MPEG-4 vs. Microsoft VC-1: why high-definition video software standards are irrelevant

By - May 27, 2005 By Damien Stolarz for SiliconValleyWatcher


Teapot-Tempest.jpgAbout a year ago, Microsoft made great strides in legitimizing its technology for broadcasting by getting its Windows Media 9 video codec (now grandly titled Video Codec One, or VC-1) accepted by the industry's standards body SMPTE.

And both the HD-DVD and Blu-Ray groups, representing the two competing High-Definition DVD hardware formats, have agreed to support Microsoft's codec as well as the MPEG-4 Advanced Video Coding standard in their new hi-def players.

This presents an interesting question. The Windows VC-1 and MPEG AVC camps are fighting over which is the "best hi-def codec". But with the future media players supporting both codecs, does it matter which one content producers choose? I think the software doesn't matter anymore.


Everyone's familiar with the names of some codecs because their acronyms are widely used, but here's a little more background: MP3, Apple's AAC, WMA, RA, and OGG are all audio codecs. They all compress analog audio down to less than a tenth of its original size when storing it in digital form, then convert data back to analog so that we can hear it.

To use them on an audio player, such as a computer, you need to pay a fee. The popularity of MP3 is its ubiquity; the popularity of AAC is due to its use in the iTunes music store. The popularity of WMA is that it is the default format for any music ripped on a Windows machine. The popularity of OGG is that it is royalty-free. But they all do their job, and a computer (and many portable music players) can easily play them all.

The modern video codecs are also very similar to each other, and use similar mathematical techniques. They all break the picture into a lot of squares, and then use fancy mathematics (like those used in JPEG pictures) to represent these small squares with the smallest amount of bits. (You can find a technical comparison of the differences here.)

But they are all roughly comparable in quality, and the the VC-1 vs. MPEG AVC battle is a technical stalemate; the differentiating features have much more to do with implementations, price, and of course politics.

Some will still argue that it's essential to have a single software standard, to make sure that a 2005 hi-def DVD video player can play media produced in 2015, just as a 1995-vintage DVD player can still play DVDs made today. But that's also less relevant than ever.

The real thing that is causing the software standards to be irrelevant is powerful hardware. Traditionally, "computerization" of an industry required application-specific computer chips. For instance, automobiles, PDAs, sewing machines, and DVD players all used completely different microchips.

But now, powerful general-purpose computers are getting so tiny that it doesn't make sense in many cases to make hardware that's too specific.

Sure, if you need to mass-produce a cheap, single-function portable video device, you design or purchase the right microchip that implements, say, some version of MPEG-4 or Windows Media. But a home theatre PC or hi-def DVD player doesn't have to be power-efficient or small (in fact, DVD player cases are mostly empty - they're just a small circuit board and an optical drive).

Initially, HD DVD players (or Blu-Ray DVD players) may be expensive. But they don't have to be. In fact, the Mac Mini has a street price of $499 and can play back some HD-resolution content. You could assemble a PC for less and play back hi-def Windows media. And a full-fledged home theatre PC can play back anything you throw at it.

--

As I commented in an earlier blog, it's entirely possible to design hi-def DVD players that can support new video codecs through software updates alone. People already patch the firmware on their DVD players to unlock new features; a sufficiently general-purpose processor in a DVD player (or a video decompressor chip that can be reprogrammed) could adapt to future Windows or MPEG AVC standards. It's not inconceivable. In fact, people are starting to expect the hardware to do post-processing to the video to tune it to their own HDTVs.

Even if my flights of fancy about upgradeable DVD players turn out false, people have gotten used to $29 DVD players. It's going to be hard for vendors to sell hi-def DVD players with stratospheric prices. And when players become cheap enough, people WILL go out and buy a new one if they need to.

So the fighting between groups supporting different hi-def codec standards may seem important right now. But in the long term, it's only a minor skirmish in the battle for the living room.
Share this article

 Subscribe in a reader

By - May 27, 2005 | Permalink | Comment | Category: Digital Video
| SVW Toolbar | SVW Newsletter | SVW Mobile

Comments (4)

Martin Hill:

I think you are neglecting the full scope of MPEG-4 acceptance vs Windows Media and the importance CE manufacturers place on non-proprietary vs proprietary standards.

MPEG-4 has immense traction in the CE space from cellular phones to digital TV, cable, satellite as well as the HD DVD standards, something MS has failed to achieve. MPEG-4 AVC only removes any remaining niggles about quality differences.

Yes Windows Media will be available in lots of Windows devices - but even that bastion is being eroded by Apple's inroads into the Windows space with iTunes and iPod which default to AAC (MPEG-4 audio) for audio ripped from CDs. Last year Quicktime (immensely assisted by it being the defacto MPEG-4 player) accelerated to 36.7% marketshare second only to Windows Media at 38.1% while Real rapidly dropped off the radar at 24% - this after QT used to be a distant third. It'll be very interesting to see current figures courtesy of the 92% marketshare position Apple holds in the hard-disk based MP3 player market and the 70% marketshare in the legal online music space. Then of course, there is the recent introduction of video (MPEG-4 of course) as a purchasable item from Apple's iTunes store - the thin edge of the wedge in the nascent online video industry for sure.

Microsoft is also guilty of codec rot - can you say obsolete windows video codecs that won't play in the latest Windows Media Player? In contrast Quicktime v1.0 video clips from 1991 still play in the latest Quicktime. The WM story is not one DVD player owners want to see repeated.

The industries mentioned above are very aware of the abuses MS is capable of perpetuating when it manages to achieve market dominance with it's in-house standards - these industries are much more interested in continuing the progression begun with MPEG-1 (video CDs etc) through MPEG-2 (DVD video, satellite TV, digital cable, digital TV etc) to MPEG-4 (everything).

Viva la non-proprietary standards revolution.

-Mart

Posted: May 27, 2005 11:23 PM

Xerox:

From the consumer electronics angle, what you suggest Damien, makes perfect sense. But from the computer angle, player-specific video is an inconvenience. No one really wants to have to use 3 video players. Given the choice, we'd prefer to learn and use a single player. But with video wrapped up in multiple proprietary formats, often tied to specific player software, it's not that flexible. We either *have* to maintain multiple players - or if you are like me, you ignore 2 of the 3 formats and just pretend they don't exist.

The Mp4 format was apparently intended to free us from the inflexibility of maintaining multiple players for multiple formats, and free publishers of web video for example, from the redundancy of creating multiple versions of videos.* The only problem is, I've never seen it work in practice. From casual use, I would not expect a Microsoft Mp4 file to open with Apple's QuickTime. Nor a QuickTime created Mp4 file to open with Windows Media Player or Real Player. They don't seem to be compatible at all. (Probably willfully incompatible, rather than due to any technical issues.)

Not having a single standard may not hurt DVD players, but it's going to prolong the inconvenience for computer users. In fact, it would aggravate the problem: my TV and DVD player are a computer (which might be something like your future scenario.) My TV broadcasts follow the DVB standard which uses industry standard Mpeg2, and TV recordings are Mpeg2. And of course, DVDs use industry standard Mpeg2. I can choose different players to watch recordings or play DVDs - but I don't *have* to. Having a single standard makes it flexible.

With 2 video formats for DVDs, either developers pay twice to support 2 formats, or I have to get a second DVD player application, or the DVDs get format labels and I choose which ones I want, much like the days of Betamax vs. VHS. Would the studios would distribute every disc twice, or lower the resolution to fit 2 versions of a movie on one disc? Having 2 codecs seems like an exercise in inefficiency and an excuse for everyone to chip in to pay Microsoft for no particular reason.

Single standards are important for efficiency, convenience, and flexibility. To be effective, the standard has to be free of any ties to any particular player software, and open for any developer to adopt at a reasonable price. I hope we don't have to wait too much longer before we see a standard like this for web video.

Does anyone know *why* Mp4 doesn't seem to work?

* There are many implementations of Mpeg4 video which will be player-specific and the file name extensions will be player-specific. But there is also a more highly specified version whose file name extension is ".mp4". We *should* be able to play these ".mp4" videos using any player or device - like a phone or a DVD player - that supports it.

Posted: May 28, 2005 6:06 PM

Sam:

If that Mart's world were the real one. Many large cable companies have chosen Microsoft's codec, as have many mobile phone markets. The only one AVC has locked so far is the satellite folks. Hopefully Apple's early and aggressive marketing of their MP4 AAC video production software will affect the codec in which content is originally produced, but in terms of transmission standards, I think AAC is still in 2nd place.

Posted: May 28, 2005 8:09 PM

David:

Do you know that there is already a television service that is using the version of MPEG-4 that really counts (i.e. MPEG-4 AVC)...see http://digital-lifestyles.info/display_page.asp?section=platforms&id=2122
In addition you can go to http://www.mpegif.org and get a lot more information there

Posted: May 29, 2005 1:47 PM