WMV codec.. i think it rocks

J

JitCam

Well-known member
i just went out for some nature footage and got back captured via firewire off the miniDV tape of my hvx, i rendered with the wmv codec and was blown away .. its so sharp and nice its actually better than the original avi of the DV codec which i captured.. how can this be? Not that im complaining.. :P

Also .. does anybody know of a good mpeg2 codec for dvd encoding? Im using main concept which is good.. but im not happy with the quality of it.. also any tweeking to be taken into consideration when setting up the codec for a dvd compatible mpeg?

thanx all
 
JitCam said:
i just went out for some nature footage and got back captured via firewire off the miniDV tape of my hvx, i rendered with the wmv codec and was blown away .. its so sharp and nice its actually better than the original avi of the DV codec which i captured.. how can this be?
Click to expand...
It can't. The WMV codec cannot generate detail that isn't there in the source material, all it can do it create the appearance of something that is sharper and more detailed than the original -- this typically happens when you downsize video. If your WMV files isn't 720x480/720x576, then the lower resolution is almost certainly responsible.

I like WMV because it delivers good quality, streams well, and reaches a very large portion of the 'net population, but it doesn't produce video as clean as QuickTime using similar encoding parameters. WMV also requires alot of tuning because it offers so many customization options.
 
If you're speaking of the WMV HD codec...

I've noticed that when people are delivering their samples in comparison to quicktime... the WMV9 is so much better. Why is that?
 
Sorry, but I'd have to disagree. For the past two computers and one laptop (ok, so that's three computers) I have never had luck with WMV.

Ninety percent of the time, I cannot even watch a WMV from double clicking on the file. It loads the player, I hear the sound, but all I see is black screen. This is across te board, resolution independant and computer independant (one is Win ME, the others are XP Pro).

Now, when I start the player first (and this has been consistent for the past two versions of WMP) then drag the file into the player, it's usually fine. Sometimes, it plays upside down for a few seconds before fixing.

But when it does finally play, it's not bad at all.

However, I do have to admit that I think QT is a MUCH sharper image, especially H.264.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't like WMV at all. Lots of bad experiences.

Scott
 
I don't think he's talking about WMV HD, since hte source is DV25 from MiniDV tape.

Kholi, are you comparing WMV HD and QT H.264 at similar bitrates?
 
yeah its the wm9 im using, the original file was 720x576 and the render was the same size, its just i noticed watching the rendered 720x576 wmv file was much more crisp and detailed than my original captured file..
 
Is that during fairly static scenes or during movement? WMV deinterlaces, so if you are viewing motion on a progressive computer display, it won't have that interlaced fuzzyness.
 
static shots and during movement, the quality is really good, i dont know if its got some post filtering in windows or something, but i was quite surprised.
 
WMVHD's motion artifacting is more pleasing to my eye. Where as Mpeg, or quicktime pixelate, WMVHD just kinda gets a little softer on the artifacted palces. i think that slooks better. more natural than squares.
 
I am comparing WMV-HD to H.264/Quicktime.

Then again the trailers on Apple.com are eye pleasing. I've just noticed that the WMV-HD camera tests (JVC100 filmmout comes to mind) look great.
 
I don't think the DV codec is really designed for viewing on a computer monitor. Depending on what you play it back with (mplayer, vlc etc) it tends not too look as good as something that has been rendered such as the WMVs that you mention.
If you're outputting it from your camera to a TV monitor it woud look great. Thats its best scenario.

re mpeg2 encoders. I work as a DVD Author professionally. I've used a lot of encoders, both hardware (the sort that cost $20,000) and software.
The main concept encoder in OK for general use, but the best software encoder at the moment is the Cinema Craft encoder. I've been using this encoder in a number of studios, both for small menu encodes and full program encodes. It can be used for simple drag and encode use, or if you get down and dirty its got a mass of temporally adjustable parameters.
 
WM9 beats quicktime easily in the size-quality ratio. We use WM9 even for Kiosk infochannels instead of mp4 or mpeg2, because it is small and great quality in those small filesizes. Sure apple.com has great trailers, but they have the best quality coming into the encoder first (4k-size) and then they have rather large files compared to what WM9 would be. apple.com is used by the studios, because they did so for y3ears and it is a good outlet for them and many of them use Apple machines and by principal don´t use Windows.
 
yeah thats true.. certain codecs look better on different displays.. just wish i could find an mpeg encoder which gives that quality, i'll try cinema craft
 
I very much dislike the WMV format. Does it look great? Yes, it does. But WMV is a very closed-format. Try playing back a WMV file in Linux...

High-def Xvid is my format of choice. It looks great, and works on any OS. Plus, there are no patent, copyright, or other legal issues to worry about when distributing for profit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top