New Windows Media Encoder beta

John_Cline wrote on 7/10/2006, 7:20 AM

FYI. Just heard about this, thought others may be interested. This is what Microsoft has to say about it:

"Windows Media Encoder Studio Edition Beta 1 is an exciting new addition to the Windows Media tools family. It is a powerful tool for video professionals, optimized for the creation of high-quality offline encoding using Microsoft’s implementation of the VC-1 video standard (WMV9). Windows Media Encoder Studio Edition Beta 1 provides the key features necessary to create next-generation video content and capitalize on the growing importance of scenarios around optical media and video-on-demand. With the final standardization of VC-1, “Studio Edition”, will prove to be an invaluable tool for the offline encoding community."

Windows VC-1 Media Encoder (beta)

Comments

JJKizak wrote on 7/10/2006, 8:20 AM

From what I can see "visually" the VC-1 codec blows away whatever is in V6.0d.
JJK
PS: This is in reference to coding up HD-WMV files.

p@mast3rs wrote on 7/10/2006, 10:19 AM

If you have Media Player 11 installed, then the VC1 codec is already available in Vegas (Advanced Profile.) Other than a few tweakable things in Studio, the output should be closely the same.

OdieInAz wrote on 7/11/2006, 9:30 AM

How can I verify that have actually encoded with VC1?

Jay-Hancock wrote on 7/11/2006, 2:33 PM

p@mast3rs - would you have to toggle the "ignore third party codecs" or would it just be there anyway (since wmv in some form does come with Vegas)?

Chanimal wrote on 7/11/2006, 9:34 PM

Has anyone tried to install this? It asked for some strange file. I got it, then it asked for .net 2.0 and I stopped. Does it keep asking for more stuff?

NickHope wrote on 7/12/2006, 12:49 AM

I just did. It asked for MSXML 6.0 so I installed that and it went smoothly. I already had .NET 2.0 so no problem there.

Didn't encode anything with it yet. So if I upload some videos encoded with the "advanced profile" will those with older WMP like version 8 be able to play them and how big is the VC-1 decoder download (i.e. how much longer will they have to wait)? How about Macs?

Nick

backlit wrote on 7/12/2006, 7:57 AM

I found this codec last weekend on the list when rendering a file using VirtualDub. It must have installed with WMP-11. I tested it on a 1750 frame DV clip I had DeShaked by comparing it to four others. Based on this minimal test here is what I found.

1) VC-1 very fast at 4 minutes and produced a the smallest file 120mb. It was also the worst quality. Colors were not to bad but there was a lot of pixilation in the image.

2) PICvideo the slowest of the bunch at 17 minutes and produced a 650 mb file that had good color retention. It was the best of the compressed formats.

3) Cinipak rendered at 9 minutes and produced a 240mb file. The colors were really squashed particularly the reds.

4) Uncompressed AVI rendered in 7 minutes and produced a 1.3 gb file which had the best quality of them all.

Note: These numbers are from my memory so they are probably inacurate. Use them only as "ballpark" figures. Looks like I'm sticking with Uncompressed AVI for Deshaker but it is nice to know where that VC-1 codec came from. I'm guessing the PIC codec came with Pinacle 9 (cough) that I have installed soley for capturing from the MovieBox hardware I have.

Cheers,
David

p@mast3rs wrote on 7/12/2006, 8:33 AM

The WM9 that Vdub uses is NOT VC1. Trust me, VC1 is NOT fast at all. Certainly not faster than the other codecs you mentioned. Give you an example. Using the studio beta, VC1 Advanced Profile, 512x400 uncompressed source and the betiblest I could manage was 0.83 fps. Not 8 but 0.83.

VC1 is only available through Media Player 11 or using the Windows Media 9.5 SDK and the update file on Microsofts website. Again, WM9 VFW is not VC1 or at least nothing compatible with the latest offering from MS.

That said, VC1 is pretty amazing. Still pretty useless as there is still NO way for consumers or even prosumers to author next gen DVDs.

Jay-Hancock wrote on 7/12/2006, 8:47 AM

I would say its not entirely useless. While they are minority of the market, there are quite a few HTPC users who could benefit from this. Microsoft will probably find a way for their XBox 360 to play these files (even if it has to be transcoded and streamed from a PC). And maybe some future set-top boxes will be able to use it.

If I were a tech-savvy client and a videographer offered to give me an HD version of a video he just made for me, I'd probably buy a USB drive and have him put the vid onto it. That USB drive would probably be a relatively small expense compared to the video itself.

p@mast3rs wrote on 7/12/2006, 8:57 AM

When I said useless I was referring to the amount of time it takes to encode the video using Advanced Profile. Add to it the added decoding resources. The current main and simple profiles are sufficient for internet distribution with lower decoding resources.

FYI Xbox360 can already play VC1 files.

VC1 is still very good it just takes too damn long to get a feature encoded for HD resolutions.