yourself then.

Actually Blood Diamond spent most of its life as HD video and a lot of the noise and macro blocking was caused by their camera which was awesome during day scenes but crap at night, but the funny part is they choose that camera for that look in the night scenes.

Disclord

01-27-08, 11:40 PM

Was it +-19Mbps and DD 5.1 also? Seems I remember someones proposal with MPEG audio.

It used 5.1 Channel MPEG-Layer II-BC audio. I have a technical paper around here somewhere about the ADTV system... I have the DigiCipher paper too (the all-digital system that started it all!) and Zenith's papers for both their Analog and then Digital Spectrum Compatible 750p HDTV Systems. Oh, the NarrowMUSE paper too - and RCA's awful ACTV system - but that was really more like PALPlus, and not a true Hi-Vision system.

2Channel

01-28-08, 12:11 AM

snip.........

So there, you can go and brag about your knowledge of history here at the water cooler and impress your friends especially since a lot of the nuances above don’t exist in any wiki or web site…. :)

Thanks Amir. I always enjoy historical posts, and yours are some of the best.

A couple of questions. Do you know why instead of the names Mpeg-4 part 10/AVC/H.264, they didn't just name it Mpeg-5 or Mpeg-6?

In regard to the new HP profile of AVC, is that included in BD players? or did they go with AVC without the HP changes?

Maxpower1987

01-28-08, 08:03 AM

Thanks Amir. I always enjoy historical posts, and yours are some of the best.

A couple of questions. Do you know why instead of the names Mpeg-4 part 10/AVC/H.264, they didn't just name it Mpeg-5 or Mpeg-6?

In regard to the new HP profile of AVC, is that included in BD players? or did they go with AVC without the HP changes?

High had to be included in the BD spec, AVC is no good at 1080p HD using simple or main profile.

I think when Amir was talking about incompatibilities he was referring to stuff that used H.264 before HP was incorporated into the spec for Blu-ray.

ECH

01-30-08, 02:30 AM

Hmm, interesting

amirm

01-30-08, 03:13 AM

Hmm, interesting

Hmm, what was? :confused:

:D

William

01-30-08, 07:57 AM

Nope, VBR MPEG-1 has been around forever...

One of the reasons I asked was I remember when DTV first came out it was fixed rate MPEG-1. Remember reading or hearing that it was already MPEG-2 compatible and would be implemented within a few months. DTV needed to go to MPEG-2 for improved picture and to have a VBR. If you can do the same with MPEG-1 why did DTV switch to MPEG-2 then?:confused:

papi4baby

01-30-08, 09:26 AM

How was the video :)?

(that said I think I would have worked on the edition after that one. I remember doing a lot of archival sports video, like Babe Ruth).

Wow, you were the man doing the video encodes for that??? Cool :).

And this has turned into a really good and informative thread thanks to all the insiders, and i do enjoy the little jabs you take at each other by the way, then again i like boxing :D

My take is that VC-1 is an efficient codec since it was build from the ground up pretty much for HD, while AVC derives from MPEG standard is old and has just been patch to do HD. I personally can't really tell a difference between the two in blu ray, but i also dont have a projector and a big screen. Hopefully in less than a year i will have my special room with Pearl to enjoy blu ray like it was meant to be.

papi4baby

01-30-08, 09:29 AM

2. The specification must belong to a third-party, trusted organization. This is to avoid having a company be slow or otherwise not cooperative with its competitors. With SMPTE owning the spec (but not the patents -- see #3), this qualifies for VC-1.

Im sorry, can you explain you said the spec must belong to a third-party in VC-1 case SMPTE. But if they dont own the patents doesn't that mean that they dont really own the specifications?

benwaggoner

01-30-08, 10:10 AM

One of the reasons I asked was I remember when DTV first came out it was fixed rate MPEG-1. Remember reading or hearing that it was already MPEG-2 compatible and would be implemented within a few months. DTV needed to go to MPEG-2 for improved picture and to have a VBR. If you can do the same with MPEG-1 why did DTV switch to MPEG-2 then?:confused:
Interlaced support. DTV MPEG-1 was all deinterlaced to 30p - horrible for sports. My girlfriend's parents (11 years ago?) had the first DirectTV system, and I was stunned by how bad it was - worse than the CD-ROM video I was doing at the time.

It was so bad that her dad (far from a technical guy) already had the "MPEG-2 is coming" talking point :).

benwaggoner

01-30-08, 10:11 AM

benwaggoner

01-30-08, 10:16 AM

Wow, you were the man doing the video encodes for that??? Cool :).
Well, for at least one (maybe two?) years of it.

It occurs to be I'm old as dirt in internet time (at least people have finally stopped telling me they can't believe how young I am :)).

My take is that VC-1 is an efficient codec since it was build from the ground up pretty much for HD, while AVC derives from MPEG standard is old and has just been patch to do HD. I personally can't really tell a difference between the two in blu ray, but i also dont have a projector and a big screen. Hopefully in less than a year i will have my special room with Pearl to enjoy blu ray like it was meant to be.
Well, that's not really fair for H.264 - the original MPEG-4 codec was derived from the H.263 videoconferencing codec, but H.264 was really a ground-up new codec targeting lower bitrates. If anything, it's problem was a lack of tuning for high bitrate HD scenarios (hence the last minute addition of the High Profile).

VC-1 was designed to scale from streaming to HD.

Dahlsim

01-30-08, 10:23 AM

Use of VC-1 in no way has any relationship with HD DVD. We worked hard to enable its use in BD even before that format was launched. Given this, why do you think the usage pattern changes should the disc format do that?

I would have thought that MS saw promotion of VC-1 as an important reason to support HD DVD as a format.

Your statement infers that MS would not see VC-1 usage as an important reason to promote hd dvd which also aligns with Robbie Bachs recent statements to the effect that HDi was the only significant tie to the format in his mind. One would think the 360 addon would be important but he also cited the relatively low attach rates of the addon.

So then in your view the promotion of VC-1 is equally likely or unlikely whether the format of choice in the marketplace is blu-ray or hd dvd?

benwaggoner

01-30-08, 11:02 AM

I would have thought that MS saw promotion of VC-1 as an important reason to support HD DVD as a format.
VC-1 was a big advantage to HD DVD when when Blu-ray discs were stuck using MPEG-2 on 25 GB discs. But untimately, since all codecs are on both formats, it won't be a competitive advantage for either. VC-1 is just as useful for BD-only titles. If we see the format war become less heated, I would expect to see an increase in VC-1 use on the Blu-ray side as political tensions subside.

vsv

01-30-08, 11:33 AM

VC-1 was a big advantage to HD DVD when when Blu-ray discs were stuck using MPEG-2 on 25 GB discs. But untimately, since all codecs are on both formats, it won't be a competitive advantage for either. VC-1 is just as useful for BD-only titles. If we see the format war become less heated, I would expect to see an increase in VC-1 use on the Blu-ray side as political tensions subside.

Without pressure from HD DVD group a BD fans will has today only 25GB rotten discs with mpeg2 from sony's defective encoders and quality of movies similar to first release of TFE:D
MS and Toshiba shall be start at 2003-2004 from red laser players and dvd9 with wmvhd content. T2 and another movies
encoded to wmvhd at 6-8Mbps is comparable in PQ with many sony's mpeg2 40Mbps movies on 50GB :D

William

01-30-08, 11:46 AM

Without pressure from HD DVD group a BD fans will has today only 25GB rotten discs with mpeg2 from sony's defective encoders and quality of movies similar to first release of TFE:D
MS and Toshiba shall be start at 2003-2004 from red laser players and dvd9 with wmvhd content. T2 and another movies
encoded to wmvhd at 6-8Mbps is comparable in PQ with many sony's mpeg2 40Mbps movies on 50GB :D

Will Google's Translate help with this?:confused:

amirm

01-30-08, 11:50 AM

Im sorry, can you explain you said the spec must belong to a third-party in VC-1 case SMPTE. But if they dont own the patents doesn't that mean that they dont really own the specifications?
I know it is a strange concept. But here how it works. When you have a bunch of companies under a standards organization create a document, the usage of that document, i.e. its copyright, usually belongs to that standards organization. So you have to abide by their rules such as paying for the doc, or becoming a member to get it.

Now with the document at hand, then you can implement the technology. But sale of that technology is subject to underlying patents rights others may have. Indeed, even if there were no standard, you are still subject to patent rights others may have in what you have built, if knowingly, or unknowingly, you are stepping on their patents.

In this situation, Microsoft invented WMV-9 video codec. SMPTE owns the specifications for VC-1 which is what they called the end-specification. And MPEG-LA provides a patent pool for companies wishing to license a patent portfolio covering the codec.

Make sense? I hope so :).

Disclord

01-30-08, 11:56 AM

Will Google's Translate help with this?:confused:

I was thinking that too!

amirm

01-30-08, 12:09 PM

Will Google's Translate help with this?:confused:

No but I can ;) :).

He is saying correctly that without DVD Forum approving three codecs, BD would have stayed with MPEG-2 only. Then he goes to say that 40-50 mbit/sec MPEG-2 is no better than WMV-HD at a quarter of the rate which is too much praise for MPEG-2 although images like TFE, would have made you think otherwise.

P.S. Assuming OP was not in a hurry and made those typos that way, I suspect he speaks another language and our fluencty of that, is far worse than his English :).

Disclord

01-30-08, 01:24 PM

No but I can ;) :).

He is saying correctly that without DVD Forum approving three codecs, BD would have stayed with MPEG-2 only. Then he goes to say that 40-50 mbit/sec MPEG-2 is no better than WMV-HD at a quarter of the rate which is too much praise for MPEG-2 although images like TFE, would have made you think otherwise.

P.S. Assuming OP was not in a hurry and made those typos that way, I suspect he speaks another language and our fluencty of that, is far worse than his English :).

Without the change in specs Blu-ray would have probably stayed with a max bitrate of 36 mpbs too, since that was the maximum bitrate specified. It seems to have been increased to 54 mbps only for BD-ROM and not the recordable versions. If that hadn't been done, what would the poor Blu-ray Fanboi's have had to argue and mentally masturbate about then????

Assuming the backwards compatibility thing didn't matter, couldn't Toshiba just change the HD-DVD standards to allow the disc to spin at 1.5x, like the Blu-ray Forum did for BD-ROM, and increase the transfer rate to meet or exceed Blu-rays? That is, if they felt such a change was needed - I don't think it is needed... like I matter though.:o

UxiSXRD

01-30-08, 02:00 PM

vsv

01-30-08, 04:24 PM

No but I can ;) :).

Thank you, Amir!:)

dr1394

01-30-08, 05:18 PM

Interlaced support. DTV MPEG-1 was all deinterlaced to 30p - horrible for sports. My girlfriend's parents (11 years ago?) had the first DirectTV system, and I was stunned by how bad it was - worse than the CD-ROM video I was doing at the time.

It was so bad that her dad (far from a technical guy) already had the "MPEG-2 is coming" talking point :).
That's incorrect (and I know because I was at C-Cube when the encoders for DirecTV were deployed). The very first DirecTV encoders were MPEG-1, but at full 60 fields per second. Sometimes called MPEG-1.5, although at C-Cube, it was just called "unconstrained MPEG-1".

They worked okay on film (with inverse telecine), but had a tough time on video. The encoders were upgraded to MPEG-2 within a few months, although it was still a frame based encoder (no macroblock adaptive field/frame processing). Then in late 1995 (I think, it's a little foggy now), all the encoders were replaced with full AFF monsters (it took 14 chips on a 9U board).

Ron

Disclord

01-30-08, 07:17 PM

That's incorrect (and I know because I was at C-Cube when the encoders for DirecTV were deployed). The very first DirecTV encoders were MPEG-1, but at full 60 fields per second. Sometimes called MPEG-1.5, although at C-Cube, it was just called "unconstrained MPEG-1".

They worked okay on film (with inverse telecine), but had a tough time on video. The encoders were upgraded to MPEG-2 within a few months, although it was still a frame based encoder (no macroblock adaptive field/frame processing). Then in late 1995 (I think, it's a little foggy now), all the encoders were replaced with full AFF monsters (it took 14 chips on a 9U board).

Ron

Since you were there, you would know, but I recall reading, at the launch, that DirecTV was MPEG-1 and that decoders were compatible with both MPEG-1.5 and MPEG-2 and that 1.5 would be rolled out 6 months to a year after the launch. I wish I could recall where I read that. Again, I'm not questioning your statement about what was really done.

dr1394

01-31-08, 04:21 AM

Disclord

01-31-08, 08:26 AM

Do you mean "standard" MPEG-1 at 352x240 and 30 fields per second? Although there may have been a few 352x240 channels, the vast majority of channels at subscriber launch were 704x480 at 60 fields per second MPEG-1. There was no way anyone was going to launch a service with 352x240 MPEG-1.

As a sibebar, I distinctly remember watching the O.J. Simpson chase on a DirecTV test receiver in the C-Cube development lab.

Ron

I don't know what resolution they were sending - just that they mentioned MPEG-1 and would be 'upgrading' to sending MPEG-1.5 signals very soon and then MPEG-2 in the future - it could have been just marketing technobabble from RCA, which wouldn't surprise me.

I do remember thinking, when I saw the very first DSS broadcast, that it was awful looking when anything moved - that's why the idea of going to DVD (which was still in the SD/MMCD format war and not yet released) scared me - a few months after the DSS launch the in-store RCA DSS displays switched to LaserDisc's for their demo's with no ability to tune in real DSS signals. I have one of the demo LD's from RCA and it keeps repeating throughout the program "Just look at this beautiful, all digital, picture quality!*"

What a scary memory to have of a DSS broadcast! He was running away then to look for the 'real killers', wasn't he? :eek:

"*Your definition of all digital may differ from that of RCA and it's affiliated companies."

PRO-630HD

01-31-08, 01:15 PM

Doubt it. MPEG2 necessitates the high bit rate that Blu-ray has, and suits it well for the most part.

We could also go the other way and compare 25GB MPEG2 like Tears of the Sun to a VC1 like Spartacus or Full Metal Jacket.

Keeping away from the well known lemons and staying apples to apples, we all saw how 25GB MPEG2 MI3 was indistinguishable from it's VC1 30GB HDDVD counterpart. The Blu-ray benefitted from a much higher bitrate and didn't have the IME parasiting off it. Both put the majority of the extras on a second disc. Paramount gimped the audio on both, though it's not a bad track on these.

Your honestly not using Tears of the Sun as any kind of reference material are you. I just saw this a week ago and was not impressed. This is a mediocre title at best. Lets face it folks 18 mbps MPEG-2 is not going to impress anyone. After seeing Underword: Evolution, HOFD, Hitch, Click, Flyboys, Ice Age 2, 50 First Dates, Night at the Museum, Vertical Limit, The Terminator and Tears of the Sun I have not been overly impressed with any of them. I was amazed at how bad Vertical Limit looked. It is extremely undetailed and soft. Looking as bad as Sony's initial releases. So I guess 9 months in they were still having massive quality control issues.

Now Sony titles are simply stunning and to my eyes are the best looking bluray releases. Thanks to QC in the transfers and thank god for AVC!!! Older catalogue titles like The Replacement Killers on a BD-25 look fantastic. Unlike Fox it looks like Sony has put MPEG-2 out to pasture and good riddance!!

I did a back to back comparison of MI3 and while MPEG-2 held up better than I thought beyond the shadow of a doubt the VC1 encode had the superior picture. XA2 compared to 94HD both calibrated with avia disc. After renting many MPEG-2 encoded blurays there is a reason I refuse to purchase any MPEG-2 encoded HDM title.

Dahlsim

01-31-08, 01:32 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dahlsim
I would have thought that MS saw promotion of VC-1 as an important reason to support HD DVD as a format.

VC-1 was a big advantage to HD DVD when when Blu-ray discs were stuck using MPEG-2 on 25 GB discs. But untimately, since all codecs are on both formats, it won't be a competitive advantage for either.

VC-1 is just as useful for BD-only titles. If we see the format war become less heated, I would expect to see an increase in VC-1 use on the Blu-ray side as political tensions subside.

Interesting perspective on VC-1 usage and the HDM formats. It could almost lead one to believe that Microsoft could have determined internally just as Warner did (maybe even before Warner did?) it would be better to let a format die sooner rather than later so they can see the "political tensions subside". Perhaps make nice with with various Blu-ray supporting partners?

If after all MS expects ultimately to do just as well on VC-1 usage in Blu-ray as it does in HD DVD then they could have decided it wasn't worth the fight?

Public statements have indicated MS doesn't think the impact of hd dvd on the 360 marketshare vs PS3 and blu-ray is very significant (although that will be interesting to watch as it appears PS3 is getting a boost from Blu-ray's success).

If VC-1 in HD DVD is not seen as very important then that would leave what interest for MS, only HDi? It appears other uses are being found for that as well...

PRO-630HD

01-31-08, 01:34 PM

I suspect we'll see Warner begin to use AVC after May or so. Slowly at first, and then more and more frequently, though not completely.

Warner, New Line, HBO will stick with VC1 as that is what there encoders do. VC1 is the smoothest looking of the codecs and there is no reason for change. They will just up the bitrate a tad.

PRO-630HD

01-31-08, 01:39 PM

Again, that isn't true, VC-1 and AVC are just as sharp as each other, in fact the filter in AVC can be turned off where in VC-1 it is always on even if it unused sometimes when the bitrate is sufficient. I find it strange that you would deride AVC for being soft when one of the biggest criticisms is that some AVC titles look too sharp and sometimes unnaturally so.

+1 while I like both codecs VC1 seems a bit smoother and more natural. AVC tends to look a bit more processed and edgier.

UxiSXRD

01-31-08, 01:47 PM

Your honestly not using Tears of the Sun as any kind of reference material are you. I just saw this a week ago and was not impressed. This is a mediocre title at best. Lets face it folks 18 mbps MPEG-2 is not going to impress anyone.

If you bothered to read the quote in context you'll see just what I compared Tears of the Sun to. It is undeniably superior to those titles, which should and have drawn scorn from all. I definitely agree that 18mbps is insufficient for what I want to see out of high def media, though, and I don't want that low of a bitrate from any codec on any title excepting maybe credits or extras or something equally near worthless.

Fortunately Blu-ray affords well over twice that, if not closer to three times...

I did a back to back comparison of MI3 and while MPEG-2 held up better than I thought beyond the shadow of a doubt the VC1 encode had the superior picture. XA2 compared to 94HD both calibrated with avia disc. After renting many MPEG-2 encoded blurays there is a reason I refuse to purchase any MPEG-2 encoded HDM title.

I would suggest an A/B comparison would be better suited. I own MI3 on both (bought the HDDVD originally and later the trilogy on Blu-ray) and have done direct comparisons. Point out an area where the VC1 displays any semblence of "superior PQ beyond a show of a doubt." Then, make sure to clarify your no doubt extremely subjective qualification.

MPEG2 is undeniably better suited for BD50 where Blu-rays superior capacity and bandwidth can be flexed. I have about as much practical desire for BD25 as I do for SL DVD, though. Mostly, it's irrelevent, as the goods are delivered. MPEG2 is perfectly capable of that, as Kingdom of Heaven and Black Hawk Down hold their own against any VC1 title out there. Underscore that if you value the original theatrical presentation and its original qualities (most specifically grain).

PRO-630HD

01-31-08, 01:49 PM

Whatever advanced codec is used I just want it to be set at a high enough bitrate (over 30mbps) to allow the picture not to be compromised. This includes low motion material as well. 10-15mbps is pathetic. Save it for the 720p downloads.

I'm interested in seeing more high bitrate vc-1 titles. I want a PQ war going on between these codecs. VC-1 vs AVC. Fight! :D

Okay past 20mbps with either AVC or VC1 Micheal Bay is the only one that is going to see the difference. Unless you have a 100 ft. screen. Insiders that produce discs for both formats have all said past 20 mbps you are quickly at a point of diminishing returns. It is like saying a 4.6 mbps LPCM track is better than a 1.8 mbps Dolby True HD one. They have done blind tests with encoders, critics, salesman, consumers, etc. and no one can tell the difference.

PRO-630HD

01-31-08, 01:55 PM

I would suggest an A/B comparison would be better suited. I own MI3 on both (bought the HDDVD originally and later the trilogy on Blu-ray) and have done direct comparisons. Point out an area where the VC1 displays any semblence of "superior PQ beyond a show of a doubt." Then, make sure to clarify your no doubt extremely subjective qualification.

It was an A/B comparison as both players were hooked up to my display simultaneously and both discs synched in audio going back and forth. Basically any moment during the film the VC1 encode provides a better picture on my display in every way. The bluray is softer and less detailed and I was using the Pioneer Elite player against the XA2 so that is a fair comparison. If your picture looks the identical it could be the limitations of your display device.

PRO-630HD

01-31-08, 02:01 PM

MPEG2 is undeniably better suited for BD50 where Blu-rays superior capacity and bandwidth can be flexed. I have about as much practical desire for BD25 as I do for SL DVD, though. Mostly, it's irrelevent, as the goods are delivered. MPEG2 is perfectly capable of that, as Kingdom of Heaven and Black Hawk Down hold their own against any VC1 title out there. Underscore that if you value the original theatrical presentation and its original qualities (most specifically grain).

Well I know of 2 BD-25's using AVC encodes that are catalogue titles that are stunning. The Replacement Killers and First Blood. I was amazed at how good these titles looked. You don't need 40 mbps video unless you are using MPEG-2. I hope we can agree that AVC and VC1 are at least twice as efficient as MPEG-2. I mean initially VC1 was designed to put HD on a 8.7 gb dvd. So 20 mbps in either of these codecs is the equivalent to 40 mbps MPEG-2. With AVC a 25gb disc works fine unless there are a ton of extras or a really long film.

PaulGo

01-31-08, 02:13 PM

If both are used at >30Mbps you won't be able to tell the difference. Seriously at that level, they are both the same.

Max, this is a quote for Richard Casey on the subject.

...AVC seems to use the higher bit rates more effectively than VC-1...while VC-1 does a great job at lower bandwidth rates. I will be running some encode tests for my own to see and making them available to the public. ...

amirm

01-31-08, 02:19 PM

Max, this is a quote for Richard Casey on the subject.

And what body of experience does Rich have on using VC-1? 100 titles? 10 titles? 1 or 2?

PaulGo

01-31-08, 02:50 PM

And what body of experience does Rich have on using VC-1? 100 titles? 10 titles? 1 or 2?

Looking at his client list, I would say it was more than sufficient to reach an informed decision.:)

http://www.rbfilms.com/RB.html

UxiSXRD

01-31-08, 02:57 PM

It was an A/B comparison as both players were hooked up to my display simultaneously and both discs synched in audio going back and forth.
Basically any moment during the film the VC1 encode provides a better picture on my display in every way. The bluray is softer and less detailed and I was using the Pioneer Elite player against the XA2 so that is a fair comparison. If your picture looks the identical it could be the limitations of your display device.

Ah you m entioned "back to back" earlier, so I obviously replied off that. Interesting. I have no doubt about my display, so maybe yours has a limitation or you didn't get them both calibrated quite right? I suppose it's possible the PS3 is treating it's material better than the 360... Specify the scenes so I can examine them myself and we can get some peer review on it, maybe. ;)

I'm gonna have to dig for Xylon's old thread, as well.

Well I know of 2 BD-25's using AVC encodes that are catalogue titles that are stunning. The Replacement Killers and First Blood. I was amazed at how good these titles looked. You don't need 40 mbps video unless you are using MPEG-2. I hope we can agree that AVC and VC1 are at least twice as efficient as MPEG-2.

Sure, depending on your PoV. Efficiency is meaningless to end users. To content producers, any benefits are mitigated by the need for new encoding tools and the training/support to take advantage of it. Queue Richard Casey's posts on the issue...

I have First Blood. Great picture, particularly for such an old movie. I imagine Rambo (IV) would look much better and wish I could see it on MPEG2 at 40mbps.

amirm

01-31-08, 03:25 PM

Looking at his client list, I would say it was more than sufficient to reach an informed decision.:)

http://www.rbfilms.com/RB.html
Remind me to put that in the wiki as the definition of a non-answer :). And let's hope he didn't encode a bunch of content for those clients at 96Khz, where in reality the source was 48Khz as we have seen in Nature's Journey ;).

Really, I am sure everyone agrees the answer is less than the number of fingers on one hand, seeing how he has only done only two HD titles total. One using MPEG-2 where he said it was the best codec. And the second, VC-1. No amount of DVD production in SD MPEG-2 prepares Rich to be an expert in advanced codecs which until his recent title, he had not used.

Now, Nature's Journey using VC-1 on BD used 11 mbit/sec higher data rate than HD DVD (37 versus 26 mbit/sec respectively). Using his "DRS" process, I assume he went through a full quality evaluation to make sure the increased bit rate produced better picture quality. After all, why pay for two encodes if the lower bit rate would do in his eyes. Therefore, where is the claim coming from that VC-1 can't use more bits? If it could not use more bits, why did he pay for a second encode and waste space with it?

drla

01-31-08, 03:51 PM

And let's hope he didn't encode a bunch of content for those clients at 96Khz, where in reality the source was 48Khz as we have seen in Nature's Journey ;)

That's completely irrelevant to this topic. :rolleyes:

amirm

01-31-08, 04:06 PM

That's completely irrelevant to this topic. :rolleyes:
It is not relevant if you consider the context here. Paul is offering Rich’s opinion as gospel above and beyond the people who invented the technologies he uses. Therefore, one must look at whether he is often correct or not in these matters. Many of us got lectured by him endlessly on being deaf and not hearing the benefits of higher sampling rate audio. Only to be able to show him objectively using instruments, that his own content was sourced in 48khz, yet incorrectly encoded and wasted space at 96Khz. So if Paul wants to blindly put what Rich says on a pedestal, then he needs to be at least conscious of the fact that Rich has said things which have proven otherwise.

Disclord

01-31-08, 04:31 PM

It is not relevant if you consider the context here. Paul is offering Rich’s opinion as gospel above and beyond the people who invented the technologies he uses. Therefore, one must look at whether he is often correct or not in these matters. Many of us got lectured by him endlessly on being deaf and not hearing the benefits of higher sampling rate audio. Only to be able to show him objectively using instruments, that his own content was sourced in 48khz, yet incorrectly encoded and wasted space at 96Khz. So if Paul wants to blindly put what Rich says on a pedestal, then he needs to be at least conscious of the fact that Rich has said things which have proven otherwise.

Rich's answers to Amir's questions about it seemed 'off' - like Rich had never considered the issues Amir brought up, i.e. testing to check if the disc really had the bandwidth claimed. It sounded better to him, so that was all that mattered - and Rich seemed to use an awful lot of words and space in his replies, like he was kinda trying to cloud the facts and hide the real issue - that the disc didn't have the performance claimed by him. Actual testing of Rich's title by Amir caught Rich totally off guard.

PaulGo

01-31-08, 04:41 PM

This link is to Richard's comments:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=12875030#post12875030

drla

01-31-08, 04:44 PM

It is not relevant if you consider the context here. Paul is offering Rich’s opinion as gospel above and beyond the people who invented the technologies he uses. Therefore, one must look at whether he is often correct or not in these matters. Many of us got lectured by him endlessly on being deaf and not hearing the benefits of higher sampling rate audio. Only to be able to show him objectively using instruments, that his own content was sourced in 48khz, yet incorrectly encoded and wasted space at 96Khz. So if Paul wants to blindly put what Rich says on a pedestal, then he needs to be at least conscious of the fact that Rich has said things which have proven otherwise.

Audio is not the same as video. Being wrong about audio does not necessarily mean he's wrong about video. That's why it's irrelevant.

Paul is offering Rich’s opinion as gospel above and beyond the people who invented the technologies he uses.

If you're going to establish your authority as a reason for us to trust you over Richard, you can only do so regarding facts about VC-1. You can't say the same things about AVC when you yourself don't have the best tools for AVC encoding.

amirm

01-31-08, 05:02 PM

Audio is not the same as video. Being wrong about audio does not necessarily mean he's wrong about video. That's why it's irrelevant.
OK, we are getting argumentative. I let you assume that and go on about our life :).

If you're going to establish your authority as a reason for us to trust you over Richard, you can only do so regarding facts about VC-1. You can't say the same things about AVC when you yourself don't have the best tools for AVC encoding.
Everything is relative. We chaired the group that created AVC. Dr. Sullivan on my old team did that. We developed key patented technology in the standard: http://www.mpegla.com/avc/. And I have written extensive tutorials on the two codecs, having managed the development of compression technology at Microsoft for more than a decade. Now, please outline for me Rich's qualifications in providing the generalization Paul quoted. I have already asked how many titles he has encoded in VC-1 to which we know the answer is 1. How much experience do you think he has in AVC?

PaulGo

01-31-08, 05:11 PM

Maxpower1987

01-31-08, 05:14 PM

Max, this is a quote for Richard Casey on the subject.

I don't want to publicly disagree with Rich, he's a great guy and knows about this stuff more than I do.

I trust my eyes and generally speaking, I haven't seen any discernible differences between either AVC or VC-1 at higher bitrates. Watched on a FullHD 60" Pioneer PDP-LX6080D which is better than most TVs out there, even on the projector (Sony Ruby soon to be Diamond!) I can't see where VC-1 or AVC better each other...

amirm

01-31-08, 05:36 PM

I don't know how many companies Richard's company has acted as a consultant and helped then product titles. I know your old employer Microsoft has helped companies product titles, so I guess that puts you both in the same boat.
It doesn't really and I say that with respect to both parties. There are things Rich knows that I do not, and vice versa. In this context however, Rich is very new to this field whereas we have been doing this work for 5-7 years across many projects (see more below).

Has Microsoft ever released a Blu-ray or HD-DVD title?:)
You mean complete titles? If so, then one: Digital Video Essentials produced by Joe Kane in HD DVD. We did the encode.

But beyond that, we have done countless encodes for both HD DVD and BD both in context of benchmarks (where a studio would give us the most difficult portion of a major film) and in test encoding/optimizing segments a studio having difficulty with. And of course, in context of developing our encoder, we go encoding a ton of content to make sure there are no regressions and also, to find new ways to gain quality/efficiency. All in all, we have been exposed to hundreds of titles in this manner.

Further, Microsoft has its own comprehensive post production (and Live) studio were we produced a number of movies for digital cinema presentation (using WMV/VC-1) and for production on WMV-HD red laser HD discs.

drla

01-31-08, 05:41 PM

Gah, multi-quote is not working for me.

OK, we are getting argumentative. I let you assume that and go on about our life :).

I was going to say something, but I guess you don't want to say anything more. I'll save my breath too. :)

Everything is relative. We chaired the group that created AVC. Dr. Sullivan on my old team did that. We developed key patented technology in the standard: http://www.mpegla.com/avc/. And I have written extensive tutorials on the two codecs, having managed the development of compression technology at Microsoft for more than a decade. Now, please outline for me Rich's qualifications in providing the generalization Paul quoted. I have already asked how many titles he has encoded in VC-1 to which we know the answer is 1. How much experience do you think he has in AVC?

Writing a standard is not the same thing as making an implementation. What matters in the end is not the theoretical output of a standard, but what we actually see. That's why Richard or anyone of us can make a comparison. We're assuming, of course, that AVC and VC-1 were both given a fair chance in Richard's encodes. Perhaps Richard's experience with MPEG-2 or its tools were more applicable to AVC. Anyway, encoding titles for production adds to experience, but it doesn't have to be his only source.

amirm

01-31-08, 05:51 PM

Writing a standard is not the same thing as making an implementation.
We didn't "write" a standard. We invented new algorithms to make AVC better and they got adopted after peer review into the standard. And we chaired the group that did this evaluation for proposals from others. We have also implemented AVC in our products.

What matters in the end is not the theoretical output of a standard, but what we actually see. That's why Richard or anyone of us can make a comparison.
You can make a comparison. But you can't say "VC-1 is not good at using higher bitrates" after encoding one or two titles. This kind of wisdom will come after encoding dozens of titles with different characteristics, etc. And even then, you may not know enough to say such a thing. If it not clear, my beef is with Paul, not as much with Rich for wanting to coin one-liners to start an argument....

PaulGo

01-31-08, 06:07 PM

If it not clear, my beef is with Paul, not as much with Rich for wanting to coin one-liners to start an argument....

I asked Max a specific comment about a statement he made using Richard's quote to get an opinion from him. Again this comment was addressed to Max, not you. I was not trying to incite you, and I regret all the comments you subsequently made about Richard which I feel is inappropriate.

whippersnapper

01-31-08, 06:25 PM

We didn't "write" a standard. We invented new algorithms to make AVC better and they got adopted after peer review into the standard. And we chaired the group that did this evaluation for proposals from others. We have also implemented AVC in our products.

You can make a comparison. But you can't say "VC-1 is not good at using higher bitrates" after encoding one or two titles. This kind of wisdom will come after encoding dozens of titles with different characteristics, etc. And even then, you may not know enough to say such a thing. If it not clear, my beef is with Paul, not as much with Rich for wanting to coin one-liners to start an argument........ my beef is with Paul, not as much with Rich.....Amir, based upon your posting history when Richard has posted, you certainly could have fooled me. Quite frankly, your animosity toward Richard has been almost palpable. I am not an expert (or even an amateur) regarding VC-1 and AVC capabilities and have seen great Blu-ray videos made with both. I suspect it is based more on how the encoder is used than which encoder is selected. Based upon the quality Blu-ray discs they have produced, I'll trust folks such as RBFilms, Fox and Sony to select the appropriate encoder for each given project sufficient to produce a quality encoding.

And this is my opinion only but, amongst a large segment of Blu-ray fans, you have quite a reputation to live down. And until you have done that, your opinion is going to be subject to being discounted because of suspicion that you are being driven by some agenda.

RobertR1

01-31-08, 06:29 PM

And this is my opinion only but, amongst a large segment of Blu-ray fans, you have quite a reputation to live down. And until you have done that, your opinion is going to be subject to being discounted because of suspicion that you are being driven by some agenda.

The said br fans have plenty of their own reputation to live down also. Good luck with that!

amirm

01-31-08, 07:53 PM

Paul, you are three for three in making discussion threats a war of people:

It all started off quite innocently when I replied to Max about one of his comments with a quote from Rich (AVS). Now Amir has gone nuts and is blasting Rich. I sent Rich a PM about this. But if anyone here wants to help defend Rich be my guest (not that Rich needs any help!)

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=12990664#post12990664

What on earth is your purpose man? I don't get it. What pleasure do you get in stirring arguments between people? One thread got closed. Another has the same negative tone as the first which is keeping me away from posting and now this. Do you have some constructive posts so that I can feel good about what you do here?

amirm

01-31-08, 08:12 PM

Amir, based upon your posting history when Richard has posted, you certainly could have fooled me.
I think maybe the context is lost. Rich is not here. Paul is. He is the one I have an argument with right now. Which I just stated above. He is constantly trying to get folks from both sides to fight. This is not right. Yes, Rich and I have plenty that we disagree with. But we don't need Paul to go and poke the guy to come have a fight. Heaven knows he can do that on his own, and I can return the favor :).

Quite frankly, your animosity toward Richard has been almost palpable.
Guilty as charged :). He gives me so many reasons that even with incredible amount of self control, I respond in kind sometimes when I perhaps should not be. This usually falls in the class of degrading the work that my old team has done without foundation (in my opinion that is).

I am not an expert (or even an amateur) regarding VC-1 and AVC capabilities and have seen great Blu-ray videos made with both. I suspect it is based more on how the encoder is used than which encoder is selected. Based upon the quality Blu-ray discs they have produced, I'll trust folks such as RBFilms, Fox and Sony to select the appropriate encoder for each given project sufficient to produce a quality encoding.
Most studios are not going through such rigorous process for each movie. They have a default preference and then look for alternatives as needed.

And this is my opinion only but, amongst a large segment of Blu-ray fans, you have quite a reputation to live down. And until you have done that, your opinion is going to be subject to being discounted because of suspicion that you are being driven by some agenda.
As you can imagine, I realize that fully :). Therefore, I don’t just provide an opinion of X is better than Y. I provide details, sometimes a ton of it. Here is the dissertation on VC-1 versus AVC: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9931723&&#post9931723. In return, the other party is quoted as saying X is better than Y after encoding a couple of titles.

Regardless, putting me or Rich on trial is of no value. Who I am and what I have said is of no consequence to you all when you go and invest in your next piece of technology or try to impress friends and family on what you know :). What is useful then, is learning something or having fun. I see neither happening as a result of what Paul does, or what BD fans say about me and HD DVD supporters in general. It only creates animosity, hostile arguments, and threads shut down. I am sure this is where this thread is headed if the army of people Paul is calling does show up here. And to what end? There are good posts here which will vanish into Ether.