Microsoft's Windows Media 9 Codec to be Mandatory for all HD-DVD Players
03-09-04 | 01:34 AM
#26
Thread Starter
Suspended
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 4,533
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: You have moved into a dark place. It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Originally posted by vivarey
It just means they will have a choice in deciding which codec to use. They won't have to pay double or triple licensing fees. If they use WM9, they pay a license fee. If not, they don't. It's simple. Is that what you're concerned about?
It just means they will have a choice in deciding which codec to use. They won't have to pay double or triple licensing fees. If they use WM9, they pay a license fee. If not, they don't. It's simple. Is that what you're concerned about?
No, no, the software makers won't be required to use any particular codec - it's the hardware makers that will be required to include all three codecs if they want to call their players "HD-DVD Players" - They are the ones who will have to pay the licencing fees.
It's not a choice - that's the point. It will be required. They will either pay the fees or not make HD-DVD players.
Those that choose to not make HD-DVD players (i.e. those who don't want to pay Microsoft for each piece of hardware sold) will likely make a player for another High-Def format.
03-09-04 | 02:16 AM
#27
DVD Talk Special Edition
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 1,014
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Detroit, MI
Originally posted by jough
... the software makers won't be required to use any particular codec - it's the hardware makers that will be required to include all three ...
... the software makers won't be required to use any particular codec - it's the hardware makers that will be required to include all three ...
Also, keep in mind licensing fees are very specific. Nowhere have I read what will happen to these fees when HD-DVD hardware (with its multiple codecs) is on the market. That's at least 2 years away. The whole thing might even be a non-issue, considering most licensing bodies have a 'cap' limit of how much they can collect from a company per year. But most likely, yes, Microsoft will be paid royalty fees. How much that fee will be, and how it will be implemented, however, is still unknown. I think we just need to wait and see. No sense in criticizing just yet, other than for pure speculation-sake.
03-09-04 | 11:18 AM
#29
Thread Starter
Suspended
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 4,533
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: You have moved into a dark place. It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Originally posted by Eric F
If it's the best codec, I don't understand why people are complaining? Comparing Microsoft to AIDS? That's just ridiculous.
If it's the best codec, I don't understand why people are complaining? Comparing Microsoft to AIDS? That's just ridiculous.
Actually, to look at a positive aspect of this news, with bitrate real estate being a premium for HD-DVD, the WMV may be able to afford an HD disc a much longer running time than the MPEG-4 compressed stream would.
However, the quality of the WMV speaks for itself. It may be fine for watching a movie trailer on your computer, but they really need to fix the artifacting and other digital noise problem if it's going to be a viable option for home theatre systems.
You can download some HD-WMV sample files and judge for yourself:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/win...m/HDVideo.aspx
03-09-04 | 11:21 AM
#30
Banned
I posted that link already to prove how good it looked. What's wrong with the 1080p content?
Artifacting and digital noise? Where?
Joe Kane has said that WM9 is a superior format. In fact he likes it so much he's going to do a HT Essentials WM9 version.
Artifacting and digital noise? Where?
Joe Kane has said that WM9 is a superior format. In fact he likes it so much he's going to do a HT Essentials WM9 version.
03-09-04 | 11:52 AM
#31
Thread Starter
Suspended
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 4,533
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: You have moved into a dark place. It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Originally posted by Eric F
I posted that link already to prove how good it looked. What's wrong with the 1080p content?
I posted that link already to prove how good it looked. What's wrong with the 1080p content?
Artifacting and digital noise? Where?
In every frame.
Joe Kane has said that WM9 is a superior format. In fact he likes it so much he's going to do a HT Essentials WM9 version.
03-09-04 | 12:20 PM
#32
Banned
03-09-04 | 12:50 PM
#33
Thread Starter
Suspended
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 4,533
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: You have moved into a dark place. It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Originally posted by Eric F
Evidence that you're the only one who notices.
http://www.videoessentials.com/
Evidence that you're the only one who notices.
http://www.videoessentials.com/
And that link is to a product - it doesn't say ANYTHING about Microsoft's flawed WMV on that page. In fact, I couldn't find anything other than a link to a news story about HD-DVD (which also linked to other news stories about other codecs) on that site *anywhere*.
So where is this "evidence" of which you write?
Last edited by jough; 03-09-04 at 12:53 PM.
03-09-04 | 01:46 PM
#34
Banned
My eyes are evidence, as are the thousands of people who post on the multitude of threads on http://www.avsforum.com/
If you are having problems with WM9 playback, perhaps it's the hardware you're using? There are general problems with AGP support, Fastwrites, etc.
As far as the quality of the codec itself, I don't see how anyone could look at those clips (especially the newer ones like Speed and Flight) and find anything wrong with them.
If you're still having problems with the format once it comes out on standalone hardware that's optimized to play it back, I suggest you find out every title which uses it, and not buy them.
Good luck.
If you are having problems with WM9 playback, perhaps it's the hardware you're using? There are general problems with AGP support, Fastwrites, etc.
As far as the quality of the codec itself, I don't see how anyone could look at those clips (especially the newer ones like Speed and Flight) and find anything wrong with them.
If you're still having problems with the format once it comes out on standalone hardware that's optimized to play it back, I suggest you find out every title which uses it, and not buy them.
Good luck.
Last edited by Eric F; 03-09-04 at 01:57 PM.
03-09-04 | 02:54 PM
#35
DVD Talk Special Edition
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 1,014
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Detroit, MI
Originally posted by jough
Um, because it's NOT the best codec. Its only plus is that it looks okay even when it's extremely compressed.
Um, because it's NOT the best codec. Its only plus is that it looks okay even when it's extremely compressed.
And to anyone else who's worried about Microsoft monopolizing the industry, read this quote from Amir Majidimehr, the vice president of the Windows Digital Media division. He posted it on the AVS Forum, where he is an active member.
VC-9/WMV-9 has been submitted to SMPTE meaning anyone can download the spec from them to implement it without even contacting us (in other words, we will have no control over the spec). And our licensing conforms to the same standards MPEG has, namely, RAND (Reasonable and non-discriminatory terms). Even our fiercest competitor can license it at the same cost as the friendliest company. The initially terms is 10 years meaning nothing can change during that time with only a 25% max increase after that. Again, these are identical terms to MPEG.
So the only difference between MPEG-2 and WMV-9/VC-9 is who you want to pay for the usage of the technology and how much (WMV-9 costs equipment manfuactures as little as 5 to 10% of the cost of MPEAG-2). WMV also gets you better compatibility with internet formats, and video that is likely to be stored on the PC. You are not going to get that out of MPEG-2 or H.264.
WMV also brings competition to other standards such as H.264. Such competition should drive each technology to be better and have more reasonable licensing.
So as you see, the situation is opposite of what a "monopoly" situation allows. Indeed, we had to do far more than any other company to win such an endorsement, because of the fears that you state. You have to recall that Dolby and DTS were accepted as approved codecs (with Dolby being mandatory) when they were both closed technologies with non-public, non-RAND pricing! But the bar was raised for us and we lived up to it.
So the only difference between MPEG-2 and WMV-9/VC-9 is who you want to pay for the usage of the technology and how much (WMV-9 costs equipment manfuactures as little as 5 to 10% of the cost of MPEAG-2). WMV also gets you better compatibility with internet formats, and video that is likely to be stored on the PC. You are not going to get that out of MPEG-2 or H.264.
WMV also brings competition to other standards such as H.264. Such competition should drive each technology to be better and have more reasonable licensing.
So as you see, the situation is opposite of what a "monopoly" situation allows. Indeed, we had to do far more than any other company to win such an endorsement, because of the fears that you state. You have to recall that Dolby and DTS were accepted as approved codecs (with Dolby being mandatory) when they were both closed technologies with non-public, non-RAND pricing! But the bar was raised for us and we lived up to it.
03-09-04 | 03:40 PM
#37
DVD Talk Special Edition
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 1,014
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Detroit, MI
Originally posted by jough
I'm sorry - are you citing a Microsoft employee as an unbiased witness?
I'm sorry - are you citing a Microsoft employee as an unbiased witness?
03-09-04 | 05:30 PM
#38
Thread Starter
Suspended
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 4,533
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: You have moved into a dark place. It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
His so-called "facts" are skewed, though.
More than MPEG? Of course not.
As of right now WMV-HD is available only through Microsoft's Media Player 9, which is only available for Windows XP (and possibly other Microsoft products, like Win 2K and ME). How is that more compatible than MPEG-4, which is supported by Mac, Linux, etc.?
I won't comment on his obvious typo. I'll assume that the "A" isn't supposed to be in there.
A recent MS press release stated that they will charge 10 cents per decoder, 20 cents per encoder, and 25 cents for both.
MPEG-4, which announced pricing prior to MS's release (and may lower their fees to compete) charges 25 cents per encoder and decoder, or 50 cents for both.
So how is 25 cents 5-10% of 50 cents? Last I checked it was 50%, not 5%.
And why is the DVD Forum not supporting Quicktime, or DivX, or XVID, or RealVideo, or any of the other many codecs?
Also of note from ZD Net:
So the pricing is for apples and oranges.
Wow, he thinks that's the ONLY difference? No difference in compression? No difference in quality?
I do find it interesting that all ten member companies of the Blu-Ray Group are also on the DVD Forum Steering Committee - and it was they who approved the Microsoft VC-9 inclusion in HD-DVD. Curious, no, why they'd vote for it?
WMV also gets you better compatibility with internet formats
As of right now WMV-HD is available only through Microsoft's Media Player 9, which is only available for Windows XP (and possibly other Microsoft products, like Win 2K and ME). How is that more compatible than MPEG-4, which is supported by Mac, Linux, etc.?
MV-9 costs equipment manfuactures as little as 5 to 10% of the cost of MPEAG-2
A recent MS press release stated that they will charge 10 cents per decoder, 20 cents per encoder, and 25 cents for both.
MPEG-4, which announced pricing prior to MS's release (and may lower their fees to compete) charges 25 cents per encoder and decoder, or 50 cents for both.
So how is 25 cents 5-10% of 50 cents? Last I checked it was 50%, not 5%.
And why is the DVD Forum not supporting Quicktime, or DivX, or XVID, or RealVideo, or any of the other many codecs?
Also of note from ZD Net:
Rob Koenen, president of the MPEG-4 Industry Forum, said that competition in licensing fees in general is positive. But he pointed out that "Microsoft's licensing fees are for the use of technology and don't necessarily cover an indemnification, while MPEG LA's licence covers patent rights and comes without technology."
"With MPEG LA, as with any licence, you're getting insurance. It's buying off risk," Koenen said.
Microsoft did not comment on the patent licence.
"With MPEG LA, as with any licence, you're getting insurance. It's buying off risk," Koenen said.
Microsoft did not comment on the patent licence.
So the only difference between MPEG-2 and WMV-9/VC-9 is who you want to pay for the usage of the technology and how much
I do find it interesting that all ten member companies of the Blu-Ray Group are also on the DVD Forum Steering Committee - and it was they who approved the Microsoft VC-9 inclusion in HD-DVD. Curious, no, why they'd vote for it?
