Why is Microsoft preventing itself from making HD revolution?

"Lyrik" wrote in message
news

Being in Denmark i had to order a wmv HD film from US. Amazon.com.
It arrived today and i could not wait to insert it in my Kiss DP600 HD
player.
To my surprise it did not play as expected, having in mind the showcase
videos i have downloadet from the internet and played on my TV.

They were right! They could only be played on a PC. Thinking that PC meant
Personal Computer i tried playing them on my MAC.-No!! It will only play
on Windows, more specific on MEDIAPLAYER with its DRM rights management!
Now my Intel-MAC can be booted in Windows mode, so i could se the film on
my 20" screen.;-(

How foolish of Microsoft!!

They have a potentially victorious HD wmv-format which can play HD from an
ordinary DVD to a TV!! Having 2 hours on an ordinary doubble layer!
And then they prevented it!!
Is Microsoft "Goofy" in Donald Duck? Are they mad? Are they without
vision? Or are they plain stupid?
They slept while their fenomenous wmv7 was converted to DivX with enormous
succes. now they sleep while H.264 sweeps the carpet from under their
wmv9-feet!
Sleep tight Microsoft!zzzz.......zzzz.....

Greets Jens

HD-DVD uses the same codec to do an 1080 movie in 30GB

2 hours of "HD" in 9 GB is going to be over-compressed and uglier

Microsoft claims 1080i needs up to 30mb/sec for full resolution using the
codec

Being in Denmark i had to order a wmv HD film from US. Amazon.com.
It arrived today and i could not wait to insert it in my Kiss DP600 HD
player.
To my surprise it did not play as expected, having in mind the showcase
videos i have downloadet from the internet and played on my TV.

They were right! They could only be played on a PC. Thinking that PC meant
Personal Computer i tried playing them on my MAC.-No!! It will only play
on Windows, more specific on MEDIAPLAYER with its DRM rights management!
Now my Intel-MAC can be booted in Windows mode, so i could se the film on
my 20" screen.;-(

How foolish of Microsoft!!

They have a potentially victorious HD wmv-format which can play HD from an
ordinary DVD to a TV!! Having 2 hours on an ordinary doubble layer!
And then they prevented it!!
Is Microsoft "Goofy" in Donald Duck? Are they mad? Are they without
vision? Or are they plain stupid?
They slept while their fenomenous wmv7 was converted to DivX with enormous
succes. now they sleep while H.264 sweeps the carpet from under their
wmv9-feet!
Sleep tight Microsoft!zzzz.......zzzz.....

Greets Jens


--
Sendt med Operas banebrydende postklient:
http://www.opera.com/mail/

"Lyrik" wrote Is Microsoft "Goofy" in Donald Duck? Are
they mad? Are they without
vision? Or are they plain stupid?

I can't understand them either.

Years ago, they seemed to be trying to derail HDTV rollout altogether,
claiming 480p is sufficient.

But then, earlier on, wasn't Gates disparaging the potential of the li'l ol'
internet too?

Den 14.02.2007 kl. 02:10 skrev R Sweeney :



HD-DVD uses the same codec to do an 1080 movie in 30GB

2 hours of "HD" in 9 GB is going to be over-compressed and uglier

Microsoft claims 1080i needs up to 30mb/sec for full resolution using the
codec
+++++++++++++++++
Are you serious?
30mb/sec would give 108 Gigabyte per hour!! So 2 hours would give 216
Gigabyte!! Not even a blueray laser does have room for that fantasy of a
film?
We can forget those fantasies and stick to reality.

The case is that Microsoft HAS MADE HD-FILMS and they have very good
quality.
The one that is on my table is THE LIVING SEA produced by MacGillivRay
Freeman Films. Indeed HD quality.

wmv9 is a very eficient MPEG4 encoding. The best according to my point of
wiev. It has menues like ordinary DVD's everything first class. A very
smooth floating film codec. the smoothest IMHO. No jerks like many codecs
produce.
It is top notch.
The HD film is top notch, Bearing the WMV HD logo.
In the 1080i film on the DVD we have 39:33 minutes of film. The supreme
wmv9 codec can show this in full quality using a bitrate of 8469 kilobits
per sec. The total of this film is 2.29 Gigabyte.
A calculation gives us:
3.474 gigabytes per hour!! In top notch quality here on my desk.

But Microsoft throws it all away in the DRM-bin.

Greets
Jens


--
Sendt med Operas banebrydende postklient:
http://www.opera.com/mail/

"Lyrik" wrote in message
news
Den 14.02.2007 kl. 02:10 skrev R Sweeney :



HD-DVD uses the same codec to do an 1080 movie in 30GB

2 hours of "HD" in 9 GB is going to be over-compressed and uglier

Microsoft claims 1080i needs up to 30mb/sec for full resolution using the
codec
+++++++++++++++++
Are you serious?
30mb/sec would give 108 Gigabyte per hour!! So 2 hours would give 216
Gigabyte!! Not even a blueray laser does have room for that fantasy of a
film?
We can forget those fantasies and stick to reality.

The case is that Microsoft HAS MADE HD-FILMS and they have very good
quality.
The one that is on my table is THE LIVING SEA produced by MacGillivRay
Freeman Films. Indeed HD quality.

wmv9 is a very eficient MPEG4 encoding. The best according to my point of
wiev. It has menues like ordinary DVD's everything first class. A very
smooth floating film codec. the smoothest IMHO. No jerks like many codecs
produce.
It is top notch.
The HD film is top notch, Bearing the WMV HD logo.
In the 1080i film on the DVD we have 39:33 minutes of film. The supreme
wmv9 codec can show this in full quality using a bitrate of 8469 kilobits
per sec. The total of this film is 2.29 Gigabyte.
A calculation gives us:
3.474 gigabytes per hour!! In top notch quality here on my desk.

But Microsoft throws it all away in the DRM-bin.

didn't notice the capital B vs the lower case b did you?
Bytes vs bits... a factor of 8
30mb/sec gives 27GB for 2 hrs
which "coincidentally" is 3GB short of the dual layer HD-DVD capacity

The Microsoft WMV codec (aka AV1) website indicates that up to 30mb/sec is
needed for full res.
You are watching bit-starved HD @ 8mb/sec

"Top notch", unless you have seen it at higher bit rates.

Den 14.02.2007 kl. 04:38 skrev R Sweeney :


"Lyrik" wrote in message
news
Den 14.02.2007 kl. 02:10 skrev R Sweeney :


A calculation gives us:
3.474 gigabytes per hour!! In top notch quality here on my desk.

But Microsoft throws it all away in the DRM-bin.

didn't notice the capital B vs the lower case b did you?
Bytes vs bits... a factor of 8
30mb/sec gives 27GB for 2 hrs
which "coincidentally" is 3GB short of the dual layer HD-DVD capacity

The Microsoft WMV codec (aka AV1) website indicates that up to 30mb/sec
is
needed for full res.
You are watching bit-starved HD @ 8mb/sec

"Top notch", unless you have seen it at higher bit rates.
++++++++++++++++
Well sorry about not noticing bits. Then a correction. The WMV HD is
actually 1080p and not 1080i.
I would not call it bit-starved.
It is their certified HD stamped quality. So how can it be their certified
standard and by themselves called insuficient? And i think it should be
very satisfying to most people.
The wmv9 codec is very efficient and smooth running. It includes room for
menues. It is the "Divx of HD films" IMHO.
And wether M. wants it or no,t it will be used as such i think.
It is amazing that they do not want a piece of the cake. Most people have
DVD drives and they are much cheaper than the HDCP restricted DVDR and
Blueray.

Greets Jens


--
Sendt med Operas banebrydende postklient:
http://www.opera.com/mail/

++++++++++++++++
Well sorry about not noticing bits. Then a correction. The WMV HD is actually
1080p and not 1080i.
I would not call it bit-starved.
It is their certified HD stamped quality. So how can it be their certified
standard and by themselves called insuficient? And i think it should be very
satisfying to most people.
The wmv9 codec is very efficient and smooth running. It includes room for
menues. It is the "Divx of HD films" IMHO.
And wether M. wants it or no,t it will be used as such i think.
It is amazing that they do not want a piece of the cake. Most people have DVD
drives and they are much cheaper than the HDCP restricted DVDR and Blueray.

I think that HD video can look decent at 8-9Mbps, just like regular DVD can look
good at 3.5-4Mbps. It all depends on the quality of the codec used. There's no
reason that HD won't look significantly better than DVD even at only double the
bitrate.


(*

Den 14.02.2007 kl. 16:29 skrev Hawk :


++++++++++++++++
Well sorry about not noticing bits. Then a correction. The WMV HD is
actually
1080p and not 1080i.
I would not call it bit-starved.
It is their certified HD stamped quality. So how can it be their
certified
standard and by themselves called insuficient? And i think it should
be very
satisfying to most people.
The wmv9 codec is very efficient and smooth running. It includes room
for
menues. It is the "Divx of HD films" IMHO.
And wether M. wants it or no,t it will be used as such i think.
It is amazing that they do not want a piece of the cake. Most people
have DVD
drives and they are much cheaper than the HDCP restricted DVDR and
Blueray.

I think that HD video can look decent at 8-9Mbps, just like regular DVD
can look
good at 3.5-4Mbps. It all depends on the quality of the codec used.
There's no
reason that HD won't look significantly better than DVD even at only
double the
bitrate.


(*
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You are so right.:-)
Let the people decide for themselves and download some samples which they
can display on their windows PC:
I recommend the former IMAX movies:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/win...tshowcase.aspx

R Sweeney talks of "reduced bitrate" as if the 8469 kilobits/sek was a
specially reduced bitrate.
If we compare to the default bitrate of Divx on ordinary movies which is
930 kilobits/sec and go after same quality only in HD, then we could say
that the square area of HD is about 4X the area of an ordinary film.
So making the same DivX quality in HD as in ordinary DivX we should use
about 4000 kilobits/sek!
And Microsoft is using over twice as much bitrate as this default. So are
we talking of especially reducement?-No! That is what i will say.
Having experimentet myself with this film:
Elephants dream:
http://orange.blender.org/download

I used 10.000 kilobits(just a round figure) per sec in mpeg4 and there was
nothing to complain about. It was abundant. Good quality indeed.

Greets
Jens


--
Sendt med Operas banebrydende postklient:
http://www.opera.com/mail/

"Lyrik" wrote in message
news
Den 14.02.2007 kl. 16:29 skrev Hawk :


++++++++++++++++
Well sorry about not noticing bits. Then a correction. The WMV HD is
actually
1080p and not 1080i.
I would not call it bit-starved.
It is their certified HD stamped quality. So how can it be their
certified
standard and by themselves called insuficient? And i think it should be
very
satisfying to most people.
The wmv9 codec is very efficient and smooth running. It includes room
for
menues. It is the "Divx of HD films" IMHO.
And wether M. wants it or no,t it will be used as such i think.
It is amazing that they do not want a piece of the cake. Most people
have DVD
drives and they are much cheaper than the HDCP restricted DVDR and
Blueray.

I think that HD video can look decent at 8-9Mbps, just like regular DVD
can look
good at 3.5-4Mbps. It all depends on the quality of the codec used.
There's no
reason that HD won't look significantly better than DVD even at only
double the
bitrate.


(*
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You are so right.:-)
Let the people decide for themselves and download some samples which they
can display on their windows PC:
I recommend the former IMAX movies:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/win...tshowcase.aspx

R Sweeney talks of "reduced bitrate" as if the 8469 kilobits/sek was a
specially reduced bitrate.
If we compare to the default bitrate of Divx on ordinary movies which is
930 kilobits/sec and go after same quality only in HD, then we could say
that the square area of HD is about 4X the area of an ordinary film.
So making the same DivX quality in HD as in ordinary DivX we should use
about 4000 kilobits/sek!
And Microsoft is using over twice as much bitrate as this default. So are
we talking of especially reducement?-No! That is what i will say.
Having experimentet myself with this film:
Elephants dream:
http://orange.blender.org/download

I used 10.000 kilobits(just a round figure) per sec in mpeg4 and there was
nothing to complain about. It was abundant. Good quality indeed.

Greets
Jens

I think you folks are missing it.
The WMV codec is the HD-DVD codec.
EXACTLY THE SAME

So there are no Codec advantages, only the degree of compression.

So the compression ratio and thus the quality of a given codec's output MUST
be better in the 27 GB 2 hour video HD-DVD than the 1/3 the size 9 GB 2 hour
DVD-9 version.

Ain't no such thing as a free lunch or an image that gets better as bits are
removed.

I have watched 8Mb/sec WMV videos on my 1080 HDTV using an XBOX360 / Windows
Media Center server and I have watched 30mb/sec using WMV-coded HD-DVD on
the same set-up.

The 8Mb/sec looks nice, but the 30Mb/sec looks better.

As for "certified HD", there is no HD certification for image quality that I
am aware of.
HD carriers mess with the bit rate all the time.

The cable guys routinely dial down HD bit rates and the image quality
suffers noticeably, still 1920x1080, but not truly all the image quality it
started with before re-coding.

Den 15.02.2007 kl. 01:03 skrev R Sweeney :



I have watched 8Mb/sec WMV videos on my 1080 HDTV using an XBOX360 /
Windows
Media Center server and I have watched 30mb/sec using WMV-coded HD-DVD on
the same set-up.

The 8Mb/sec looks nice, but the 30Mb/sec looks better.
++++++++++
To me it is a bit like:"Well a 100 horse power car is nice, but a 500
horse power car is better!";-)
Maybe better, but when it comes to fuel consumption, then the 100 horse
power car is better.-

And i think that you guy is missing a point too.
Microsoft sold me a HD wmv "nice" (you said it) movie and then they force
me to only wiev it on a windows Mediaplayer. Why not on my TV? No reason
what so ever.
I have bought a 100 horse powered car from them, and they only allow me to
drive it around the barn.
If they would let us out in the open roads, then we would have a brand new
Microsoft-Volkswagen adventure.


Greets
jens




--
Sendt med Operas banebrydende postklient:
http://www.opera.com/mail/