Silverlight 3 beta with H.264 support available

[popper]

Originally Posted by benwaggoner

Yeah, I like the "HQ" moniker, since it reminds the not very technical of HD, without being misleading to those who know the proper definition.

sorry, perhaps i wasnt clear enough, i was refering to the requirement for, and expectation of "WS/WideScreen" by everyone today, so make sure you include that most basic 16:9.

remember the basic choices to keep (HD) widescreen ratios when you get the choice to Encode your content are 848x480 (16:9) ,1280x720 (16:9) , 1360x768 (16:9) , and OC 1920x1080 (16:9), were the likes of the UKs Virgin media users on 10/20/50Mbit could use that real HD

Also, with Smooth Streaming, we're working to make HD delivery a lot more feasible, so we'll be able to accurately call a player HD.

thats the worlds ISPs problem though, making sure they supply real unlimited high bitrates that you can stream AVC/H.264 HQ/HD WideScreen to and from the web and turning their Multicast filtering OFF all the way to/from the end users CPE kit sat on the desk OC.

In the end, Silverlight really is an application framework, so we've stayed away from any cases where it would ever be implicitly triggered.

Silverlight doesn't get any file type associations, so the only time it ever gets used is when it's explicitly called.

The Moonlight guys have done something kind of like this with Moonshine.

With the new out-of-the-browser mode, having Silverlight work more like a desktop player is a little more feasible, but for security reasons it'll never have unfettered access to the local file system.

Something like Moonshine could certainly include a native code multicast proxy and then call Moonlight/Silverlight, serving the media as a localhost web service.

but a "multicast proxy" does a totally different job to my proposed "multicast tunnel" , and im clearly talking about allowing for Multicast streaming user to users and server to users over the web, rather than the local LAN/WAN/MAN were your ISP cant interfer with your protocols.

As for multicast, I think the proxy caching of Smooth Streaming provides a lot of the value without nearly the same infrastructure overhead.

perhaps so ,but im not convinced yet,time will tell i guess.

Multicast is mostly of interest for enterprise (where there aren't internal proxy caches) and low latency (where a chunk-based approach gives a multi-second broadcast delay).

http://on10.net/blogs/benwagg/Beta-R...oth-Streaming/
http://on10.net/blogs/benwagg/Live-S...nter-Olympics/

NO, thats not true, IF you or some other 3rd party were to give the end users the ability to simply use multicast inside a generic included tunnel if need be, to easly stream and control/announce their content, then they would, like a shot.... it is NOT just of interest for enterprises, end users that know about it,have wanted it forever , and those that dont, would soon see the benefits as it became popular....and saves them long term bandwidth and CPU processing.

The problem with multicast is that very few users in the USA actually have end-to-end multicast enabled routers to them from the public internet. We've supported multicast in Windows Media for years, and it's virtually unused for consumer media except in the few countries where they had a goverment mandate for multicast support.

the world is not just the USA remember Ben

Multicast is "Virtually Unused" not because people dont want to use it, but Because the ISPS go out of their way to filter the Multicast protocol and/or turn it OFF altogether in their routers and related kit.

and i take the implyed point about the home router problem, However i did say and keep saying "Tunnel"

exactly because of this ISP filtering of the protocol, as all the worlds ISP routers and related kit are fully multicast capable, but they choose not to let you the end users use or access it..

because the majority of the world ISPS filter it from you for no good reason, you NEED a tunnel and a multicast end point (this Multicast server/tunnel i advocate inside SL for instance) to bypass that and mTunnel proves the point, try it between two or more web connected PCs and VLC MC some content from one, works fine and the ISPs choices to deprive you of the MC protocol are no more.
http://www.cdt.luth.se/~peppar/progs/mTunnel/

this most basic and old java based multicast tunnel runs on any generic UDP IPV4, and you then place/push any of your multicast content inside that tunnel, SO no problem as you have bypassed their native UDP IPV4/6 multicast filtering etc....

you must be able to make something that can perform at least as good as the old "Mtunnel" from MBONE days surely?, and intigrate it into SL as a generic option for people/devs to use!, the question then is, "will you? include a tunnel that works for easy use of multicast content streaming and it's control over the web"

Ohh ,and stop calling AVC/H.264 "Mpeg-4" in your blog , people might start thinking you can use Divx the original "Mpeg4" in SL

[popper]

ben said:"Quote: In the end, Silverlight really is an application framework, ..."

just a thought, are we going to see SilverLight being used for serving the 360 for video streaming over multicast ?, and are we ever going to see a firmware update for the 360 that can play AAC-LC with more than 2 channels from that ?

come to that, could you put SL and some way to control/interact with it on the 360 firmware given its PPC/Altivec+ based, does your SL codebase compile and run there ?

[benwaggoner]

Originally Posted by popper

Ohh ,and stop calling AVC/H.264 "Mpeg-4" in your blog , people might start thinking you can use Divx the original "Mpeg4" in SL

I don't think I ever call the codec MPEG-4 in the blog, but I do specify the MPEG-4 file format in a bunch of places.

Our terminology could use some refactoring. I'm particulary tired of typing and explaining "MPEG-4 Part 2" over and over again .

[benwaggoner]

Originally Posted by popper

just a thought, are we going to see SilverLight being used for serving the 360 for video streaming over multicast?

You mean going from Silverlight to the XBox 360 as an extender?

That's really out of scope for Silverlight, since it'd be just serving a file without any of the interactivity and managed code. WMP works fine for that already.

and are we ever going to see a firmware update for the 360 that can play AAC-LC with more than 2 channels from that ?

That would be a question for the Xbox team. I know they know that some people want it . I don't recall why it wasn't done the first time around, so I don't know if anything has changed to enable it.

come to that, could you put SL and some way to control/interact with it on the 360 firmware given its PPC/Altivec+ based, does your SL codebase compile and run there ?

Silverlight for an integrated device like the Xbox would really be a reimplementation more than a recompilation to be done well. Try YouTube on the PS3 if you want to see how well a recompilation approach works . The nice thing about a device like a phone or console is that you can count on hardware and drivers MUCH better than with a PC, so stuff like the GPU can be leveraged more. In a lot of ways, console and CE devices are more like smartphones with huge screens than a desktop computer.

[popper]

lol, just call it AVC and be done with it, everyone can then follow your lead....

"sliced another way, Silverlight 3 will be able to play pretty much all MPEG-4 files that would play back well in both QuickTime and Flash." kind of implys the codec to the average user dont you think....

"sliced another way, Silverlight 3 will be able to play pretty much all AVC files that would play back well in both QuickTime and Flash." sounds just so much nicer to the average users, at least i think so.

"You mean going from Silverlight to the XBox 360 as an extender?"
yes...

but more than that, id like to see the interactivity potential of SL directly on the 360,the codecs updated to bring it inline with todays content, hell even a simple browser would be a good start in the next firmware update so we could use it for web based Silverlight and other content online/LAN etc...

i dont see it as a fixed CE device , it is a powerful 3 core PPC/Altivec PC that could be doing so much more in the video streaming home, but for the lack of (SL)apps or the ability to install them and use remotely from your LAN....

as an extender 360/WMP doesnt go anywere far enough for me, so i use Tversity as the better option right now, the path for SL doesnt seem very clear to me as you imply these type of apps are "really out of scope for Silverlight", if so it seems the 360 will never be anything other than a dumb extender relying on a powered LAN PC were it could be so much more independant in the streaming video home, or perhaps that might change in the future with a firmware update!

[Dark Shikari]

H.264 is probably a better term than AVC, as it's more widely used IMO.

[benwaggoner]

Originally Posted by popper

lol, just call it AVC and be done with it, everyone can then follow your lead....

"sliced another way, Silverlight 3 will be able to play pretty much all MPEG-4 files that would play back well in both QuickTime and Flash." kind of implys the codec to the average user dont you think....

"sliced another way, Silverlight 3 will be able to play pretty much all AVC files that would play back well in both QuickTime and Flash." sounds just so much nicer to the average users, at least i think so.

But it's not an AVC file. It's a MPEG-4 file containing H.264 and AAC-LC content. H.264 is a codec, not a container. I think that, when being precise, I'd only call it a "H.264 file" if it's an elementary stream file.

"You mean going from Silverlight to the XBox 360 as an extender?"
yes...

What would you get from that you couldn't get from WMP?

[benwaggoner]

Originally Posted by Dark Shikari

H.264 is probably a better term than AVC, as it's more widely used IMO.

A few years back I tried to push AVC over H.264, as both easer to type and say, and also to be neutral between MPEG and ITU. And yes, there are still people who care about the politics of the name - kind of like the GNU/Linux thing. So I make sure to call it AVC/H.264 when it might be read by those audiences . A few years about I had a whole PowerPoint slide explaining the codec's nomenclature.

But in general, H.264 clearly won the naming war, probably thanks to Apple and QuickTime. H.264 is certainly better than typing "MPEG-4 Part 10" every time... I just wish we had a H.26x name for MPEG-4 Part 2, since there's really not satisfying shorthand for it. divx/xvid are product specific, and ASP is obviously specific to a particular profile.

[hajj_3]

Its a shame you arent making a 64bit version of silverlight3, vista64 has a 64bit version of IE7 (not default of course) and i'm fairly sure IE8 on windows7 x64 is 64bit, dont think i saw a 32bit version on the start menu of beta 7057 i tried a few days ago. Seems a bit pointless having a 64bit IE and no 64bit flash or silverlight. Can't you just hire some more programmers, you're making alot of profit each year.

Will multi-channel AAC be supported?

DXVA would be nice to add in the next version, just to reduce the cpu usage a little, especially on laptops with say a nvidia 8 series card, many of which only have a pentium dual core, maybe even celeron-m cpu. Wont affect those with core i7 cpu's much but for older cpu's it would help.

Maybe version 3.5 you could add 64bit support, HE-AAC, DXVA and maybe a few other missing things. I havent come across many websites that use silverlight that i use, only ITV.com/catchup (online tv catchup service for a uk tv channel), do you have a list of big sites that use it somewhere?

[benwaggoner]

Originally Posted by hajj_3

Its a shame you arent making a 64bit version of silverlight3, vista64 has a 64bit version of IE7 (not default of course) and i'm fairly sure IE8 on windows7 x64 is 64bit, dont think i saw a 32bit version on the start menu of beta 7057 i tried a few days ago. Seems a bit pointless have a 64bit IE and no 64bit flash or silverlight. Can't you just hire some more programmers, you're making alot of profit each year.

Win 7 definitely supports 32-bit browsing in 64-bit mode, or else plugins wouldn't work . They may have cleaned up GUI around that to avoid this very confusion.

64-bit seems compelling as nerd correctness, but really is much more interesting at the OS level than at the consumer app level for most things. It's big for databases, Photoshop, and 3D animation where > 4 GB can actually get used.

Will multi-channel AAC be supported?

Not in Silverlight 3. Our audio pipeline is stereo only, like Flash, so there really hasn't been that much point yet.

DXVA would be nice to add in the next version, just to reduce the cpu usage a little, especially on laptops with say a nvidia 8 series card, many of which only have a pentium dual core, maybe even celeron-m cpu. Wont affect those with core i7 cpu's much but for older cpu's it would help.

The challenge is that Silverlight can do a whole lot of post-decode processing of the video, far beyond what WMP could do, and DXVA isn't really well suited to doing rich post-decode image processing. And DXVA isn't always reliable to use by default on the morass of cards and drivers out there; if DXVA driver bugs failed on even 2% of customer desktops out there as currently configured, we'd have a support nightmare.

Maybe version 3.5 you could add 64bit support, HE-AAC, DXVA and maybe a few other missing things. I havent come across many websites that use silverlight that i use, only ITV.com/catchup (online tv catchup service for a uk tv channel), do you have a list of big sites that use it somewhere?

We really need to get the "where Silverlight is used" site up. Unfortuantely many of the most compelling examples are georestricted, so there's really only visible in one region. The one most people talk about is Netflix, I'd guess. The March Madness tourneyment here in the states is massive, and in Silverlight, as is most of CBS Sports now. Home Shopping Network (also huge in the USA) has been all Silverlight for over a year now. We just announced we're doing the 2010 winter Olympics, including like streaming of whole events in 720p. All the major South Korean broadcasters have standardized on Silverlight. TV2 in Norway. RAI in Italy. CTV in Canada. BSkyB.

If you can tell me what country you live in, I can find out what our cool stuff there is.

[hajj_3]

im from UK, only site i've encountered is ITV.com/catchup (catchup tv service). Having a page on your microsoft.com/silverlight showing what sites use it and for what purpose might help silverlight catch on a bit more so people can see it in action as at the moment its in windows update and most people dont know what its used for and probably have never encountered a silverlight site.

[benwaggoner]

Originally Posted by hajj_3

im from UK, only site i've encountered is ITV.com/catchup (catchup tv service). Having a page on your microsoft.com/silverlight showing what sites use it and for what purpose might help silverlight catch on a bit more so people can see it in action as at the moment its in windows update and most people dont know what its used for and probably have never encountered a silverlight site.

In the UK, both BSkyB and MSN.UK are using Silverlight heavily.

[IgorC]

HE-AAC is still relevant even for desktop PCs (don't talk about mobile and Wi fi narrow bandwith). There are still a lot of connections like ADSL 512 kbits and Cable 640 kbits. Bitrate of audio track is something around of 10% of total bitrate (audio+video). Even if those connections will go to 1 Mbps in 2010 it will still appropriate use of HE-AAC as total bitrate will be around 700-850 kbit/s (700-800 kbits video + 64-80 kbits HE-AAC). Probably during 2012 it will be possible to get rid of HE-AAC as the slowest connection for desktop segment will be ~2 Mbps.

[Astrophizz]

I don't know about 2 Mbps by 2012, a lot of people (at least in the US) still use dial-up because of how exorbitant internet prices are.

[mozzle]

I assume you have researched availability/pricing of cable(HIGH-SPEED) in your locale. Just as a matter of of interest, how much does does your dial-up cost compared to high-speed? Just interested.

Best of luck.

M

Originally Posted by Astrophizz

I don't know about 2 Mbps by 2012, a lot of people (at least in the US) still use dial-up because of how exorbitant internet prices are.

[Shinigami-Sama]

Originally Posted by mozzle

I assume you have researched availability/pricing of cable(HIGH-SPEED) in your locale. Just as a matter of of interest, how much does does your dial-up cost compared to high-speed? Just interested.

Best of luck.

M

here(BC/Canada)
dailup is about 15-20$/month for a hand full of hours

2mbps adsl is about 30
cable is about the same

[Astrophizz]

Dial up near where I live is like $10/month unlimited. I get 21 mbps down/2 mbps up for $60/month. 7 mbps down/1 mbps up is like $45/month if not bundled. Something like 2 mbps would probably cost $30-40. The prices have remained stagnant for 7+ years. Soon they'll be adding bandwidth caps in my area for my service - I hope they drop the price if they do

[benwaggoner]

There's a ton of great data in the new Akamai "State of the Internet" report:

http://www.akamai.com/stateoftheinternet/

With real-world testing, they show 63% of US internet can get more than 2 Mbps. And that's actual speed to Akamai, not provisioned speed.

[turbojet]

I've heard that roughly 8% of the US population doesn't have access to broadband though obama's 'stimulus' package is supposed to signifigantly lower this. I'm going to guess it's higher in some other fairly civilized countries like northern Australia/New Zealand, some asian and some african countries. Currently in the USA they seem to be doing a lot more of the improving already high speed connections (FIOS) as opposed to dealing with offering the rural community broadband, which I can understand takes a lot of infrastructure. I guess there's always overpriced satellite internet for rural places though.

Bandwidth caps are becoming more and more common. While I can understand their reasons for limiting illegal activities they are also affecting legitimate streaming. If you take 100GB (typical in canada, uk, australia some places are even lower) cap and are streaming HD stuff like from netflix or cbs/abc/fox/nbc a casual internet user could often exceed the bandwidth limit.

[benwaggoner]

Originally Posted by turbojet

I've heard that roughly 8% of the US population doesn't have access to broadband though obama's 'stimulus' package is supposed to signifigantly lower this. I'm going to guess it's higher in some other fairly civilized countries like northern Australia/New Zealand, some asian and some african countries. Currently in the USA they seem to be doing a lot more of the improving already high speed connections (FIOS) as opposed to dealing with offering the rural community broadband, which I can understand takes a lot of infrastructure. I guess there's always overpriced satellite internet for rural places though.

A recent survey of those without broadband suggested that 2/3rd of people who don't have it simply don't want it, and say there's nothing that would get them to change their minds.

Now, obviously that'll change over time as IP becomes how all data is delivered.

But until then, those peope aren't going to be watching web video anyway, so they're not really part of the audience.

But being able to send 2 Mbps to 63% of the population is pretty huge! And 25% can do a 5 Mbps stream. And these numbers are going up quickly.

I think 1080p web video is going to be realistic for a decent chunk of the population by the end of 2010.