WMA vs. WMV
Radium
Why isn't there a video equivalent for WMA?
WMV clearly isn't the visual equivalent of WMA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Media_Audio
File extension: .wma
MIME type: audio/x-ms-wma
Uniform Type: com.microsoft.windows-
Identifier: media-wma
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Media_Video
I have been frustratingly looking for a video equivalent of WMA! There
is none! The so-called "Windows Media Video" seems to use MPEG, AVI,
ASF and other totally non-interesting s--t which I f--king hate!
Windows Media Audio, OTOH, uses its own compression codec which is
simply "Windows Media Audio". I like the artifacts that occur in WMA
audio with a CBR low-bit rate [no more than 20kbps], high sample rate
[at least 44,100 Hz], and monoaural. I would like to see what the video
equivalent looks like. It is so immeasureably interesting to me what it
would look like. I am immeasureably disappointed and upset to find that
a *real* WMV compression format does not
exist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I also hate the audio quality of all formats other than monoaural
linear PCM [with at least 44.1 khz sample rate and at least 16-bit
resolution] and monoaural WMA CBR [with a sample rate of identical to
what the audio was in linear PCM before converting to WMA]. I hate the
artifacts present in MP3s.
I also dislike the video quality of any format other than linear PCM
video [with at least 32-bit color resolution, at least 10,920x10,080
pixel progressive [non-interlaced] picture resolution, with a
horizontal sample rate of at least 15,734 kHz, a vertical sample rate
of at least 60 khz, and a color sample rate of at least 3,579,545 MHz]
and **real** constant-bit-rate WMV video [whose sampling rates, and
picture resolution are identical to what the video was in linear PCM
before converting to *real* WMV]
Here is what I want [i.e. my *real* WMV video]:
File extension: .wmv
MIME type: video/x-ms-wmv
Uniform Type: com.microsoft.windows-
Identifier: media-wmv
I would like to see the above "real" WMV video. The file should be at
least an hour in length, only 1-bit in file size, with a horizontal
sample rate of at least 15,734 kHz, a vertical sample rate of at least
60 khz, and a color sample rate of at least 3,579,545 MHz [NTSC's color
subcarrier frequency is 3.579545 MHz]. The picture resolution should be
at least 10,920x10,080 pixel progressive [non-interlaced]. The color
resolution should be compressed via my *real* WMV codec. Once an hour
of encoding is complete the color resolution should be compressed
enough to decrease the file size to only 1-bit CBR!
My *real* WMV codec has the capability of lossless compression and CBR.
IMPORTANT: Before any of the above compression is performed. The video
would have to be recorded linear PCM using a video camera. I would like
the linear PCM to be at least 32-bit color resolution, at least
10,920x10,080 pixel progressive [non-interlaced] picture resolution,
with a horizontal sample rate of at least 15,734 kHz, a vertical sample
rate of at least 60 khz, and a color sample rate of at least 3,579,545
MHz. Once an hour of this linear PCM video has been recorded, then it
should be converted to the *real* loseless WMV whose color resolution,
picture resolution and sampling rates are the same as the linear PCM
video. After this, the WMV's color resolution should then be compressed
via CBR until the file size is only 1-bit. The samples rates, and
picture resolution should not at all be decreased. The file should
still be 1 hour long.
Thanks,
Radium
P.S. by "Real WMV", I am referring to is the exact video-equivalent of
WMA. Sadly for me, this real-WMV does not exist and will not exist
unless I make it myself -- which is a task that I have inadequate time,
money, patience, and energy for.
snork...@gmail.com
Radium wrote:
> Hi:
>
> Why isn't there a video equivalent for WMA?
>
> WMV clearly isn't the visual equivalent of WMA.
This is of course a little confusing, because WMA is a lossy audio
codec, and you seem to be wishing that there was an identical lossy
video codec. It is extremely unlikely that the characteristics of a
lossy audio codec will map well to a video codec, so I think your anger
will either have to dissipate on its own or be replaced by a better
statement of the problem.
>The so-called "Windows Media Video" seems to use MPEG, AVI,
>ASF and other totally non-interesting s--t which I f--king hate!
Again, I think you have things a bit mixed up here. Microsoft defines a
container format, which can hold video compressed with many different
codecs - similar in approach to Quicktime. So, for example, ASF has
absolutely nothing to do with compression. Same thing holds true for
AVI - it has nothing to do with compression, it is a container format.
Now, if what you want is a true Microsoft video codec, then you need go
no farther than VC-1:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VC1
VC-1 is a mostly-Microsoft product, (although many other companies are
in the patent pool) and through intense lobbying by Microsoft, is now
part of both HD DVD standards. Whether it will be the encoder of choice
for DVDs in the future remains to be seen, but it's certainly possible.
(It may come down to simple economics - how much the studios have to
pay to encode in VC-1 vs. an MPEG-4 format.)
VC-1 is still just "Yet-Another DCT-based/motion compensation"
compressor, but it is reputed to be pretty good, and holds up well in
tests. Both H.264 and VC-1 are felt to be good enough by some people to
obviate the need for HD DVD players - good quality HD movies can fit on
standard DVDs when these codecs are used. (I'm not trolling, just
reporting!)
So, among all the things you have taken the time to decide you hate, is
VC-1 included?
|
| Mark - http://marknelson.us
|
Radium
ma...@ieee.org wrote:
> Radium wrote:
> > Hi:
> >
> > Why isn't there a video equivalent for WMA?
> >
> > WMV clearly isn't the visual equivalent of WMA.
>
> This is of course a little confusing, because WMA is a lossy audio
> codec, and you seem to be wishing that there was an identical lossy
> video codec. It is extremely unlikely that the characteristics of a
> lossy audio codec will map well to a video codec, so I think your anger
> will either have to dissipate on its own or be replaced by a better
> statement of the problem.
MPEG-Layers [such as MP3] are also lossy. Yet I have seen plenty of
MPEG being implemented in video. Why is that??
VC-1 compression the picture resolution, not the color resolution. So
this really does give me reason to dislike VC-1. I hate it when the
pixels are visible. It just grosses me out. I see this sh-- a lot in
low-quality MPEG videos. Those sickening nasty pixels. I want the pixel
resolution to be at least that of a first-class video signal. As for
the color-resolution, compress it all you want, I still don't mind
watching it continuousy.
I want a video format that is identical to WMA audio in the same way
linear PCM video is identical to linear PCM audio. Linear PCM -- audio
or video -- is identical in terms of format.
Linear PCM audio in acoustics = Linear PCM audio in visuals
WMA audio in acoustics = ? in visuals
snork...@gmail.com
Radium wrote:
> I also dislike the video quality of any format other than linear PCM
> video [with at least 32-bit color resolution, at least 10,920x10,080
> pixel progressive [non-interlaced] picture resolution, with a
And where exactly have you seen 32-it linear PCM video in a
10,920x10,080 format? Considering that one frame will take over 3 Gbits
and you want to record at 60 fps (about twice what you actually need)
you are going to need a disk array capable of record and playback at
211 Gigabits per second.
I am going to go out on a limb here and say you have not ever seen any
digital video that remotely approximates this sort of resolution, and I
am afraid I am going to have to mark this thread as dead for being out
of touch with reality.
|
| Mark - http://marknelson.us
|
Radium
I was exaggerating about the extremely high picture resolutions and
sampling rates. Sorry.
Jim Leonard
> MPEG-Layers [such as MP3] are also lossy. Yet I have seen plenty of
> MPEG being implemented in video. Why is that??
Not the same thing. MPEG stands for the Motion Picture Experts Group
and applies to all sorts of video and audio coding methods that are
different from each other. MPEG-2 video is nothing like MPEG-2 audio,
for example, since in most cases audio/video compression techniques are
specialized to the form they are applied to.
Radium
I notice the pixelation in poor-quality MPEG video to resemble the
audio artifacts associated with low bit-rate MP3s.