Windows Media Video 9 verses Xvid/Divx

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Saw this on the Microsoft website regarding Windows Media Video 9 codec.
.. if this is true why are we still using Divx and Xvid?


"For example, a WMV9 file is typically only half the size of an MPEG-4
file of comparable quality."

--

if I haven't given a url with my answer, try typing the keywords into
google.com

 

[Shez]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

In the faraway land of rec.video.desktop, PerthMETRO. net <email@-at-
..perthmetro.invalid> said:
>Saw this on the Microsoft website regarding Windows Media Video 9 codec.
>. if this is true why are we still using Divx and Xvid?
>
>
>"For example, a WMV9 file is typically only half the size of an MPEG-4
>file of comparable quality."

Well they would say that wouldn't they... and what do they mean by
"comparable quality"? IF they meant "the same quality", surely they
would have said so. The WMV encoder has settings for things such as
sharpness, which means it can blur the video a bit during encoding.
Doing this is bound to reduce the bitrate required, but the resulting
video could still be called "comparable" to one which hasn't been
blurred.

Anyway, isn't WMV9 based on MPEG4 too? I thought it was, since MS's
earlier codecs are. The ffdshow MPEG4 filter can play some WMV files,
versions 7 & 8 I think (4CC codes WMV1 and WMV2), I'm not sure about
version 9 but I would be surprised if it were anything radically new.


--
______________________________________________________

The average person has a working vocabulary of 4000 words. Name them.
______________________________________________________
Take a break at the Last Stop Cafe: http://www.xerez.demon.co.uk/
Reply-to address for email: mailreply AT xerez.demon.co.uk

 

[Robert]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Shez <UseReplyAddress@nospam.invalid.uk> wrote in message news:<V3Q7IQIahu7AFwjm@zerex.nospam.co.uk>...
> In the faraway land of rec.video.desktop, PerthMETRO. net <email@-at-
> .perthmetro.invalid> said:
> >Saw this on the Microsoft website regarding Windows Media Video 9 codec.
> >. if this is true why are we still using Divx and Xvid?
> >
> >
> >"For example, a WMV9 file is typically only half the size of an MPEG-4
> >file of comparable quality."
>
> Well they would say that wouldn't they... and what do they mean by
> "comparable quality"? IF they meant "the same quality", surely they
> would have said so. The WMV encoder has settings for things such as
> sharpness, which means it can blur the video a bit during encoding.
> Doing this is bound to reduce the bitrate required, but the resulting
> video could still be called "comparable" to one which hasn't been
> blurred.
>
> Anyway, isn't WMV9 based on MPEG4 too? I thought it was, since MS's
> earlier codecs are. The ffdshow MPEG4 filter can play some WMV files,
> versions 7 & 8 I think (4CC codes WMV1 and WMV2), I'm not sure about
> version 9 but I would be surprised if it were anything radically new.

Linux can play WM9 files. Visit www.ezhometech.com, you can get more information.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On Sat, 3 Jul 2004 23:34:37 +0800, PerthMETRO.net <email -at-
perthmetro -dot- net> wrote:

>Saw this on the Microsoft website regarding Windows Media Video 9 codec.
>. if this is true why are we still using Divx and Xvid?
>
>
>"For example, a WMV9 file is typically only half the size of an MPEG-4
>file of comparable quality."

Completely meaningless.
There is no such thing as generic "MPEG4" to compare with.
Basically, all compressors use IDCT, e.g. the decoding is very similar
with Mpeg1, Mpeg2, Mpreg4 and probably, Video9 (hard to tell because
it's proprietary and closed source).
The real art of encoding lies in finding all detail that can be left
out and finding as many motion vectors as possible.
Given that, try to recode a DIVX5 (whis is MPEG4) movie to MPEG2 and
you may find that you only need about the same bitrate, even though
it's commonly believed that MPEG2 would need more. The reason is, that
the divx encoder has already eliminated much detail. This may not be
very visible, but it's fact and it's the reason why Divx is the better
compressor.
MPEG4 comprises anything from MS-MP4 V1 to Divx5, with a huge
difference in compression ability.
So what does MS compare Video9 with?
Their own MPEG4 compilant V1 ? Then twice the compression would be
nothing.
Divx ? If so, I guess they would have named it.
And what about MPEG2 ? As stated, it could compress about as well as
Divx5, if enough detail is left out. Anybody can do this, by just
first compressing to Divx5, then recompressing to MPEG2 (of course I
assume a good encoder, like CCE).
Given that, I don't see any clue about using Video9 for HD DVD, for
example. If you ask me, that whole discussion is maily about market
shares.
The 'art' lies in the particular encoder, regardless if MPEG2, MPEG4
or whatsoever, and with high compression rates, it's mainly about
kiling detail. I doubt that with media capacities getting ever larger,
this kind of 'compression' will be of any future value for disk
recording. For streaming, it still has its virtues.

Cheers


http://www.codecpage.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Nomen Nescio" <nobody@dizum.com> wrote in message
news:4ca53b47642fcc7ae7556a64268e69c9@dizum.com...
> 4. Some standalone players will play DivX files. I am unaware of any
> that will play WM9.

This will be changing soon. Chips that decode WMV9/MPEG-4/MPEG-2 and
targeted for standalone players are now in the market.