Interesting article about video codecs

riredale wrote on 3/10/2004, 12:22 PM
Saw an article about codecs over at the ExtremeTech site. The site, closely affiliated with PC Magazine, has some pretty interesting thoughts about technology.

They compared four codecs that represent the state-of-the-art in video compression. The codecs were: (a) Microsoft's WMV9, (b) Divx 5, (c) Quicktime/Sorenson, and (d) Apple's MPEG4. They tested them on DVD material and looked at the results at 1Mb/sec and 500Kb/sec.

Their conclusion was that WMV9 was the one to beat, with Divx5 running close behind.

I'm beginning to conclude that Microsoft is going to become the big gorilla in this category. They have an excellent product and near-infinite financial resources. The WMV9 decoder is about to appear in numerous consumer devices, including DVD players. The only possible spoiler might be the brand-new H.264 codec, which requires an enormous amount of processing power for the encoding, but promises a further 50% reduction in file size. Amazing.

Comments

mark2929 wrote on 3/10/2004, 12:59 PM
It dosent surprise me The wmv9 Decoder every time I have tried to use anything else like quicktime ect Im always wondering what am I doing wrong.

You just answered the question ;)
TheDingo wrote on 3/10/2004, 6:15 PM
I think this review is bogus, because it looks like they didn't use the Professional
version of the Sorenson CODEC. All of their comments about blockiness and lack
of detail only applies to the non-Pro version of Sorenson, which makes me wonder
if they really knew what they were doing.

Jay Gladwell wrote on 3/10/2004, 6:38 PM
Guy, I have a tendency to agree with you. As I read the article, I got the impression that they were comparing "low priced"codecs. They kept referring to "QuickTime with Sorenson3," which is whole different beast from Sorenson's Professional codec, which cost a few dollars more too!

Besides, they start out by saying, "Wondering which video codec to use at home?" That pretty well says it, don't you think?
J--
TheDingo wrote on 3/10/2004, 8:14 PM
Yup. I wouldn't have a problem with the review if they would just
openly state that they are testing the consumer version of the
Sorenson CODEC, and not the Pro version.

I also think that they could have achieved better results by using
different encoders. ( i.e. Canopus ProCoder or Cleaner )

farss wrote on 3/10/2004, 8:22 PM
From what I've seen of WMP9 at 1080p on a large plasma screen it looks pretty damn good. Is it the best, well it's all that I've seen and I don't think that's the crucial issue.
What it needs is someone with enough clout to push one standard so the guys making the boxes know which way to head. Love 'em or hate 'em, uStuff are arms length enough from the industry to not have to get mixed up in brand rivalry and they've got a big enough boot to kick a few STB manufactures into action to get the ball rolling.
Being able to output our media in HiDef onto red laser DVDs and play it on a box costing $100s not $1000 seems pretty good to me, certainly a much better than BluRay.
logiquem wrote on 3/11/2004, 6:20 AM
Entirely true. I just made a test in a presentation demo with an interview shot in 24p mode (DVX100) combinated to various graphics, and the result is really fabulous in WM9 HD. Just hope myself for the fast emerging of WM9 HD enabled DVD players for corporate clients.