Windows Media Video 9 verses Xvid/Divx

Discussion in 'Amateur Video Production' started by PerthMETRO.net, Jul 3, 2004.

  1. 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."
     
    PerthMETRO.net, Jul 3, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. PerthMETRO.net

    Nomen Nescio Guest

    1. DivX/Xvid <> MPEG-4
    2. WM9 is a closed source and proprietory codec.
    3. WM9 only "officially" runs on Windows OS (MACs too??) and not Linux,
    *BSD, etc.
    4. Some standalone players will play DivX files. I am unaware of any
    that will play WM9.

    There's probably more...

    P.S. Your newsreader sucks at generating "Message-Id" headers. Please
    see <http://www.jwz.org/doc/mid.html>.
     
    Nomen Nescio, Jul 3, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Actually. There's an official version of Windows Media Player. Not very
    good if you ask me though.. I prefer VLC player on my Mac. VLC player
    will play everything, even WinMedia Files, DivX, and Mpeg-4, it's open
    source, and works no numerous linux OSs too.
    -Richard
     
    Richard Ragon, Jul 3, 2004
    #3
  4. Far enough but as far as personal archiving(maybe later DVD players
    will have the codec?... do you think WMV9 would be better? --

    if I haven't given a url with my answer, try typing the keywords into
    google.com
     
    PerthMETRO.net, Jul 4, 2004
    #4
  5. PerthMETRO.net

    Shez Guest

    In the faraway land of rec.video.desktop, PerthMETRO. net <[email protected]
    ..perthmetro.invalid> said:
    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
     
    Shez, Jul 9, 2004
    #5
  6. PerthMETRO.net

    Robert Guest

    Linux can play WM9 files. Visit www.ezhometech.com, you can get more information.
     
    Robert, Jul 12, 2004
    #6
  7. PerthMETRO.net

    codecpage Guest

    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
     
    codecpage, Jul 12, 2004
    #7
  8. PerthMETRO.net

    FLY135 Guest

    This will be changing soon. Chips that decode WMV9/MPEG-4/MPEG-2 and
    targeted for standalone players are now in the market.
     
    FLY135, Jul 12, 2004
    #8
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.