Slashdot Mirror

Care to name a few companies which have significant CS R&D labs?

There are plenty out there, though a lot of them are small and thus probably under your radar. For a random example of one I've encountered try Praxis Critical Systems who do a lot of interesting work in verification, refinement systems and that sort of thing. You could try Certicom who have a lot of interesting work in the cryptography front - and a decent portion of that is work of efficient algorithms and secure protocols as well as the pure math side. There's Telecom Italia who are doing interesting work in agent architectures (I just happen to know of then having used JADE, their agent system, once).

If none of that appeals I'm sure there are literally hundreds more companies, those were just random ones I knew off the top of my head. And beyond that you have government work: DARPA, NSA, and many others are all quite interested in cutting edge CS work (look at SELinux from NSA for example, a demonstration of their research work into secure architectures).

If you open your eyes and look there is no shortage of opportunities.

Jedidiah.

See the description from the MPEG group's page for more information.

To quote:

MPEG-7, formally named "Multimedia Content Description Interface", is a standard for describing the multimedia content data that supports some degree of interpretation of the information's meaning, which can be passed onto, or accessed by, a device or a computer code. MPEG-7 is not aimed at any one application in particular; rather, the elements that MPEG-7 standardizes support as broad a range of applications as possible.

It was assigned the number 7 under the assumption that MPEG-5 and MPEG-6 would be used for future video compression technologies.

For additional information about MPEG-7, see the MPEG-7 home page

• The MPEG-4 Standard supports the possibility of DRM
• but it hasn't been implemented yet
• but they're working on it

Apple also keeps confusing the issues with their claims that MPEG4 is somehow based on QuickTime; there is some historical relationship, but they are different.

Tell me about it! And it's not just Apple confusing things: even those bastards at MPEG are trying to muddy our otherwise-clean waters:

The design [of the MPEG-4 file format] is based on the QuickTime® format from Apple Computer Inc.

I'm sick of this goddamned FUD!

Apple also keeps confusing the issues with their claims that MPEG4 is somehow based on QuickTime; there is some historical relationship, but they are different.

Tell me about it! And it's not just Apple confusing things: even those bastards at MPEG are trying to muddy our otherwise-clean waters:

The design [of the MPEG-4 file format] is based on the QuickTime® format from Apple Computer Inc.

I'm sick of this goddamned FUD!

What we really need is some universally acceptable method to store digital data that isn't likely to decay or fall out of favor in the next ten years. That, I'm afraid, is a difficult proposition.

If a large enough coalition of companies accept certain DRM features from MPEG 21 We'll be seeing this in our toaster-ovens winthin a decade, not to mention our TVs.

(AK)

What in the world is "unopen" about Quicktime, since the metafile format is fully published and the codecs they're pushing most loudly are an ISO standard?

• " The QuickTime file format has been used as the basis of the MPEG-4 standard, developed by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO)."
• " [10.9] The MP4 file format is designed to contain the media information of an MPEG-4 presentation in a flexible, extensible format which facilitates interchange, management, editing, and presentation of the media. [...] The design is based on the QuickTime® format from Apple Computer Inc."

I presently have around 185 gigs worth of files lying around, on my various systems. True, the largest capacity of any single system is 110 gigs, but I find that there will always be a way to fill up a hard drive. For instance I presently have 6 DVDs worth DeCSSed to HD for network playback, because I hate scratching optical media, and i hate the quality loss of an mpeg-4 conversion. Noone on the internet is trading .vob files, but then i'm not interested in pirating them, just in preserving my investment. so frankly if you could get a 10 terrabyte drive at an affordable price, I'd be in line to get one. Based on the evolution of drive technology, I shoudn't have to wait more than 6-7 years for a 100 fold increase in size either. By then, maaybe mpeg-21 will be standard, and have good quality/bitrates.

Now I really have to question your claim that "your" company has had an end-to-end MPEG4 system for a year. First you don't name the company and just say "search Google." Now you claim that Apple has come into MPEG4 late which just isn't so. The MPEG-4 file format is based on QuickTime's file format which was decided at least 3 years ago.

"The file format is designed to be independent of any particular delivery protocol while enabling efficient support for delivery in general. The design is based on the QuickTime® format from Apple Computer Inc."

mpeg-4 codecs for WMP

Not MPEG-4 compliant. They use selected bits and pieces of draft versions of the standard, plus proprietary stuff. Kinda like the difference between MSIE6 and Mozilla.

It will change.

The signal definition is, however media agnostic. MPEG-2 is used both for DVD and sending television master signals over satellites. Media standards are controlled by the company that invents them (royalties are paid on every casette tape that is made). Development of media is starting to swing towards consortium and committee standards, but that's how DVD was made. Blue-Ray is another example.

--
Evan

I noticed this because I'm currently working with OpenGL, where instead of merely drawing objects on the screen, you have a 2d or 3d virtual world in which you can create and transform 3d objects, and then you calculate how those images would appear projected onto a 2d surface, in much the same manner that 3-dimensional objects in the real world get projected upon the 2-d film of a camera. (The name for this modeling system is, in fact, the synthetic camera model).

I'm not sure how well applying this type of approach to video will work, since in effect, the client would have to render the footage instead of merely displaying it, but it's an interesting concept nonetheless.

I noticed this because I'm currently working with OpenGL, where instead of merely drawing objects on the screen, you have a 2d or 3d virtual world in which you can create and transform 3d objects, and then you calculate how those images would appear projected onto a 2d surface, in much the same manner that 3-dimensional objects in the real world get projected upon the 2-d film of a camera. (The name for this modeling system is, in fact, the synthetic camera model).

I'm not sure how well applying this type of approach to video will work, since in effect, the client would have to render the footage instead of merely displaying it, but it's an interesting concept nonetheless.

MPEG-4 was finalized in October 1998 and became an International Standard in the first months of 1999.

Here's some more detailed info about the MPEG-4 standard from the official mpeg home page.

I thought it was a little funny to see an animated GIF at the top of the home page, but maybe that's just me....

MPEG-4 was finalized in October 1998 and became an International Standard in the first months of 1999.

Here's some more detailed info about the MPEG-4 standard from the official mpeg home page.

I thought it was a little funny to see an animated GIF at the top of the home page, but maybe that's just me....

MPEG-4 was finalized in October 1998 and became an International Standard in the first months of 1999.

Here's some more detailed info about the MPEG-4 standard from the official mpeg home page.

I thought it was a little funny to see an animated GIF at the top of the home page, but maybe that's just me....

The thing the article does not mention is that a number of rights languages have already undergone a rather thorough peer review within MPEG 21, which is looking to adopt an open solution. I heard from a friend who attends that all of the submissions had problems (e.g. ambiguity) except for XrML which was subsequently adopted as the starting place for MPEG (neither he nor I work for the companies backing XrML).

Real's original rights language, XCML, was rolled into ODRL. ODRL was one of the standards that lost out so maybe that partly explains the strange logic.

Well in fact MPEG-4 has borrowed some ideas from Quicktime according to this overview. Same sh*t but different color. MPEG4 is a djungle, exciting but dangerous... will take a long time before we see anything but a slightly improved compression and some new patented audio formats. MPEG4 encoders sucks so far.

Sorry!

PS
A standard IMHO is something more than one company/person agrees to before using it. Not something that is tossed down your throat for no reason. MS sucks!
DS

Though this technology may prove valuable for the indexing of existing media files, though I suspect its hype is bigger than it's bytes. It's pretty much a certainty that the future of searchable interactive multimedia lies in industry standards such as MPEG 7 and the MPEG 21 Multimedia Framework.

Though this technology may prove valuable for the indexing of existing media files, though I suspect its hype is bigger than it's bytes. It's pretty much a certainty that the future of searchable interactive multimedia lies in industry standards such as MPEG 7 and the MPEG 21 Multimedia Framework.

No, the Motion Picture Experts Group is here: mpeg.telecomitalialab.com/

If we're going to use an algorithm encumbered by patents, we might as well use MPEG-4.

However if your CODEC is not covered by any patents, then please consider releasing it under a BSD or GPL license.

For information on why software patents are bad for free software, please visit The League for Programming Freedom

Nope, I think MPEG-4 will be the default DVD recording format in the near future.

Why? MPEG4 is "the standard for multimedia for the fixed and mobile web", what does this have to do with DVD? MPEG4 was designed for streaming over a network. MPEG2 is a great fit for DVD and HDTV. There is no reason to abandon it for MPEG4.

MPEG-4, like the Quicktime format it is based on, is simply a container. You can use just about any type of encoding within that container. You can read a detailed analysis of MPEG-4 here, but take a look at this relevant quote from that page:

The MPEG-4 systems layer allows codecs according to existing (MPEG) standards, e.g. MPEG-2 AAC, to be used.

This essentially means that MPEG-4 will be at least as good as MPEG-2, and could be much better as better codecs are made.

With MPEG-4 you have the new format which can "replace DVD", because MPEG-4 can do all of the things needed on a DVD and more. You can interact with the stream, layer elements on the stream, do transformations on the stream, etc. It is a very robust format and should prove to have a long life, given its extensibility.

In short, there is no need for WMF. Microsoft has just introduced this format for the sole purpose of trying to muddy the waters and gain control of yet another segment of the consumer electronic world. They will continue to depreciate other technologies while attempting to push their alternatives wherever possible. I'm sure that the inclusion of WMF in the DVD player chipsets is part of some deal Microsoft has made with the chip manufacturers. This is one definite case where it would be better for all if the formats converged on a standard such as MPEG-4, rather than catering to a proprietary format such as WMF.

MPEG-4 has also had a huge number of research groups and commercial organisations working together on the standards.

I'm not saying that these features are necessary, but this Nancy shouldn't really be able to kill MPEG-4 off if it only competes on one out of the many aspects of MPEG-4.

MPEG-4 is based on a file format championed by Apple and used in Quicktime. The problem is that the MPEG-4 standard is not yet complete. What WiMP (Windows Media Player) and the others are using is a corrupted form of the incomplete standard. It's the usual embrace-and-extend attack from Microsoft: adopt a standard and then modify it so that it becomes so corrupted and muddled that people have to use your version to do anything.

Interesting that MPEG-4 is an incomplete standard when the MPEG standards body froze MPEG-4 version 2 about 2 years ago, and has complete implementations of the player available to MPEG members. Also interesting that the MPEG-4 format is based on QuickTime, when, in fact, there's simply a codec available that allows the QuickTime format to be read by MPEG-4 decoders. In fact, the MPEG-4 FAQ has this item for those that don't quite get it:
MPEG-4 System FAQ
3. Is MPEG-4 Systems finalized ?
Yes and no. MPEG-4 introduced the notion of versions, another name for Amendment, the official ISO denomination for extensions of standards. New versions add features into the MPEG-4 arsenal. New versions do not obsolete previous Versions, they just add different additional functionality. MPEG-4 Version 1 was finalized in October 1998. A second version has been finalized in December 1999. Other versions are currently under development.

Once again we see that Microsoft has managed to grab market share through bundling, while the better product doesn't get as much exposure. Quicktime is such a polished product that supports some of the best compression algorithms for video out there, it's a shame that it is not used more.

Unusual that MS is the provider of the standard C++ implementation of the MPEG-4 codec (http://mpeg.telecomitalialab.com/faq/mp4-vid/mp4- vid.htm section 11), but somehow is pulling an embrace and extend attitude (for a standard that is specifically made for extension) and is somehow putting out an inferior product and grabbing market share through bundling. Frankly, the only reason QuickTime has any market share at all, besides their bundling with Apple software and hardware, is because it was the first, and it's the only player that supports it's format.

First off, I watched one of the news reports via videophone and I was quite impressed by the audio clarity and the video quality. M$'s NetMeeting can't even compare at the same data rate.
MPEG4 is an outgrowth of H.263.
The reason H.263 is chosen over MPEG4 and other similar streaming codecs is because the latency from video capture to transmission of the encoded image is better under H.263. During some informal testing, latency of H.263 video conferencing on a LAN was well under 2 seconds. The best I could do with Real's RealProducer using their G2 codec was around 4-5 seconds. The best I could do with Microsoft's Media Encoder with the MPEG4 codec was around 7-10 seconds.
Because of the way that MPEG2 and MPEG4 take advantage of the time domain to achieve higher compression also makes them unsuitable for 'live' 2-way video.
Here are some links to chew on:
http://myhome.hananet.net/~soonjp/vclinux.html
http://archive.dstc.edu.au/RDU/staff/jane-hunter/v ideo-streaming.html
http://mpeg.telecomitalialab.com/
The H.263 spec is available at http://www.itu.org for a fee.