Quote:
Originally Posted by videoworx
I disagree. I think you'll find fewer and fewer studios using VC-1 over the next 12 months. When I first started shopping around for encoding facilities (before I did it myself), I was offered many incentives (discounts) to use VC-1. Those deals have long since vanished, and all the latest promotions are heavily biased toward H.264/AVC. The 2 software applications I use (which are professional, not consumer, level) only allow H.264 and MPEG-2 encoding. VC-1 did not become the standard Microsoft was hoping for.
|
In terms of BD, VC-1 did become a mandatory standard in BD hardware/specs, and MS get some big bucks from the licensing associated with that (much more than per software royaltees). And, as stated before, by far the largest studio and all of its affiliates use VC-1 on all of their releases. Warner and its studios does all their encoding in-house, so encoding facilities mean jack to them. Plus, we are seeing other studios trying it out here and there... LionsGate's latest hit release 3:10 to Yuma uses it, for instance. With Universal's strong ties to MS and their long history with HD DVD, its makes sense for them to use VC-1 on BD as well.
Why exactly do you think Warner Bros et. al would completely relearn a new codec/encoding techniques/software/etc when VC-1 has been so successful for them? Makes no sense to me. Nor does it to them, as they have already stated they will use VC-1 exclusively going forward on Blu-ray, albeit at higher bitrate to save money through less tweaking.
I see you're also forgetting that VC-1 is used all over the internet (a little format with extension .WMV), in addition to Blu-ray. VC-1 has been quite a success in many realms.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=.wmv
So doom and gloom really doesn't work too well in this case. I see you didn't respond to my other points in my previous post, probably for the same reason
