Slashdot Mirror
SMPTE Adoption Of WMV9 Hits Some Snags
SysKoll writes "EETimes is running an
interesting story about the future of the video codecs for HD DVDs. The Redmond Beast convinced both the Blu-ray Disc Association and the DVD Forum to adopt its WMV9 video codec over MPEG4 for the upcoming VC-1 standard that is mandated for high-definition video devices. That was a huge coup for MS. Now it turns out that Microsoft cheated and lied: its code is not as good as MPEG 4, the WMV9 reference implementation is not available, and the WMV9 test suite does not exercise all the features. The SMPTE might drop WMV9 after all. Apparently, a highly technical standard body is harder to snowjob than the usual clueless consumers."
Microsoft used shark-style tactics using his monopolistic power to get what it wanted and crush opposition... film at 11. Is this even news?
And if you RTFA, you'll see that "On the assumption that WMV9 was destined to become an industry standard, Microsoft convinced both the Blu-ray Disc Association and the DVD Forum to include it as a mandatory video compression format (along with MPEG-2 and H.264/MPEG-4 AVC) for next-generation high-definition DVD formats. Now, there is speculation that delays or licensing problems for VC-1 could prompt either -- or both -- of the DVD industry groups to simply delete the Microsoft technology from their specifications."
So it's not like WMV9 was the only codec incorporated in the standard anyway. Microsoft overpromised it seems, at least on the feature set. But cheated and lied?
Eureka Science News - automatically updated
English is easier said than done.
sure it's an open standard. anyone can buy the implementation specifications, and get the reference code for a marginal fee. but it uses patented methods, so even if you make your own implementation, you still have to pay the MPEG licensing authority (MPEG-LA) on their terms.
XviD *is* MPEG-4.
More specifically it's a codec which implements certain parts (up to and including the AS 'Advanced Simple' profile) of the ISO MPEG-4 specification.
-- Help Digitise the Public Domain at DP.
This just shows how little you actually know about this subject. VC-1 is a compression standard only. It does not include DRM features, or any user-interaction features for that matter. This is very clear if you have been following this standardization process at all.
Oh, and by the way, what Apple codecs are you referring to that have been designed to be so superior to WMV9? Please tell. (And don't say "Quicktime" because that is a format, not a codec.)
I didn't RTFA but, if I remember correctly, the OP has some major misinformation in his post.
It was my impression that WMV9 was approved by the HD DVD groups to be supported in ADDITION to the MPEG4 codec. It didn't REPLACE the MPEG4 codec.
Misinformation on Slashdot -- who'd-a-thought?
You're right about the need for license payments, but as an employee of a company that pays license fees to MPEG-LA now, I can tell you that in most cases that would affect readers of /., the fees are small enough that I think the bookkeeping costs MPEG-LA more than they collect. Over the last 5 years, I don't think our quarterlee fees have been much in excess of $100.00 per quarter.
--- Bill
That's the problem, they weren't thinking.
You asked why a ".. 'standards body' would consider a completely closed, proprietary codec
"Ironically, a Microsoft executive chaired the H.264 joint video team and successfully guided the group to the H.264 spec ratified at ITU-T in May 2003. Nevertheless, Microsoft has been promoting WMV9 as a proven codec that strikes a better balance between compression efficiency and computational efficiency than H.264."
and
" But now that the WMV9-based VC-1 has been put to the test in the arduous SMPTE standardization process, VC-1 is perceived as behind in quality and behind in licensing terms, compared to H.264/MPEG-4 AVC, one source said. "
Catch that? Microsoft railroaded the committee, while lying about WMV9's capabilities. Inspite of that behavior some committee members continue to be Microsoft sock puppets:
"In short, industry players that have embraced VC-1 fear they may have to go back to Microsoft and pony up fees for a WMVx license in the future. MPEG's Koenen dismissed such a possibility. "Microsoft knows better than that," he said. "
Ya, right. As PT Barnum said, "you can fool some of the people all of the time", an obvious reference to the SMPTE.
Look at this link to see the performance differences between some codecs. I hope it is just the quicktime implimentation of mpeg4 that is crappy. What about Divx?
Eminem - Stan
WMV9 isn't "completely closed" any more; MS submitted the bitstream specification to SMPTE.
You're the exception. At $2.50 per DVD player, digital cable box, or digital satellite box, some companies are paying MPEG-LA a lot of money.
Sort of. Quicktime movie (.mov) files are the official container format for MPEG-4 bytestreams, by the compression itself is not based on any Apple technology (the default QuickTime encoder pre-MPEG4 was not an Apple product either - it was licensed from Sorenson Media).
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Pointless and out-of-date article. That is looking at MPEG-4, not HD MPEG-4.
H.264/AVC is in a completely different league to the MPEG-4 LC currently in QuickTime 6.5.
QuickTime 6.6 (or 7 as it may be renamed on release) is f-ing amazing with H.264/AVC in similar bandwidths.
That is a very good point and that is precisely what makes me so concered. We haven't seen any patent attacks on Linux and free software yet, but as soon as Microsoft starts losing enough customers and money to Linux, we will see them.
After all, they are not fools investing literally millions in their "defensive" patent porfolios. Just look at IBM. They only use their patents "defensively." But what does it mean? When SCO sued them, they instantly countersued with tens of patents. SCO being wrong suing IBM in the first place is irrelevant. They could do the same thing against almost anyone because everyone violates some of the bogus and obvious patents thay have. The point is that they have the power to do so. So does Microsoft. They have the power to attack if they need it. And that's very dangerous.
And I am only talking about bogus patents right now, which in the case of Linux might cost anyone too much bad publicity or make the patents invalidated with the help of EFF, FSF or OSI, and only hurt the attacker in the long run. The very specific patents for modern audio and video codecs, and violating them to do exactly what they were designed for, is a completely different matter. They most probably wouldn't get invalidated in court. They will be a powerful weapon even for getting good publicity--"Linux was working only because those pirates stole our patented algorithms, without them it can't even play a movie, you should use Windows."
You're right, we don't have today what I fear we won't have in the future. It is not possible to legally play an original, purchased DVD on Linux. Would you believe that I still don't have a DVD drive because of that?
This is something which we have to address before it starts to be a problem. Because using patented algorithms in free software only makes the software vulnerable to legal attacks, and this is the only kind of attack that can be directed against free software. Most of people don't care about them because we haven't seen any attacks yet. Yet.
By the way, thanks for posting a very good comment in the Free Software Friendly Graphics Card discussion. When I was criticising the lack of support for that project and the lack of understanding why is it so important, I hadn't read you post, because I gave up after reading the top half of +5 comments which was basically saying "bad idea" which I quite honestly couldn't understand.
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."