Best Quality 1080p - WMV vs MP4

[gstone]

Hello,

I'm wondering which 1080p video would be better quality MP4 or WMV? I realize that these are both containers so it is the way the video was encoded that matters. These are the details from media info.

MP4 1080p
- 2.14 gb
- Overall bit rate: 8520 kbps
- First Video Stream: 7999 kbps, 1980*1080 (16:9), 29.970 fps, AVC (High@L4.0)(CABAC / 4 Ref Frames)
- First Audio: 165 kbps, 48 KHz, 2 channels, AAC (LC)


WMV 1080p
- 3.03GB
- Overall bit rate: 12.1 Mbps
- First Video Stream: 1 bps, 1980*1080 (16:9), 59.940 fps, VC-1 (Microsoft)
- First Audio Stream: 128 Kbps, 44.1 KHz, 16 Bits, 2 Channels, WMA (Version 2)

Your feedback would be appreciated.

Stoney

[Brad]

If you have both, why not watch and see?

There are many implementations of AVC encoders and the quality varies drastically between them at any given bitrate, even with the same settings. I think only MS ever made a few VC-1 encoders?

The audio in the first file is probably better. The second video uses double the frame rate if MediaInfo is to be believed. Is it twice as smooth?

[gstone]

If you have both, why not watch and see?

There are many implementations of AVC encoders and the quality varies drastically between them at any given bitrate, even with the same settings. I think only MS ever made a few VC-1 encoders?

The audio in the first file is probably better. The second video uses double the frame rate if MediaInfo is to be believed. Is it twice as smooth?

I don't have a 1080p monitor at the moment so I can't tell the difference. I'll be getting a new computer/monitor next year at which point I assume I'll be able to tell the difference in the quality. I'm trying to avoid the hassle of getting new copies of those video.

[deadrats]

the vc-1, obviously.

[gstone]

the vc-1, obviously.

Thanks deadrats.

Would that difference be noticeable once I get a full 1080p monitor?

I get it's obvious to you, but I'm not very knowledgeable in such matters. Could you perhaps explain why that is? In layman terms?

Is that because of the overall bit rate is higher or the frames per second is higher?

Thanks,
Stoney

[jagabo]

The one that was done by someone who knew what they were doing, obviously. You can't tell that from the specs.

[gstone]

The one that was done by someone who knew what they were doing, obviously. You can't tell that from the specs.

They were both done by the same person.

So if those specs are meaningless what specs do I need to know to determine which is the better quality?

Stoney

[yoda313]

Let me mention a couple of options here -

1 - burn them both to a couple of dvdrs and copy to a harddrive and keep BOTH OF THEM. Then you don't have to choose. Harddrive space and dvdrs are really inexpensive and 5.18 gbs isn't that hard to store. Even a 8gb usb drive would be enough - you wouldn't even have to format it to ntfs since neither are greater than 4gbs.

2 - Ask for the original source and do the encoding yourself. Than you are in complete control of the whole compression process from start to finish. Edit - and you might consider using mkv as a container if you want more flexibility in bells and whistles, if you are just using it for playback and don't plan on loading tons of extra audio tracks and subtitles and the like than mp4 would be ok.

Edit - and fyi I would really stay away from wmv as a container choice. It should be pretty widely compatible these days but assuming this is h264 video your best widest possible container choice is both mp4 and mkv. Mp4 has a higher edge over mkv but mkv is gaining monster ground these days with more and more bluray players accepting it. But mp4 h264 will play in just about anything these days. But of course the more you stray from a high profile 4.0 setting and tweak it the less compatible it will be with settop players.

And a note consoles like the 360 and ps3 are very picky on the videos they can play. I don't know if we have any reliable specs on what video codecs and profiles the xbox one or ps4 can play yet. That will have to wait for when they hit the open market and others can post tests.

[gstone]

Let me mention a couple of options here -

1 - burn them both to a couple of dvdrs and copy to a harddrive and keep BOTH OF THEM. Then you don't have to choose. Harddrive space and dvdrs are really inexpensive and 5.18 gbs isn't that hard to store. Even a 8gb usb drive would be enough - you wouldn't even have to format it to ntfs since neither are greater than 4gbs.

2 - Ask for the original source and do the encoding yourself. Than you are in complete control of the whole compression process from start to finish. Edit - and you might consider using mkv as a container if you want more flexibility in bells and whistles, if you are just using it for playback and don't plan on loading tons of extra audio tracks and subtitles and the like than mp4 would be ok.

Edit - and fyi I would really stay away from wmv as a container choice. It should be pretty widely compatible these days but assuming this is h264 video your best widest possible container choice is both mp4 and mkv. Mp4 has a higher edge over mkv but mkv is gaining monster ground these days with more and more bluray players accepting it. But mp4 h264 will play in just about anything these days. But of course the more you stray from a high profile 4.0 setting and tweak it the less compatible it will be with settop players.

And a note consoles like the 360 and ps3 are very picky on the videos they can play. I don't know if we have any reliable specs on what video codecs and profiles the xbox one or ps4 can play yet. That will have to wait for when they hit the open market and others can post tests.

Thanks. It sounds like overall I'm best to stick to the MP4.

[jagabo]

You can judge the quality partially by using an editor and stepping through frame by frame, view both of them side by side, use a screen magnifier to zoom in (Windows' built in magnifier works fine). Look for loss of small, low contrast details. When playing them at normal playback speed (even if you don't have a 1080p display) watch for posterization artifacts, especially in dark areas. Watch for overall smoothness (though some computers will have trouble keeping up with 60 fps videos).

What was the source? A movie shot on film? Live sports or news? Video gaming? Movies are shot at 24 fps and should usually be encoded at 24 fps. Encoding movies at 30 fps is bad, 60 fps is better, 24 fps best. Live sports will normally be at 60 frames or fields per second. So 60 fps is better for that type of material. Anime and other animated material is often shot as a mix of 24 fps film, 30 frame per second or 60 field per second overlays. Those generally look best at 60 fps -- if done correctly.

Without knowing all those details the specs you quoted are meaningless. In the end, nobody can tell you which is better without seeing samples of the videos.

[yoda313]

It sounds like overall I'm best to stick to the Mp4

Not necessarily. You could remux the wmv to mp4. Winff for example can remux. It'll just copy the video and audio the new container, no reencoding.

If you want to go into true detail than you can look over the advice Jagabo has posted.

[El Heggunte]

There are many implementations of AVC encoders and the quality varies drastically between them at any given bitrate, even with the same settings. I think only MS ever made a few VC-1 encoders?

Incorrect. Rovi for example, uses the Mainconcept VC-1 SDK, which is an independent and "ASF-free" implementation of the WMV9 specs.

So if those specs are meaningless what specs do I need to know to determine which is the better quality?

Your eyes and your intelligence

And speaking of containers: VC-1 can be stored in AVI (and oh b.t.w., MKVtoolnix has to use the VfW-compatible mode, because that's what the Micro$oft decoders expect), MPG, TS, M2TS, and MP4 For this latter, you'll depend on L-Smash for muxing, and on libavformat for demuxing.

[deadrats]

I get it's obvious to you, but I'm not very knowledgeable in such matters. Could you perhaps explain why that is? In layman terms?

because i've been around long enough to know that the 1080p 60fps 12mb/s file is the source, most likely legally bought and downloaded from an adult website (as they are pretty much the only sites that use vc-1) and the 8mb/s 29.97fps h264 1080p file is something that some jackass re-encoded to a lower bit rate in order to upload it to a torrent file sharing site. but let's assume that both are from legit sources, each encoded from the same master source, i would still believe that the vc-1 would be of higher quality because it had a higher bit rate and it's a higher fps so i would expect it to be smoother. i've have numerous 1080p 60fps 12mb/s files and the quality is spectacular, crisp, clean and with excellent color and i routinely see the same files re-encoded to specs like the mp4 you listed and those are never as good as the wmv ones, never. vc-1 is probably one of the most underrated codecs ever and most likely never really gained traction with regular users because it was associated with microsoft and drm but the truth is that in many ways vc-1 was a better codec than h264, including the much vaunted x264.

[jagabo]

Watch the video called 24v30v60.avi in this post, full screen:

https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/307004-Best-framerate-conversion-%28eg-23-97-to-30-...=1#post1888926

The 60 fps row should play very smoothly. The 30 fps row should appear to flicker. It's less obvious with lower contrast material but watch for that in your videos.

[FulciLives]

I was under the impression that x264 was clearly considered superior to VC-1

[jagabo]

deadrats has no objectivity when it comes to x264. Read through his posts about it.

[deadrats]

I was under the impression that x264 was clearly considered superior to VC-1

there are at least 3 different variants of vc-1 and they, much like h264 encoders, are not created equal. vc-1 in the form of wm9 advanced profile sucked and x264 was clearly superior in every way.

but there are vc-1 encoders that are incredible, the one in expression encoder was way better, with some pretty advanced features and there are professional grade vc-1 encoders, like the gpu powered one made by elemental that are absolutely incredible.

track down videos from the adult site brazzers that are 1080p 60fps 12mb/s and you'll be amazed at the quality, likewise there are a number of blu-rays and hd-dvd that were encoded using vc-1 that will amaze you.

deadrats has no objectivity when it comes to x264. Read through his posts about it.

i have tons of objectivity, it's Jason that spent more time denouncing his competitors than writing actual code that never had any objectivity, and in all honesty how could he, he was an interested party, but more importantly it's the x264 users that made x264 into a religion and blindly followed any load of shit that Jace and friends spouted that have lost objectivity.

when people can sit here and tell me that a free, open source encoder is better than the 40-70 thousand dollar pro encoders used by major studios, then it's not i that has an objectivity problem.

[FulciLives]

I didn't mean to start a flame war ... it's just that I've never heard anyone claim VC-1 anything was better than h.264/x264 ... it's always been the opposite. Well always, until now.

I'm not saying I don't believe but I'll stick to x264 when it comes to my own stuff.