From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Software / Computing   
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.


I think information about downloading the VC-1 codec should be included, I'm not sure if it only comes with WMP11, or you have to somehow download it by itself.

Removal of Proposed Merge Message[edit]

Due to the following:

  • It has been 5+ months since the WMV HD/VC-1 merge was proposed
  • There is no consensus on the proposal
  • The articles have been substantially edited and extended
  • Differences seem to be more easily identified when reading both articles

I propose that the message regarding the proposed merge be removed. Unless there is objection, I will do so in a few days.

- TJJFV 04:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


- TJJFV 14:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


Should WMV HD and VC-1 be merged? At the least, the two articles are not self consistent. The article WMV HD says it is now also called VC-1. The VC-1 article says Although VC-1 and WMV9 refer to the same codec technology, VC-1 is actually a superset of WMV9, containing more coding tools for interlaced video sequences than the original WMV9 codec, which concentrated on progressive encoding for computer displays. Wendell 20:56, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm against. WMV9 and WMV HD are subsets of subsets of VC-1. If anything, those should be moved to VC-1 and be made to redirect to VC-1.-- Roc VallèsTalk|Hist - 07:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Disagree. These topics should absolutely NOT merge. VC-1 is a specification; WMV is an implementation. If you merge these two, then you might as well merge DivX and MPEG-4, right? If you don't understand the difference between WMV and VC-1, then please do some research and get your facts straight first.

I vote no.

If we merge the articles it will not be as easy to find info on this, IMO

Err... I'm under the impression that WMV HD and VC-1 are two names for the same thing? Obviously they should be merged...?

There's very little information here. I would definitely merge them with redirects, etc. HarrisX 00:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Agree. I'm pretty sure that VC-1 and WMV-HD are the same thing. On VC-1's article, it says that that is the name of an informal draft to the SMPTE. But now, even microsoft and other chip manufacturers are using the phrase VC-1. Sam916 18:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Disagree. I'm working for a chip manufacturer and we implemented VC-1 in hardware. VC-1 is now a SMPTE Video coding standard even though it was originaly introduced by Microsoft. WMV-HD is the implementation in Microsoft products for High Definition resolution. VC-1 allows different kind of profiles and resolution with specific algorithmic tools, not only for HD.

Disagree with the merge. VC1 is a video standard WMV-HD is a product. Techincally are not the same, the main difference (amoung others) is that WMV doesn't feature interlace mode as VC1 does...

Agree. VC-1 is the codec used in WMVHD. There should be sectioning for each of these. Merge them. Siddharthagandhi 14:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge them. Just another star in the night T | @ | C 05:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
No I disagree with the merge proposal. Again, VC-1 is an SMTPE standard, the WMV HD is a Microsoft product. TJJFV 04:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Disagree, and I changed my mind Now I disagree, and this is because WMV HD used the old deprecated codec, not the VC-1 standard. Siddharthagandhi 22:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Interlacing indication in bitrate table?[edit]

I think it might be nice to indicate which formats in the table are interlaced and which are progressive. Knowledgeable people might know that the i formats are interlaced and the p formats aren't, but they likely don't know it for NTSC-SD or other formats. - Flooey 17:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Non-Microsoft Implementations[edit]

The article only mentions ffmpeg as an implementation of VC-1 unconnected to Microsoft, and this also only in one line. Are there any other implementations worth mentioning, and how much information is available? Don Cuan 16:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes there are other implementations. For example MainConcept has an encoder and decoder SDK. Can be found here: And here another encoder that seems hardware based: There is also a reference VC-1 encoder and a few other companies have released encoders. That information must be really old.

Tandberg also has a hardware-based VC-1 encoder, though it's unclear whether it's based on any Microsoft code or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

FFmpeg legality[edit]

FFMpeg is not entirely legal. Patents prevent legal decoding and encoding of Windows Media Video. Should this not be mentioned? Currently reading the page, most users will think that they can do it for free without any backlash. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Laws vary by jurisdiction. Patents do not directly prevent people from using a product, so I don't know what kind of backlash you are talking about. Daniel.Cardenas 22:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Patent history[edit]

This [1] while perhaps not quite a RS (although by an expert) is interesting. Is it true that Microsoft had originally intended VC-1 to be royalty free (obviously not open source) but it was other patent holders who basically ended this? Nil Einne (talk) 00:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

AVS Forum[edit] keeps readding the AVS Forum reference to the article ([2], [3], [4], [5]), saying "Doesn't mean it is wrong. Amir was the actual Microsoft Engineer in charge of VC-1. There are other corroborating sources that he was in the team. You should contact him if in doubt." This is a misunderstanding of why I reverted the edit, i.e. basic Wikipedia rules. First, I did not revert the edit because I do not believe what's written there is true or because I do not believe Amir was the Microsoft engineer in charge of VC-1. As I already explained in my reverts (twice), internet forums are not reliable sources required by the verifiability policy. The verifiability policy is one of the three core Wikipedia policies, that is, content policies that are non-negotiable and can never be violated, regardless of anyone's opinion or even consensus (that is, even if all Wikipedia editors or even all people on earth agree that something is true, it cannot be added to an article if it does not satisfy the core policies). The verifiability policy directly says that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." In other words, the editor's affirmation that the information is true is irrelevant: Wikipedia does not care whether something is true or not. Wikipedia only cares whether it was published in a reliable source. Now, the word "source" generally means a medium, not a person. For example, magazines or reputable web sites with editorial review count as reliable sources. Web forums, blogs and similar sources generally do not fall into this category. As the policy says: "self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources." The word "largely" suggests that there can be exceptions. And indeed, there are: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."

So what is required for the reference to meet the requirements set by the core Wikipedia policies? Preferably, it should come from a reliable source, that is a book, paper or a reputable website with editorial review. If it comes from an unreliable, self-published source, then, preferably, the reference should not be added to the article. If it is really something very important, that really must be there, something that the article cannot live without, and the only available source is a web forum posting, then:

  1. It must be written by and established expert. Again, I do not question he is a recognized expert, and a quick Google search shows that Amir H. Majidimehr was working at Microsoft, but the evidence should really be stronger. He should be a recognized expert, that is, there should be evidence that he is recognized (by other experts or in reputable sources) as an expert in this field. So if there is evidence, it should be posted here.
  2. There must be published work by the expert in the relevant field in reliable third-party sources (so for example, his website, blog or even the articles available at do not count). Now, for example, the only book by Amir H. Majidimehr I found at Amazon is Optimizing UNIX for Performance. This is not something I would call "relevant field". Again, I am not saying he has not published anything in the relevant field, but evidence is needed. So again, here is a place to prove this.
  3. Finally, there must be proof that the forum post was really written by Amir H. Majidimehr. The problem with public web forums is that anyone can register under any name. I can register in the AVS forums, too. And claim to be Bill Gates. And again, the advice in the revert summary ("You should contact him if in doubt") is irrelevant when it comes to basic Wikipedia rules. Yes, I can contact him, ask him whether it's him or not, and report the result here. But that's not a verifiable fact. Wikipedia readers cannot rely on something that a Wikipedia editor says (the editor could be a liar). Original research is forbidden. The information must be publicly available for everyone.

So please, do not readd the reference without meeting the requirements explained above, or without discussing it here first. Again, I am not questioning the accuracy of the information presented in the reference, all I'm saying is that the reference, in its current form, the way it's presented, does not comply with the core Wikipedia policies.—J. M. (talk) 18:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)