http://www.dv.com/features/features_item.jhtml;jsessionid=4HWMPIHN2XFOOQSNDBGCKHY?category=Archive&LookupId=/xml/feature/2003/johnson1103

Excellent article. Thanks for posting it, Ken.

I found this admission interesting: "You should also know that uncompressed WM9 color space is 8-bit 4:2:0 while uncompressed AVI is 4:2:2 in either 8-bit or 10-bit format, which is technically better quality, but we believe WM9 is very acceptable for independent theatrical playback."

We shouldn't expect WM9 technologies to be replacing 35 mm projection anytime soon. Perhaps with the next rev, Microsoft will allow for greater dynamic range and chroma fidelity.

The original MPEG2 signal imported from HD10 cams is in 4:2:0 space anyway.

So MS WMP9 does not lower the plank here at all.

Given WMP9's ability to deliver excellent-quality HD with 5.1 channel Surround Sound in small size files *with the minimal effort*, I'd say that it actually contributes more to the future of the HD distribution than any other format (D-VHS, blu-ray lasers...) at this time.

In my opinion, WMP9 is *the* platform for the HD movies distribution, being it home theater or movie theater.

Really easy to encode, too - just use a stand-alone, Free WMP9 encoder, or simply export your timeline from Premiere Pro directly into WMP9 format.

The only missing link for mass-distribution is a set-top player for WMP9 files for home theater. Given that MS Xbox already supports 720p HD Component out, one could hope that MS or its partners will come up with WMP9 player based on Xbox or alike.

(*Movie theaters* do not depend on this as they already have a specialized hardware for playing WMP9 files.)

Phenomenal article.

The subject matter of this topic essentially ends the 'HD10 vs DV 24P for feature film' debate.

Brian

<<<-- Originally posted by Alex Raskin : Given WMP9's ability to deliver excellent-quality HD with 5.1 channel Surround Sound in small size files *with the minimal effort*, I'd say that it actually contributes more to the future of the HD distribution than any other format (D-VHS, blu-ray lasers...) at this time. -->>>

WM9 is not incompatible with Blu-ray. WM9 is just a codec.

But I don't believe we will ever see any Asian company put an MS codec into their products.

The next codec that will be used is MPEG-4+. Sony is already using MPEG-4 for HD in its HDCAM-RT.

It will be as good as WM9 and not something MS owns. Plus Apple QT is going the MPEG-4 way.

I suspect we'll see WM9 be as succesful as MS TV. Neat technology, but without acceptance worldwide. Few want MS into their business, especially Sony.

WM9 HD-DVD may become the defacto standard if the flighting between the media companies doesn't stop. WM9 HD-DVD players will be on the market 6 to 9 months before any consumer blu-ray (which we can't yet produce content for.) Microsoft might win this.

Samsung HD-DVD WM9 player due in January 2004.
http://www.cdfreaks.com/news2.php?ID=7696

Wait until Sony makes it clear that going with the Samsung, if we ever see it, will not play pre-recorded Hollywood HD DVDs.

Also, Sony is already selling a Blu-ray HD DVD RECORDERS in Japan and all other Japanese companies have shown Blu-ray. If they want one in the USA they can have it here overnight.

They are only waiting for agreement on copyprotection -- not technology.

Red-laser, WM9 is just FUD around the fact the future is Blu-ray and MPEG-2 followed by MEG-4+.

MS getting one Korean company to talk about a WM9 HD DVD is just FUD from Bill.

He's getting no place in cable boxes despite buying into cable systems. And he still can't beat Palm. Only when MS has an existing monoply can MS succeed.

End Rant

Your thinking is around Sony being the dominant player (which it is in this market), yet Sony has a history of screwing up the introduction of better technology (Blu-ray could equal BetaMAX -- note: I hope it doesn't.) The DRM issues from the studios in what is messing this up. We could have MPEG4 HD red-laser today if Sony wanted it, and blue-ray could follow later (imagine a whole session of HD Buffy on a single DVD :) ) Sony is of course conflicted as a content producer and electronics company. There are compelling reason for both technologies. MS has an opening because its licensing is cheaper and there is a market appetite for HD content. There will be a market for the Samsung unit, if large enough, prepare for an in market format war.

PS. Of course I was suggesting that we can make HD DVD without upgrading our DVD burners.

<<<-- Originally posted by David Newman : PS. Of course I was suggesting that we can make HD DVD without upgrading our DVD burners. -->>>

Yes, that part is great. And fpr those with PC-based media systems with HD out -- it is a perfect solution.

Although I could not get 6-10mbps to playback. It always paused for several seconds at the start. Then played fine. Looked great.

I'm wondering what people use as their WMP9 bit rate? What is the best it can do...while still being able to run on most computer systems

I have found a 6Mbit average (allowing for peaks of 18Mbits) to be very good quality and decodable on nearly all 2.xGHz PCs.

can I encode with higher bitrate, such as 8M or 10M, then the quality is better?

Yes you can and the quality is a little better, however as the bit-rate climbs decoding CPU requirements will increase (although not much for 8-10Mbit.) I haven't done tests to say at what bit-rate what CPU speed is required.

well the advantage of the WM9 is that it compresses HighDef video to such low sizes, so we can use current technology as a medium. If the technology is here, then i don't see why we need to wait for blue-ray.

<<<-- Originally posted by Yang Wen : ...WMP9...If the technology is here, then i don't see why we need to wait for blue-ray. -->>>

Because WMP9 files of good quality cannot be successfully played on the average PC.

Try playing Terminator 2 HD WMP9 (included on the DVD set of Extreme edition).

That's why I'm awaiting set-top boxes that would be able to decode and play WMP9s of high bitrate off of the DVD-ROMs.

This way we keep our DVD burners, and all is needed is to buy another $80 DVD player, now with the WMP9 decoder - no big deal financially to anyone!

I wrote Bill Gates about the need of set-top machines for WMP9, but haven't heard anything back as of now.

Hope MS pushes this thing (they already submitted WMP9 as SMPTE standard) on the hardware level as fast as possible. I'd love to move away from D-VHS as a distribution media, and back to the standard red laser DVD-ROMs, provided that manufacturers mass-produce WMP9 players as set-top boxes.

Anyone who NEEDS to see your movie: Movie executives, distributors, film festival organizers, ect.. will have access to a high level PC and WM9 would be excellent to promote your flick. And by this time next year a AMD or Intel 3000 will be a low end PC!
If its general mass distibution you want then anamorphic DVD it is. WM9 set-top boxes will have market penetration in 2 years at best.
Ken

<<<-- Originally posted by Alex Raskin : <<<-- Originally posted .


I wrote Bill Gates about the need of set-top machines for WMP9, but haven't heard anything back as of now.

Hope MS pushes this thing (they already submitted WMP9 as SMPTE standard) on the hardware level as fast as possible. I'd love to move away from D-VHS as a distribution media, and back to the standard red laser DVD-ROMs, provided that manufacturers mass-produce WMP9 players as set-top boxes. -->>>

Well actually, MS is currently having their WM9 technology up for approval by SMTPE. If it gets approved, we can expect to see new DVD players, DBS receivers and mobile systems to playback HighDef WM9 files. It ought to be great!!!

Exactly Alex...we tried the T2 HD DVD on our PC which is a P4 3.06 1gb ram, ATI 9800 pro machine and you would think that would be sufficient, but we still had stuttering and slowdowns while playing the DVD. Transfering the entire DVD to the hard drive helped a little but it was still very noticable. Though that was at 1080p.

And I had no luck with a 2.8 and a RAID with 720p30. I'm not convinced yet.

Worse, WM9 is part of MS and their Rights Management System. No thanks.

Blu-ray is the right answer and is supported by Sony, Pana, and JVC.

Remember these input MPEG-2 Transport Stream.

Shoot MPEG-2 TS and distribute MPEG-2 TS.

We have no problems creating WM9 720p30 (exported from Premiere and Apsect HD) that will play on any 2.something Ghz PC. Our WM9 6Mbit demo loop that we use at tradeshows runs on a 2.2Ghz portable PC (i.e. nothing special here.)

<<<-- Originally posted by Steve Mullen : Worse, WM9 is part of MS and their Rights Management System. No thanks.

Blu-ray is the right answer and is supported by Sony, Pana, and JVC. -->>>

Are you against copyright protection in principle, or against Microsoft just because it's fashionable to hate Bill Gates?

Sony has its own content protection even with MP3s.

Almost all DVD and VHS movies are Macromedia-protected.

All this is fine.

But mention MS, and you see a knee-jerk reaction.

I'm not affiliated with MS in any way, but as objective person, it's tiresome to see casual Gates-bashing just because the guy makes more per hour than most of us are making a year.

Let's rather stay open and give all platforms a fair chance!

(On the lighter note, click here:
http://www.quuxuum.org/~evan/bgnw.html)

"Worse, WM9 is part of MS and their Rights Management System. No thanks."

If we distribute on WMP9 DVDs in the future do we owe them money? Or are they taking it from just the DVD player producers.

<<<-- Originally posted by Alex Raskin : Are you against copyright protection in principle, or against Microsoft just because it's fashionable to hate Bill Gates? -->>>

I think copyprotection is important. But through huge lobbying efforts (read $$$$ to politicians) we will soon lose all consumer rights.

Bill's system is a cave in to these special interests that give them total control of media you have bought and own. This is his pact with the devil in an effort to get their backing of WM for HD DVDs.

My belief is that WM9 supports low data rate devices at the loss of video quality in exactly the same way MP3 does for audio. In fact that's how I think of it. MP3 for video.

And, I'm prticularly concerned about feeding WM9 with very highly compressed MPEG-2. Lossey + lossey doesn't sound good to me. And adding Pixlet or Wavelet in the middle of these two -- not a good idea IMHO.

<<<-- Originally posted by Steve Mullen : I'm prticularly concerned about feeding WM9 with very highly compressed MPEG-2. Lossey + lossey doesn't sound good to me. And adding Pixlet or Wavelet in the middle of these two -- not a good idea IMHO. -->>>


Steve, I admit that I have no idea how Mac people process HD10's videos.

But in Win world (and WM9 is for Windows only) you always have to put in-between codecs while editing m2t files that come out of the camera.

Examples: Aspect HD, as I understand, recompresses m2t into its own wavelet-based format.

Or say you do what I do and software-convert m2t into AVIs - the same thing, I'm recompressing using a different codec like HUFFYUV for instance.

Even if you go the old-fashioned way and just capture analog 1080i output directly from HD10's Component out and via some HD PC card, you are still putting the signal through the chain of hardware-based DA, then AD conversions (all that add imprefections to the signal) plus you capture either in a proprietary card's codec or in one of the AVI codecs at the end still. This is even worse than straight software-based file conversion.

So unless there's a software that REALLY works with m2t files in real-time for editing, we are all stuck with the in-between recompression of the original MPEG2 signal simply for editing purposes.

This however is not WM9's fault...

Now, on export of the edited timeline, we have another conversion - from my AVIs back to m2t, or from Aspect's wavelet codec back to m2t, no matter what, you have to recompress to MPEG2 again.

How is it better than recompressing in WM9? WM9 by the way affords very high bitrates if you need high quality and can afford a player that supports high-bitsream bandwidth.

Export of your timeline to WM9 is a snap and is totally glitch-free in Premiere Pro. Including surround sound.

Transferring WM9 files is easy - it's just one .wmv file, so copy it on CD or DVD or send it over the network, and you're done.

Standalone WM9 encoder is also available, and is free. Software player is also free. Both come directly from, and supported by, Microsoft.

I personally tried all this (except for Aspect HD, which is unavailable in trial version) and I speak from experience. My experience is that WM9 is VERY satisfying in both easy of use and quality.

Problem is in mass-producing a WMP9 player that is hardware-based, so it could play our DVDs we encode using the existing red-laser systems. (But isn't the ONLY other way to distribute HD movies now, which is D-VHS, also problematic? Although the players are available, they are expensive, unreliable, not compatible with DVDs, and - oh horror! - tape based!)

That's the whole thing - WM9 hardware player is not widely available now, so despite the superb encoding abilities and high quality of WM9 movies, they are stuck on the distribution side.

Thus MS has to push the WM9 players production for masses :)

<<<-- Originally posted by Alex Raskin :

Steve, I admit that I have no idea how Mac people process HD10's videos.

HDVcinema: MPEG-2 >> uncompressed >> MPEG-2 is only 1 cycle!


"But in Win world (and WM9 is for Windows only) you always have to put in-between codecs while editing m2t files that come out of the camera."

Vegas 4: MPEG-2 >> uncompressed >> MPEG-2 is only 1 cycle!

Neither of these have any intermediate. Pure MPEG-2 in and out. :)


If you believe Bill, he'll say WM9 is better than MPEG-2. Probably claims it's better than HD MPEG-4. And it may be all he claims. On specially prepared demos it looked great.

And I'll admit that IF Japan were going to switch to WM9 so all our future HD DVDs were WM9 I might be more interested. But WM9 has less hardware support than D-VHS! Like nothing. At least I can order a Blu-ray DVD burner and get it next week.

You'll note that Sony chose HD MPEG-4 for 4:4:4 HDCAM-RT. That's for your second generation Blu-ray.

Steve, question...

In practical editing terms... would you say that Vegas plays m2t timeline in real-time on say 2.4Ghz P4 with 400FSB with 1Gb memory and fast hard drives?

What happens when filters/transition are added?

There are confusing signals coming from people who used Vegas for direct m2t editing: my understanding is that most of them are actually unable to achieve real-time playback even without any filters applied.

Is this true?


Question # 2: I'm puzzled by the absence of a positive feedback on Aspect HD from real-world users.
If Aspect is a practical answer to real-time HD editing, why is it that there's no raving posts from end users on this forum? What's your take on this?

Alex,

I have just done a bunch of testing with m2t timelines in Vegas.

Test System:

Software:
XP Pro SP1 Plus all updates
Vegas 4
No other software

Hardware:
P4 2.53 GHz @ 533 MHz FSB
1 GB PC2700 DDR RAM
IDE RAID (3 7200 RPM DRIVES)

Results:

These results are based on playback of m2t files from the Vegas 4.0 timeline @ 1/4 resolution in a 1280x720 project. Setting the preview to 'Preview(Auto)' will allow playback at 640x360.

Plain m2t playback @ about 10 f/s
2 streams w/2-d transition @ about 2 f/s
2 streams w/3-d transition @ about 1 f/s
2 streams w/motion or transparency @ about 3 f/s
1 stream with filter applied @ 1-6 f/s dependent on the filter type and how the parameters are set.

If you want to call that real-time you can. To me, Real-time means 30 f/s.

Aspect HD will do each of these things on my system @ 30 frames/second. Occasionally, if two or more filters/effects are stacked there will be a frame dropped here and there. However, this system has a processor that is at the VERY BOTTOM of our minimum spec. Of course the faster the system, the more streams/effects you can stack. This is with AspectHD filters and effects. Premiere filters can also be added, but they will not play in 30 fps real-time.

I imagine that a 2.4 GHz system with 400 MHz FSB might come close to giving you the numbers I specified above....... Take these numbers with a grain of salt since I am a Cineform employee. My framerates are estimates based on my eyball...and my eyeball may be biased...... but I think they're pretty accurate.

Thanks Thad!

So in terms of using Vegas, it's out... 10fps at best at 1/4 resolution obviously isn't real-time HD editing...

I wouldn't even be able to visually lip-sync or otherwise synchronize the sound track with video at this display rate...

Using the 2.8GHz system with RAID that CineForm sent me for my review of Aspect HD, Vegas played back smoothly at "normal" speed. However, not even a dissolve could be added without stuttering.

So if you don't care about RT FX, Vegas works fine. No input conversions and direct export of MPEG-2 PS. Still must convert to TS, however.

I'm sorry if I offended people in bashing Pixlet, but I just don't consider non RT editing something that is practical. I've been editing in RT with Canopus and Matrox since 1998. I can't see going back. But obviously that is a very personal decision.

So if you don't care, Vegas on a hot machine might work for you.