Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SMPTE Adoption Of WMV9 Hits Some Snags

Posted by timothy on from the just-some-pesky-baiting-and-switching dept.

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."

8 of 274 comments (clear)

  1. Surprising? by FiReaNGeL · · Score: 5, Informative

    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
  2. Re:Open disk by pchan- · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  3. Re:Does *anyone* want Windows Media anyway? by jonathan_ingram · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.
  4. Wrong: VC-1 does not include DRM! by kylef · · Score: 4, Informative
    All Microsoft's DRM and Codec schemes have seemed to design to "embrace and extend" to further their Windows monopoly. Apple's have been designed to be the best they possibly can, with just enough DRM to satisfy their media partners. It's a big difference, and it shows up in everything they do.

    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.)

    1. Re:Wrong: VC-1 does not include DRM! by kylef · · Score: 4, Informative
      I'm pretty sure Nova Express was referring to WMA vs AAC.

      Heh. AAC isn't even an Apple codec. It's a Dolby Laboratories codec, licensed by Apple.

      Regardless, it's offtopic because we're discussing video codecs...

  5. Re:Open disk by wmeyer · · Score: 4, Informative

    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
  6. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
    What were they thinking?


    That's the problem, they weren't thinking.

    You asked why a ".. 'standards body' would consider a completely closed, proprietary codec ...?" The answer is in the article:

    "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.

  7. Re:Open disk by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.