Slashdot Mirror
Open Source Video Streaming Needed
Mike McCune writes "This article discusses how streaming video is controlled by three companies: Real, Microsoft and Apple. It discusses how open sourced video streaming software is needed. I looked around and found the start of some OS streaming software. There is a video streamer based on Darwin here and there is the start of several players here." But what about the codec patent problems? I have been told that they're the big holdup. [sigh]
Compression of still images is much different than motion compression.
Here is a link which points to Quicktime for Linux.
http://heroine.linuxbox.com/quicktime.html
It has been said in another post and it is true. All someone needs to do is combine a free-to-use codec with QTSS and write a player that can read the documented QTSS format.
Streaming video controlled by Real/Microsoft/Apple - What about SGI and mediabase!? http://www.sgi.com/software/mediabase Mediabase relies on standards (except for Real) and offers far more performance/reliability, esp. w/ their Guaranteed Rate I/O (GRIO).
Actually, it is simply not true to say that graphic design people just use what they're used to. In fact that might be construed as a condescending and ignorant remark -but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt in exchange for your patience. ..ah..somewhat primitive..UI , eg, really agonizingly bad handle behavior --edit points, anyone?-- But the fact remains that gimp lacks two "features" that are fundamental and critical to graphic design, and to pre-press, (where you might think a Unix variant might catch-on.) Aside from any other "doodads" and "awesome" scripting capabilities, gimp lacks the ability to build colors in CMYK color space, (yeah those colors you actually print with), and it has no facility for Pantonetm Color Matching System at all. Nor is it likely to acquire that facility --certainly that will never be free in any case. Those are two basic...flaws..you'd have to say.
For the present anyway a comparison of Gimp to Photoshop will show GIMP very unsuited to professional graphics. I don't mean to say "gimp sucks", it doesn't totally suck for home use, if you can live with the
And add to that manifold deficiencies that surround Gimp on the platform that aren't Gimp's fault: Xwindows is pisspoor compared to the screen drawing facilities of other platforms. On the frontend, Linux has poor scanner support (no offense meant to D. Mostang and the other SANE contributors--I appreciate their work every day) and poor camera support. You can purchase software from here and there to fill in these gaps sort of. There are commercial xservers that are more optimized and predictable than Xfree86, there are packages from Vivdata and Cameleo that provide support for imaging devices and ICC color matching systems for production chains. But, even with these not inexpensive solutions in place, even assuming Gimp's deficiencies weren't so stark, there is still a void of acceptable apps to run on the same platform to provide Gimp with material to edit and a capable downstream channel for compositing.
Were the situation otherwise you could surely find someone somewhere using GIMP in the professional way I was politely inquiring about, and also someone somewhere using Linux or similar as a platform for doing their high level professional work with gimp. But life is hard and it just ain't happening that way. I am kind of exasperated by the ongoing cognitive vacuum hereabouts in re: the whole thing. That is why I abridged my argument to an Aristotelian brush-off: if Gimp is so all-fired hot, why can't you find any experts in the field in question using it for their professional work. Where demonstrative proofs are impossible,the consensus of those-who-may-be-expected-to-know is a valid criterion of knowledge, acc to Aristotle, and so far as I can see, the consensus is not much moved by the Gimp.
If someone is using -aack- gasp Powerpoint to do "graphics" work, out of ignorance as you say, then per definitionem they are ignorant, and their work is not graphics in the first place. Your argument is neither here nor there: while I am talking about people who damn well better know what they're doing, you, as you say, are talking about people who plainly don't. Do you really require an explanation why the opinions of the first group are more persuasive than the opinions of the second?
umm where the hell do you get off calling that poster a troll??
he has got it right, albeit a bit rah rah.
gimp blows photoshop out of the water in terms of performance and uptime. it also has more features than photoshop when you get down to the scripting capabilities.
the only drawback to GIMP is that it runs on other platforms besides linux. its time people started realizing that open source is just for linux, where it was invented.
I don't think it's off-topic. The guys at the OpenH323 project are working on different video codecs, so I think it'll be a good idea to check with them. Last I heard (yesterday or so) was that video between two voxilla end-points is working, but that it is not currently compatible with Netmeeting (but I'm sure that's being looked into). The URL is http://www.openh323.org/ --Magne
Yeah, our god Linuxs commented on the millennium so now it's gospel! All hail the allmighty Linuxs!!!!
Maybe if there actually existed Sorenson players for Gnulix it'd be cool. So in justa few years (3-4???) Gnulix will catch up to Macintush.
Here is some video software for Linux.
I wonder how hard it is to make a streaming video player, once the compression algorithm is known and clear. AFAIK at least some of them operate on some sort of independent blocks or frames (like you can display JPGs even when the whole image has not yet arrived) so umm.. just transmit the blocks via UDP or something. OTH I'm not an expert so I'll just shut up!
This sansbury moron really made my day! How can anyone be so stupid!
As a side note, if the patents are from arse in some fictional countries, say U and G, then implement those widely known algorithms outside those said countries and let the patent offices of U and G wallow in their own misery. Pure and simple. Everybody is happy. Why bother with compliance with the patent offices of U and G? They're not the whole world! They're not holding a gun at your head! They can't force me to comply just because they stupid and the companies are greedy.
Umm, maybe this is as good a time as any to just say "bollocks" to the aforementioned entities and just make the software.
Vorbis is arugibly one of the most important OSS projects around right now, but it's getting very little attention. There is only one person workin on it right now because of that.
No, Apple does not own Sorensen. However, IIRC, right after the TPM trailer was released in Quicktime, the author of Xanim approached Sorensen, and they told him that their contract with Apple clearly states that Apple has to approve any and all new customers for the codec.
Someone smack Llama-boy around, some..
MP3's became a big thing when the average PC had enough horsepower that it could play one w/o skipping. And became a REALLY big thing when you could actually do something else at the same time as it played!
No content, my ass... This is some kind of troll..I can smell it. The Dawson's Creek bit gave you away. Phhht.
You actually logged in to post that drivel?
So how do they do it? That seems to be 'streaming' video of some sort, and its certainly 0 & 1's, and they sure seem to only be transmitting parts of the screen that change..soo...someone care to enlighten? It seems that someone's been down this road already & spent a lot of money on the decision.
Say it along with me, "Real Sucks".
It would be cool if we could have a open source video codec in BeOS. I boot into BeOS more often now than Linux now. Real sweet GUI. Better than crappy X.
Just counting the moments til IE for Linux comes out..ohhh yeah! I can finally dump this crappy old Netscape.
Yeah, they can live on in their dream world, while the rest of us in the realworld actually get usable software.
Nevermind, though, the boys are all frothin' at the mouth & such planning to take over the world again.
It doesn't matter who's better..it's who's -left-
Video && X == lame.
These are all open.
and we NEED an ASF player for linux! BADLY!
I wish I was smart enough to write one.
It would do very well to have a good clone of netmeeting. We are soooo slow to do something here.
"MOV? All the pain of an AVI, with free delays while you deny Apple their cut. From the guys who killed
Firewire... "
Dan, the next time you post crap like this, do us and yourself a favor and post as an AC. It is embarrasing to read.
It don't know or care what DoxPara Research is, but you are not doing it any good by associating bullshit with its name in a public forum.
By the way, the millenium is in one year....
"Scully, nobody likes a math geek." - F. Mulder
The Darvin Streaming Server from Apple can do a/ ) and quicktime4 is currently the simplest
n g/sn/streaming.html
lot of nice things to RTP.
The Realtime Tranfer Protocol makes it possible
to take lots of codecs and distribute streams
in a common manner.
Darvin is in the center, VIC and RAT can be used
as input (http://www-mice.cs.ucl.ac.uk/multimedia/software
mainstream user interface (althougt not the only one!). Some codecs are h.263+ and gsm 10:1.
I wrote a little doc (german only, sorry folks) that describes my efforts a half year ago to do
live streaming this way, and every part used is free!
http://www.st.fbe.fh-kempten.de/meile/tele-teachi
It would help if you could make MPEG movies in low framerates (I've looked at a couple of packages, but 24 seems to be as low as you can go. 15fps is fairly good for an internet streamed connection, and even 2-5fps would be enough for some things).
:-).
I think this is all a silly issue anyway. All you need to do is stick the mpeg on a web server and have it deliver it. If your connection is fast enough you can watch it live, if not you can watch it once it has finished transfering (just the same as with large quicktime viewers - it is a client issue not a server issue).
Just stream the mpeg from a web server, it isn't hard. If you want to have bandwidth limitations for it (so it can't flood your link), just run a second copy of apache on another port and limit it to 10 child processes or whatever.
Playing around with Xing 600kbit is about what you want for a (decentish) 320x200ish mpeg, which would quite easily run over a DSL/cable link.
That said, I really love the idea of icecast doing mpeg video. Linking a chain of icecast servers together could make for an awesome (and somewhat efficent) multimedia network (if ISPs started to install icecast rebroadcasters as commonly as they do proxy caches today). Chain them together like the usenet NNTP network is
My understanding was that the only point to the streaming servers was mostly for security reasons (such as to stop theft of the content, though you can get around that with screenshots etc).
Real video works well for really low bitrates, but above that mpeg is good as far as I'm concerned (real video can be viewed direct from a web server too). So for short things that need to be viewed quickly and quality isn't much of an issue - go for realvideo, but if it's large and you want something worth watching than go mpeg (I'd probably go mpeg all the time personally, but thats not the most logical solution for low bitrates).
You can create pseudo 10 or 15 or even lower frame rate MPEG files by adding blank B frames. The only thing is doesn't do is variable frame rate, which I utterly hate anyway... it slows down the frame rate in the most important moment ... not very useful
Samuel Audet
GNU/Linux 1394 Subsystem
The little man with a moustache and a screwdriver comes out to each currently in existence Apple machine and installs the FireWire port?
No? Oh, that's right. Apple makes money selling new hardware every few years.
> We have not even begun to get confused. You've actually got...
You made a fool of yourself and were called on it, the more you post, the more of an idiot you look to the rest of us. Just stop posting, please.
there are some people who try to think and do things that benefit all people. you are a selfish bastard so fuck yourself.
They only have "monopoly" control of THEIR pantented technologies, not the entire IEEE-1394 spec. If someone in the industry doesn't like it, they can develop their own replacement technologies and give it away for free... Geeze.
BTW, MS's server isn't free. You have to buy the pricey WinNT Server.
What are you trying to say? Repeat it again, but this time in English.
Video should be sent as compressed packets. Only the information which changes from frame to frame needs to be compressed and sent, and an agents which describe the changed info at that. Streaming is not how you do Internet-based Personal TV or video. Compressed Packets of descriptors - that's how you do it.
Why are there patent problems? Can't you Open Source wonderboy programmers make your own compression standard? Why must you constantly look for other peoples work to copy and corrupt?
Do something on your own! Linus didn't sit around and whine about how Windows wasn't Open Source and he couldn't copy it so he might as well give up, he rolled his own! Carry on in his footsteps if you've any shred of consistency left in you!
E.
BTW, MPEG4 is a free video standard, isn't it? Someone implement that if you're unable to create one yourself.
Its about STREAMING... who gives a shit about MPEG? It doesn't stream. Its so bloated and huge that it doesn't even have a hope of getting over 320x240 and being able to stream over a T1!
Next time read more than one word before replying to an article.
E.
crazy, I thought the way to get good products was to whine about it on SlashDot...:)
Writing multimedia codecs is HARD. People with the know how to write codecs like Sorenson aren't waiting around to contribute to some toy opensource codec project.
> MOV? All the pain of an AVI, with free delays while you deny Apple their cut. > From the guys who killed Firewire... What the fuck is that sentence of your's supposed to mean?? Specifically the part of about "the guys who killed Firewire"? Considering that it is Apple that invented FireWire, and that it is Apple that is providing the FireWire license at no charge, and that it is Apple that that pushed for the current patent-pool, and current $0.25 cents *per machine* licensing fee for using FireWire hardware patents, I think it's not only incorrect to claim that Apple 'killed' FireWire, but considering that there is currently an explosion of FireWire products on the market, you are, at best, clueless, at worst, a liar. So, what is it? Harry
> MOV? All the pain of an AVI, with free delays while you deny Apple their cut.
> From the guys who killed Firewire...
What the fuck is that sentence of your's supposed to mean??
Specifically the part of about "the guys who killed Firewire"? Considering that it is Apple that invented FireWire, and that it is Apple that is providing the FireWire license at no charge, and that it is Apple that that pushed for the current patent-pool, and current $0.25 cents *per machine* licensing fee for using FireWire hardware patents, I think it's not only incorrect to claim that Apple 'killed' FireWire, but considering that there is currently an explosion of FireWire products on the market, you are, at best, clueless, at worst, a liar.
So, what is it?
Harry
> MOV? All the pain of an AVI, with free delays while you deny Apple their cut.
> From the guys who killed Firewire...
What the fuck is that sentence of yours supposed to mean??
Specifically the part of about "the guys who killed Firewire"? Considering that it is Apple that invented FireWire, and that it is Apple that is providing the FireWire license at no charge, and that it is Apple that that pushed for the current patent-pool, and current $0.25 cents *per machine* licensing fee for using FireWire hardware patents, I think it's not only incorrect to claim that Apple 'killed' FireWire, but considering that there is currently an explosion of FireWire products on the market, you are, at best, clueless, at worst, a liar.
So, what is it?
Harry
Actually, I would reccomend that when someone does come up with the new, ultra codec or the superior product that they make sure and release it as loudly as popular for the inferior, yet more popular OS, with a link to the linux version somewhere on the front page. remember that if you convince the web-tv and AOL users that they *have* to have it the companies will have to still make them happy, i.e.-adopt your new protocol. Saying, "hey us ten linux users over here demand you use a more open protocol NOW!" isn't linkely to get quite the same response...
> They started off with a dollar a port Idiot. The original FireWire hardware license was always 25 cents a *PORT*. Harry
You know, you sound a lot like contestant #1.
You are wrong on every count. i started to write (once more, my god) the catalog of deficiencies with GIMP, and X and Linux and then I realized: that's just what poster#1 wants; I'm sick of it, and you wouldn't fucking understand anyway. Accordingly, I'll keep this really simple. When you can name me some, o hell, -ANY- design agencies out there that have thrown out their Adobe PhotoShop licenses and converted to GIMP you let me know, then we'll talk about how great GIMP is, OK? Name design agencies, Ok?. Not your friend of a friend, not Joe-i-have-just-bought-a-PC and I'll design your store's curbside signage for a ham'n'cheese sandwich and a beer. Now, I'm not asking you to find me a rock-star designer out of an annual who's won an award sometime in the past three years, nothing fancy --no just find me a one single design firm that's making a professional living at the craft, satisfying clients, working with quality printers, that uses GIMP and has thrown out Photoshop. One. Then we'll talk.
As for contestant #1, no one beyond the age of majority is that stupid. That's not rah-rah you're hearing there, that's someone trying to provoke yet another flamefest about OPenSource in general by way of the GIMP, by showing an enthusiasm that veers well over the edge of imbecility. i hope that wasn't you.
If they copied and wanted to decode RealMedia or Microsoft stuff, yes, they would be sued and rightfully so. They didn't invent it, they should keep their noses out of it and quit being such insolent little brats.
What they need to do is invent their OWN standard, make it Open Source, and GPL it, put in a little hitch that all players have to be GPL too and that'll keep Microsoft and RealMedia and Apple from simply expanding their players to swallow the format.
The REAL trick will be having a bunch of unpaid people put in the serious (and I mean serious) work to invent a good streaming protocol that is better than the others. If its not better for the others, then no one will use it except people gunning for a Linux-only audience which is basically no one and will remain basically no one. So make it a really really great standard, GPL it with that hook, and the big companies most certainly will lose ground...
E.
Smacker/Bink? The format seems to be pretty good, and mostly used for cut-scenes in games like Starcraft. I heard they were working on a linux player, but haven't seen one yet. While not open-source, the company seems better than the 3 big players(the free Smacker tools are pretty useful even if you aren't using them for the Smacker format). If they're telling the truth, Bink is better than MPEG2.
Don't worry, when everyone has enough bandwidth to actually offer their own content and other people have enough bandwidth to watch it without killing themselves, no one will be allowed to. Go to your favorite broadband providers website and zip over to their "Terms of Service" or "Acceptable Use Policies" section.... see that right near the top or maybe hidden in the middle?
NO SERVERS OF ANY KIND!
Yes, the dictation that will rule the web in the future will be "If you don't have a million dollars, forget about publishing anything but a couple megs of text on a web page, maybe some pictures of your cat".
E.
Don't invent your own algorithms... its hard children! Just go to another country where you're allowed to steal the ideas legally and you can be a godhead to the Open Source community!
E.
This message brought to you by the thieves of the Open Source community.
Like the subject says, I salute you sansbury, you seem to have it exactly right. Free software is great, but mandatory source release is dictatorial. Refusal of compensation for an innovation is socialist and is thievery. Far too many Open Source advocates refuse to accept that they should have to earn their way in the world and see Open Source as an easy out.
I'm glad people like you voice your opinion on Slashdot, it is sorely needed. I voice mine frequently, but I do it as Anonymous Coward because the only defense people averse to the reality you present is either to insult me here, or to mailbomb me, and I'm not going to open myself up to that.
E.
I salute you, sir!
> They started off with a dollar a port
Idiot.
The original FireWire hardware license was always 25 cents a *PORT*.
Harry
Vivo is crap. Thanks for reminding everyone.
Dumbass.
heh, hey there... don't let bresnan @home catch you running a server :) they'll yank your access. btw, where r u in madison?
Yes, he's the same little man that magically gives 3D accelerators to every PC Quake player.
You can buy PCI FireWire cards for about $100, BTW.
There's a company called Graham Technology Solutions which makes a server which as far as I can tell streams directly to an Applet in a browser without needing a separate client-side plug-in like Real or MS or Quicktime (except of course, a Java plug-in).
Their website is at www.graham.com
Any opinions? Is this a viable alternative?
> Yes, I know. They tried to charge too much at first. They backed off, and now it's a big 25 cents!
The problem is, they still have monopoly control over it. They can still charge whatever they want for the right to produce Firewire equipment, _at any time_.
Naturally, the fear is that if Firewire actually takes off and becomes commonplace, then Apple will start jacking up the price.
It's this fear that will stop all but a few big companies who can make sweet deals with Apple, from producing Firewire equipment.
JMF from Sun makes a great client for your RTSP/RTP compliant streaming media server. It runs on Linux just fine.
The number of codecs is somewhat limited for RTP streaming, but I believe you can add your own. It would be a major win to support the QuickTime in RTP packing (there's an internet-draft floating around somewhere that describes this) which would allow it to handle any codec it does in a local QT file inside an RTP stream.
There are plenty of good free codecs. Nobody here has mentioned H.261 yet, which has been around for a while, and has fairly good quality. It's not a particularly low bit rate codec, however; MPEG is not either. You don't want to or can't stream MPEG to a 28.8kbps or 56kbps connection; it's just not suited for that. Good streaming codecs can gracefully handle packet loss and such, where as the picture will just break up with MPEG.
There's nothing stopping some smart people from coming up with a good codec for low-bitrate streaming and licensing it fairly. It's just that the people who have done so up until now have been large commercial operations whose profitability has been hinged on being able to make license revenue from their codecs; i.e. selling the codec is their primary business. Sorensen Vision is this way to the best of my knowledge, and they have a very exclusive license agreement with Apple.
JMF is a framework such that you can plug in components for various pieces of the system, including new codecs. And it supports RTP and RTSP.
(Okay, the RTSP support looks a little buggy to me as of now, but I'm sure that will improve in the next release.)
As far as servers go, there is Apple's with source code available, and several others out now or soon to be out with varying degrees of freedom. But it is not incredibly hard to do a small lightweight implementation of RTSP and RTP. It's mostly a scheduling problem.
Please raise the previous article to a 4 or 5, thanks.
this is why i love slashdot!
more babies hiding behind a.c.'s that can't even openly debate in public.
open source my ass.
peer review my ass.
whining wannabes.
this is NOT posted by the original author of this thread.
> When you see those stream-only websites, the reason they do that is to prevent you from copying
> it and uploading it to your website.
Who wants to copy a 10 megabyte file of C-SPAN to their web site?
They want to prevent people from downloading it and watching it later, especially if they think they'll be able to charge for it eventually.
It's called "elimination of free use rights via technology"
It's the first that I heard of it. Is this a new program? If so, don't those folks in Redmond have some big balls to do this while being investaged? If its an old established program, I didn't see anything about it in the "findings of fact." Sure seems like the kind of practice the Justice depertment would have looked at closely when they went outside the bounds of the intial "Browser" focus.
I think a codec based on mpeg4 (if possible) will have the best possibility to win the race. Everyone knows about mp3. Most people, I think, will feel comfortable with mp4. Anyway, we need a free codec!
I think other companies should stay as far away from Apple technology as possible. Designing a high-speed serial connection standard isn't rocket science, and other companies can come up with a free alternative (USB 2, for example).
The Microsoft media player is really, really good when displaying MPEG4 .ASF files. A 300k stream is very close to watching TV.
it's simple, their propietary codecs are terrible, another example of how commercial software cannot stand up to open source for quality. some facts: we have the gimp which beats photoshop in every feature department hands down, and runs on linux! so why not just write a linux open source streaming video codec and show them just what PENGUIN POWER can do!
I think I'd rather have better video support all-around, not just streaming. It's even more anoying to not be able to download/receive a video and not be able to play it. (maybe when I have the bandwidth I'll care more about streaming)
.mpg musicvideos to play right. aKtion only displays the top 25% of the screen at most, and it varies from frame to frame. Xanim gives me a screenful of "MPG_UNK CODE: e0" messages. Videos on the last CD they sent played fine though. I noticed on the CD cover it says: "Pixelon enchanced full screen videos inside". What is that, a new codec? Maybe by their definition, enchanced==broken universal standard. Or maybe could I be doing something wrong?
I really don't like people moving to WMP formats, and I hope MS never makes players for macs becasue then it might have the potential to become even more popular. And I seriously doubt that MS would make players for every other OS under the sun like Linux, BSD, Solaris, IRIX, BEos, VMS, etc. That's a helluvalotta work, and of course then they would loose that much more of a reason for people to use their OS. Standards for video and audio need to be universally readable, and I wish that people wouldn't even bother creating new "standards" if they have no intention of making it universal.
I just had an incompatiblility problem with mpg the other day: I just got another CD from mp3.com, and I can't get any of their
naw, they say NONE ;) doesn't stop me though. and i think we're on the same node. our ip's are both 24.8.91.xxx heh. email me where u live @ jpal@linuxfan.com
Quicktime also seems to have captured the high-end content creation market and are meeting the web downstream. Other players lack sophistacted codecs (read Cinepak and Sorenson) to do broadcast quality media (TVs, movies etc). And are meeting the demands upstream ( a difficult thing to take a matchbox size video codec over 56k and make it into a broadcast quality codec).
The OSS will have a difficult time creating new algorithms for codecs. Remember this is not hacking, this is creating something innovative and new --something the OSS community has *NO* experience.
In essence, the best thing to do is to launch a campaing to release Quicktime Media Layer tools for Linux. This will get Apple the eyeballs that they vie for and the Linux community a great API to code apps on. We need to twist Apple's arm, convince them to release Linux binaries (Intel & PPC.
I missed off the comma after "Look" and didn't want anyone to think I am a moronic turd-brain faggot like you.
Well said Sir !
... Ronald Reagan ... sigh ...
Vivo is pure crap and this "RonaldReagan" a definitive dumbass
Vivo
Sorry, but I don't speak legalese. So instead of me relying on a license I don't understand, I'd like to consider the advice of people who know what they are talking about. At first glance, so-and-so's license could suit my needs fine, but who's to say there isn't some clause in there that seriously fscks me over?
Nor do I speak C, C++, Fortran, Python, Perl, etc. Do you understand all of them? By your logic, I should really go through all the code for all the programs I use and be sure they suit my needs. After all, I'm the one who's stuck using the software.
So instead, I have some faith, not only in the people who write the code/document, but in the brave souls corageous enough to slog through the whole thing and decide it doesn't suck. There isn't enough time in the world to try to understand everything just to know if we should use it or not.
Now do we understand why Peer Review is one of the most important concepts of Open Source software?
MS has already made their player for Mac. Its not always what I would call "happy" but it does run.
I personally wish that people wouldn't try to put USB and FireWire in the same category. Lets think of it this way:
In some cases, FireWire is overkill. Do I *need* a few hundred megabits to power my mouse or keyboard? Hell no. Even speakers don't go anywhere near to pushing the USB spec. But for digital cameras? Harddrives? Phat Pipe please.
In some cases, USB is underpowered. Scanners? I'd prefer FireWire, high resolution images move slowly on a 12-Megabit max USB chain that is already running a keyboard, mouse and speakers.
Now, does *any* of this have *anything* to do with the licensing cost of FireWire? Lord no. USB and FireWire each have a place. I just wish some nice ISA-free, PS/2-free, Serial/Parallel-free systems would reach the x86 market. Apple stopped clinging to ADB. Chips and ports on the back of my case that run things older then ADB are making my system more expensive. Boo!
1. Recompile
2. Recompile
3. Recompile
oh wait..that stupid BSD license allowed apple to lock the code into a proprietary closed source product, didnt it ?
You write it, 'kay Troll? The comment about gimp is a laugable troll, which I will not grace with a response. Actually that was the giveaway. When you're trolling you should pitch it a little lower.
Insightful Flamebait? Go figure... only on slashdot!
Let me think..
MOV/AVI/MPG are all *file formats*. Also known as methods of delivery. They are a way of putting the file in an order/format that can be read by players.
Sorenson/Indeo/Cinepak/etc are all codecs. They are the compression type that the audio/video data is stored in. They are where the troubles lay.
The issue of Open Souce Streaming Servers is moot. Darwin Streaming Server already exists. It dishes out streaming data in a documented form. Anyone who so wishes could write an open source player that takes the stream from the server and breaks it apart into useable A/V data.
Most files/streams out there exist in a file/packet format that is openly documented. The issue is that most A/V data inside uses codecs that cannot be read by open source players. Binary files for Indeo and Cinepak have been released that can decompress the data, but no such binaries exist for Linux.
Anyway, what's my point? Anyone who wants to can write a video player that can read streams from Darwin Streaming Server. All we need to do is use Streaming Server with codecs that we can play back.
Also, MPEG codecs aren't as open as one may believe. Just as a point of fact.
How exactly does recompiling magicly solve these problems? You are looking at radically differnt Display systems (Quartz vs. x11), radially differnet API's (MacOS X will include BDS's plus 3 others!), and this will be a marketed product. soo...
What you are asking Apple to do is to spend their time, and money, working out the code to work on a Display system/API system that they have little interst in (remember that we are talking about only a tiny fraction of desktop systems here that use x11), spend extra money to liscence the codecs (which are a huge part of this, and all third party), so that you don't have to do the work of creating any of this yourself? (remember the specs and standards that are the Quicktime Media Format are avalible for you to work out for yourself....)
And then you object when Apple does it's own work, and then asks to keep this as its own property (even though it is giving away use of the technology for free!).... I think someone has a perspective problem here...
soory about the AC post.. blanking on my pass... this is larkost
The general theme though is that while the QT player might be able to handle that variant of .MPG, no other player can, so you're stuck with Apple's ad, and inevitable lack of functionality.
There's nothing stopping you from using a different player (IIRC, both Cisco's IP/TV and the Java Media Framework come with QuickTime-compatible players).
Here's the problem: Let's say you implement some patented codec, and you give out the source code for free. You're not selling it, so no problem. But Red Hat, Debian, Corel, etc. can't put your software on their CDs, because they sell the CDs. So now we have a nice Open Source codec that no one can use unless they go looking for it. :-(
When you see those stream-only websites, the reason they do that is to prevent you from copying it and uploading it to your website.
Since you've implemented parts of QuickTime, I'm sure you know that there's nothing preventing someone from writing an app that saves a stream to a file. Also (as you yourself pointed out), streaming doesn't suffer from stalled TCP connections.
wishing for RTSP/RTP support in XMovie...
The standard video format is MPG, because MPG Just Works. Everywhere. AVI has failed. The general perception of an AVI file is one that might play, might not, might suddenly install a new codec, might not, who knows. No predictability. Do you know it is possible to encode AVI file in mpeg format if you have the right codec installed? AVI is a video delivery system, not a video format!
Dear tietokne-olme:
Please email me with your job title and place of employment so I can go to your boss and volunteer to do your job for free.
I disagree with stupid patents, not the concept of patenting itself. If creating a video compression algorithm is so obvious to you then why don't you write your own instead of stealing one from someone else? On second thought, why don't you stick to 1337 h4x0r tricks, script kiddie.
-cwk.
On March 25th, RealNetworks, Inc., finalized its acquisition of Vivo Software Inc. Read the press release. Visit the RealNetworks site. Products and services from Vivo Software are still supported fully. Vivo Software, Inc. is a leader in the Web video revolution, providing innovative solutions that enable people to communicate with video over the Internet. Founded in 1993 by a team of internationally-recognized experts in video and audio signal processing technology, Vivo develops and markets Internet video solutions for a range of applications over corporate intranets and the public Internet. Vivo is best known for its groundbreaking VivoActive software--the most popular solution for streaming video and audio over the World Wide Web. Vivo Software is also a charter member of the IP Multicast Initiative. VivoActive VivoActive is the market leader in streaming media because our revolutionary technology provides an easy-to-use solution that delivers high-quality streaming video and audio using any standard HTTP server or standards-based media server. Thousands of companies use the VivoActive Production Tools to add high-impact video and audio to their Web sites for real-time viewing by a fast-growing audience of more than nine million people who have downloaded the VivoActive Player plug-in.
Have you guys looked at vic? was designed for video conferencing, but it can't be that hard to hack it to stream from a file... http://www-mice.cs.ucl.ac.uk/multimedia/software/
The Free Expression Project, started by Dr Lynn Winebarger, is aiming to develop a copylefted set of streaming client+server software. Another interesting project hosted at the same site is a decompiler.
A quote from their web page:
This is the home page for a project to develop a copylefted suite of streaming media tools (server, client, encoders, and codec(s)). It is just getting started. This page is under pretty constant construction at the moment, but it does already provide some useful stuff for the motivated....
The primary motivation in starting this project is to provide free tools for artists who want to use the Web as a distribution medium (See FreeSpeechTV and The Sync for examples), and to make Linux a viable platform for them to use.
Just a thought, but if you look back a few weeks to the slashdot post about JPEG 2000 you'll find what I thought was a promising new technology that could be applied to streaming video.
And since JPEG 2000 source should be available open source, it might not be too difficult to build a streaming video application atop it.
Surely that's quick enough for you :)
Besides, OpenSource doesnt necessarily mean Linux/X11.
-Yarn - Rio Karma: Excellent
Intel is trying to, with USB 2. However
1) USB 2 still isn't as good as FireWire for things like
2) USB 2 isn't here yet
3) by the time it is here, FireWire will be at 800Mbps
And yeah, all these Lee-nooks hackers love to slam Apple for trying to charge for it. Sorry, but when you invest large amounts of money in R&D to develop something like FireWire, you charge for it.
Also, Apple is in a consortium w/ other companies(like Sony), and the charge is now just 25, and with that you can have as many ports as you want, instead of the $1/port like it was before. And AFAIK, the money is split between 6 or 7 companies that all put money into developing FireWire.
If FireWire dies, it will be because Intel has so much power that they can crush good technologies with FUD and vaporware.
And if Intel doesn't crush FireWire, all us Mac users will laugh as we plug digital video cameras into our already year old Blue G3s.
BTW, IIRC Compaq had the first machines w/ FireWire, but there are still very few PCs that have it. Some of Sony's laptop also include it. But since Apple owns the name "FireWire", Compaq calls it IEEE 1394, and Sony calls it iLink.
In the beginning it was controlled only by Real. Then Microsoft got in. Then Apple did.
Apple has been taking marketshare away from MS. If they can do it, Open Source people can do it. You should stop complaining and start coding. These companies have market share because they make good products(well except for that Media Player shit), if you want to make a good product, people will use it.
www.apple.com/trailers/
Check out the quality of the movie trailers there. I have a Mac and a cable modem, and Sorenson kicks ass big time. I don't know what you're talking about it having all these problems, it works flawlessly for me.
Screw MPEG, yeah DVD and MP3s are nice, but for the best quality with the smallest file size, Sorenson is it.
I'm friends with people involved fairly heavily
in providing streaming video, and I've discovered
some disturbing things.
Suppose I want to provide streaming video content.
If I go the Real Networks route, I will have
to pay $20,000 for a 200 stream server. Microsofts server costs me $0. This has
been true for awhile.
Now, however, MS has a new program: they will
pay for the bandwidth of content providers as
long as they exclusively use MS's media server.
Now, in addition to the one time fee for the
server software, I have to consider that
MS will pay my $50,000/month bandwidth charge?
How can an open source solution compete with
this?
-David
One answer: 24/7 live video. Check out www.hereandnow.net.
That's precisely my point. MS can afford to
pay for bandwidth while streaming video
is still young. Once their format has become
the standard, they'll stop paying the bandwidth
bills. By then it may be too late to break
their stranglehold.
Yes, I know. They tried to charge too much at first. They backed off, and now it's a big 25 cents!
Wow.
They started off with a dollar a port, which would have made adding Firewire connectivity one of the most expensive parts of any system. They knew they had a great technology and--guess what--they blew it.
The quarter license came too little, way too late, and now we're saddled with the horribly overstressed USB architecture.
The general idea is that Apple would have made much more money actually selling video editing macs rather than talking about it for years on end and finally making a lone stand w/ Sony on the joys of home video editing. I'm sure the two companies, who thanks to apple couldn't even share the Firewire name(Is it Firewire? Is it i-Link? Is it IEEE-Gevalt), did pretty well. But that just can't compare to how much business they might have done if home video editing was The Big Thing. It could have been, if Apple hadn't been so stubborn. They could have guided the evolution of the industry in more ways than just blue plastic.
Oh wait. Why am I responding to flamebait?
Uhm, I don't know. Anyone who speaks kritikally of Apple is suddenly posting flamebait?
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
Well, you'll never ever get Sorensen from Apple. It's not there's to give, it's a technology they license from Sorensen. As for why they don't build a Linux QuickTime client it would be that they don't see any return on the investment at this point in time. There also may be licensing reasons. You usually license a technology for a given market. So Apple licenses Sorensen for MacOS (obviously) and Windows (for additional market share)
I think that if the right person or persons made an actual business case to Apple that may change, especially in light of the fact that they're going to have to port it to run over their BSD based MacOS X anyway.
This is probably correct. Did Sorensen approach Apple and ask or did they hide behind this clause? The real question is "without the provision would Sorensen have released its Codec in any form"? Given the lack of any of their other IP being freely available I think the answer is no.
I'm having difficulty getting past the spelling.
Deleted
If you write an open source client/server that supports RN's plug-in API, you can use RN's plug-ins to get access to a bunch of codecs. Of course, you are still stuck with a bunch of proprietary codecs, but you can add some open source plug-ins and give people both.
---
From the guys who killed Firewire...
---
...how can a company kill FireWire and yet make it available in all of their higher-end machines (and some low ones)?
I imagine within a year all Apple systems will have FireWire. Not quite the same definition of dead as I know of.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
- Jeff
Oh dear.
Moral philosophers will be kicking themselves the world over, having spent their lives searching for answers which they could have just picked up on a course.
You daft bastard.
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
You brandish non-sequiturs with such ease that I wonder whether or not you have ever had the formal training to which you appear to allude.
Ownership of property, particularly intellectual property, is not a cut-and-dried issue. Neither is money an accurate way of measuring productivity.
If you choose to declare your life as worthless, go right ahead. Seek death long enough and you'll find it I'm sure.
You think that measuring the value of your life in terms other than fiscal equates with wanting to die? I feel very sorry for you.
Hamish
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
In a related note, does anyone think for themselves anymore? Read the license. If you think you can live with the terms, and it suits your purpose, it's open enough. Who cares what Bruce Perens or RMS or ESR or anyone else thinks? In the end, you are the one responsible for living up to the terms of the license, so make sure it meets your needs, not anyone else's.
I rememebr at this time last year someone posted about shoutcast making audio streaming... and in my typical manner I posted a Been there, done that years ago response.
Well... time to spoil your fun again - I've had video streaming using mpeg working Using icecast.
The *big* problem right now is getting a low bitrate video codec which will work in real time.
But if you're a user with one of those fancy mpeg hardware encoedrs and you can get it to work under linux then you can stream mpeg video across icecast with very few changes to the server.
I think that if the right person or persons made an actual business case to Apple that may change, especially in light of the fact that they're going to have to port it to run over their BSD based MacOS X anyway.
Ahh that is true, and the OSX client is coming down the pipe pretty soo, so they say - maybe we will ending up seeing a quicktime player for Linux in the not too distant future after all.
Can't help ya with on the client side. Maybe Apple doesn't know you want it.
Yeah, that's a good point - maybe they don't. I went to their complaint feedback page and was informed that their feedback database was down for maintenence. Anyone have a good email address to let them know that this is something we'd like to have?
They started off with a dollar a port, which would have made adding Firewire connectivity one of the most expensive parts of any system.
Uh, lemme think now. Hard drive costs me $100. Video card costs me $75. CD drive costs me $50. Chip costs me between $75 and $400, depending on if it's a Celery or an Athlon. Obviously, what I pay at Fry's is much more than the OEM pays, but don't ask me to believe that something important to, say, Dell, or Micron, which would help them differentiate themselves from the other OEMs, is left off because it costs them a buck. They certainly will get more than a dollar from their customers in return for including it, hmm?
Switch the . and the @ to email me.
yes the codec problem needs to be solved, but what about simple outgoing bandwidth costs?
witness slashdot, it's not even streaming media, and it needs advertising to support its bandwidth costs (i think?). streaming media chews huge amounts of bandwidth.
and slashdot is in the US, where outgoing bandwidth is relatively cheap, especially now with DSL. here in australia, outgoing bandwidth can be 10 - 20 times as expensive.
what it all means, is that the internet is great for anyone to publish any of their ideas as stories, as long as they don't get too popular. if they get popular, currently they might find they need to get ads, which some ideas and stories may not be compatible with.
The QuickTime file/stream format is also open. This means that anyone can write a compressor, decompressor, and/or player without going through QuickTime or a patented codec. Sure, you actually gotta write the code, but it *is* documented.
Matt Slot / Bitwise Operator / Ambrosia Software, Inc.
MP3 = MPEG1 layer 3
I.e., the audio component of MPEG1.
Moderate the above post down, somebody.
-- Liquor up front, poker in the rear.
wouldn't be that difficult if you compressed it lossy... lossless now, that would be sweet ;)
I have a build of the 0.3 release (with some enhancements) available at:
http://www.pobox.com/~kostya/videod
It has binary and source RPMs, some tools, etc.
Currently looking to host the project somewhere (CVS, mailing lists, etc.).
RealPlayer can use RTSP, and so it should be possible to add support for RealVideo to this code. It is not neceessary to figure out the actual encoding -- just the high-level file format so that the server can find frames.
I agree that the codec and player problems are harder ones, but let's not forget the server. With some work, we could have a great streaming server for Linux based on these sources.
-- Kostya Vasilyev
OpenH.323, I believe, can act as a netmeeting server, and serve up H.323 voice, and soon video-conference(they may already have it) capabilities to Linux and Netmeeting hosts.
This is rather off topic, but in some ways not, as video-conferencing is a bit different, and has a few other problems than straight streaming video (you don't have to handle someone interrupting you in the middle of a sentence in a straight 1-way streaming world).
The discussion on free codecs has come up on the OpenH323 mailing list, and there are apparently a few out there that can be used, but as other posters have said, most of the REALLY good ones have some form of patent protection on them.
Although both of these projects (an OSS Streaming Video Server/Client, and OpenH323 VideoConferencing) would benefit from the development of a really good Video Codec, until we can find a hardware manufacturer to put it in a DSP, we won't have an optimum solution (anyone who has done serious Videoconferencing work will tell you that for best results do you CODEC in hardware.
McA
Well, I guess that we'll just have to implement a known codec in a country that doesn't have a patent office as stupid as the merkin one.
It's been done before. There's LAME and there's BladeEnc; both would be patent licensing violations in the US, but since they are mostly distributed in non-US and non-Germany countries, there's little that FhG can do except sending bark letters.
I would rather the researchers own the patents themselves, and merely license them under the OPL. If someone wants to use the patent other than as the Open Patent License allows, they can go to the patent holder, in this case the researcher or perhaps the university, to negotiate terms.
I don't think these problems are insurmountable. Most companies who acquire software patents do so primarily for defensive reasons. I expect that after we get to a well-debugged version 1.0 of the license, and a few companies start agreeing to it, that more will quickly agree. I would expect most of the people for whom software patents are a net loss overall would eventually agree to the license.
I don't object to the organization helping someone obtain a patent, I just think it can be done somewhat indirectly, and without the need for the organization to end up owning it, (as long as it's licensed under the OPL), and that doing it indirectly can be the more stable solution in the long term.
The strategy I have in mind is to put together either some sort of Idea Futures system as Robin Hanson has discussed, and/or a Castpoint system as Marc Stiegler discusses in Earthweb.
This way other people can end up sponsoring the sort of help you're talking about. As much as I'd like to cross-index all human knowledge myself, partially in order to patent inventions and license them under the OPL with an aim to freeing up knowledge, solving problems, and making money, but mostly because it would be fun, I still think that neither I nor a single organization would be as efficient at it as a system that encourages everybody to have a go. Also, the successful implementation of such a system would show that patents aren't necessary, and that their goals could be met using methods that don't restrict scientific and literary freedoms.
Also, I'm lazy. I would rather PPI act more as a clearinghouse for developing solutions available under the OPL and let others do the legal work that would become necessary than somehow try to incorporate all of those legal functions within PPI through hiring or outsourcing. (I'm not a lawyer, so I try to avoid that sort of thing as much as possible. Obviously I have to go to an IP attorney to ask patent licensing questions and will have to ask for legal help in getting the license checked over and debugged, but all that's quite different from contemplating forming an organization that provides these sorts of legal services itself.)At the moment, however, I think it's more important to develop the license and get legal help in debugging it, and sell people and companies on the idea and the license. That has the possibility of freeing up a lot of patent encumberences quickly, so it's the first thing I'd want to do.
For long term stability, I absolutely agree that we need implement something that helps researchers, for instance, patent their inventions to be licensed under the OPL in the cases where that's possible. (As opposed to cases in which, say, the university claims all rights.)
But I consider selling the license to be the immediate goal. Solving the rest of the world's problems can wait until next year. :-)
I'm not sure I understand the emphasis on streaming formats.
There are times when I want my text served up live, and in those cases I'll go on IRC at a pre-arranged time. But normally I want to read a piece of writing that has been finished and published, and that I can access whenever I want, so I browse the web. I think the same analogy holds for video content.
Streaming makes sense for live broadcasts, since the timeliness and the possibilities for immediate interactivity compensate for the drops and stutters - but it seems to me that most video is more suitable for publication in a "download, then playback" format. I don't mind waiting for a download to complete if it means I can watch the result at my leisure and not have the experience compromised by network traffic problems.
Streaming acts as one flimsy layer of protection against copying, but especially for non-establishment publishers, the main problem is getting the content to the viewer in the first place, not trying to enforce pay-per-view economic models whose plausibility in the digital age is somewhat dubious in any case.
So to me, "broadcast" and "streaming" don't seem as important as "publication" and "download". Many of the arguments from the article still apply, but it is a slightly different game with a wider range of possible formats... so, is there something especially important about streaming video that I am missing?
- Anthony.
Does QT Server stream not only Quicktime Encoded MPEG-1 streams, but also data that conforms to the standard *.MPG file format? It may! It may not! The general theme though is that while the QT player might be able to handle that variant of .MPG, no other player can, so you're stuck with Apple's ad, and inevitable lack of functionality.
This is not a problem. Go right here for documentation for the QuickTime file format.
--
This space unintentionally left unblank.
Firewire is not an Apple technology. Apple was one of, IIRC, 8 companies that was involved in the development of Firewire, and one of 8 that holds patents on the technologies involved. The $0.25 is paid into a pool. What portion of this Apple get is unknown.
USB 2 is an inferior technology. It isn't peer-to-peer, so it can't be used in consumer electronics, and it can't provide dedicated bandwidth, so it isn't good for digital video or other real-time applications. It also isn't technically a standard, like Firewire, AKA IEEE-1394 is. Perhaps most notably, it's total vaporware. USB 2 looks like standard Intel FUD designed to stop the adoption of Firewire, which is certainly in Intel's best interst; a peer-to-peer technology scares Intel, because it could cut the computer of of the picture, replacing it with smart appliances.
--
This space unintentionally left unblank.
can anyone give insight as to why they won't at least port and provide provide, say, a binary of their quick time player/plug in for Linux.
QuickTime isn't very portable; it was ported to Windows by implementing quite a bit of the Mac OS API there. It would cost Apple quite a bit to port to Linux, and wouldn't help their quest to take over streaming media much because Linux isn't all that popular on the desktop.
But the Quick Time file format is open, so you could write your own, if you could get the codecs from their respective owners.
--
This space unintentionally left unblank.
On a related note, is there a consensus on the license for Apple's Darwin Streaming Server? Is it open enough?
It's basically GPL with a few clauses thrown in by the Apple legal team to allow Apple to remove code from distribution if someone decides to sue them over it. IIRC, there's also a clause that requires you to send Apple a URL for any publicly distributed changes you make.
--
This space unintentionally left unblank.
Recently the NSF agreed to fund the MASH Consortium, which will maintain and develop the MASH toolkit. I think it's going to be modeled after the X Consortium.
For more info, see:
MASH Project home page The toolkit and several apps built with it are available now. (FYI, I am a grad student at Berkeley, but have never worked on the MASH project.)
motion jpeg (MJPEG) is also pretty open right now and can be streamed.
leadership@apple.com
--- Don't ever trust a woman until she's dead- B.B. King
People who've been Apple watchers/users for long enough know Apple falmebait when they see it. Proclamations of Firewire being dead when it's still being born fit the description. It is unfortunate that the official introduction wasn't filled with less drama, but c'est la vie...
Why are we so worried about streaming right now? I would be more interested is seeing some good high quality video playback on Linux before I would worry about streaming. Don't you think that if we actually get a mpg/avi/mov/anythingelseimissed player that streaming will logically follow? Before we worry about the milk, lets get a cow (yes i know that was the worst analogy i could have possibly come up with) Let's get our priorities straight here people.
~Jester
"I have great faith in fools: Self confidence my friends call it." ~Edgar Allan Poe
They just don't want you running anything commerial as far as I can tell. East side of madison, near the airport
"I have great faith in fools: Self confidence my friends call it." ~Edgar Allan Poe
As opposed to cases in which, say, the university claims all rights
Hmm.. How do most universities handle this now? I would assume that they had some restrictions, but it would seem that the OPL would be in-line with these restrictions---it would seem to be in the mission of the university. Are there problems here or are universities a good place to market the OPL?
Jeff
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
Oh? And how long do you think that this will last before they start charging you? Then you'll be locked into a proprietry product and it will end up costing you more money in the long run!
If Microsoft gurarantees that this will always remain like this, then this will be OK, but of course you have to ask what MS are getting for their troubles. I mean, how can they justify spending $50,000 for absolutely nothing in return? They have to get that $50,000 back somehow!
> Apple didn't kill Firewire... Intel did.
From what I understand, Firewire is far from dead. By whatever name it goes, it seems to be the standard way to get your digital video footage from tape to your harddrive digitally. All other methods of moving the video move it by going Digital=>analogue=>digital.
With firewire, high-quality movies can be made on the cheap.
Hail,
... because you have no any for your products.
Heh, this shows very well how linux (not said - UNIX!) community like to notice one point and immediately drop the rest.
Microsoft, Real and others pour a lot of money into marketing their products. That means that linux community didn't any research (true research!) on WHAT you want, what you expect and what ready to do to improve this situation. You rely on 'visionaries' but the rest of you just grey masses who want to rely noone else.
Do you like to using others ideas and bucks FOR FREE?
GNU leads to situation when noone can steal from you bucks
Free the linux community from GNU ideas!
"On a related note, is there a consensus on the license for Apple's Darwin Streaming Server? Is it open enough?"
Is this a joke? Open enough for who? The license is exactly as open or closed as Apple wants.
I think that we need the xvideo extension of XFree86 first, playing movies in XFree86 3.x is ...
really not that entertaining
Since I posted my last message I did a little reading on MPEG licensing, and found that it might not be as open as I had thought. There's a URL in one of the other comments here to an MPEG licensing FAQ, that basically says that different corporations who contribute technology to the MPEG consortium may still choose to patent pieces of it, or something like that. Not sure I understood it all, but it sounded like it could make for some sticky situations if one was trying to write open source sw around it.
Also, someone else said that Real supports RTSP, but not RTP. I checked their site, and this appears to be true (they mention RTSP repeatedly, but not RTP). More info on real stuff can be found at this URL.
--
"are not free (in both senses... still don't understand that analogy),"
:-)
"Free as in beer" -> You pay nothing for it.
"Free as in freedom" -> You are free to modify, maintain, extend, and fork the code. And I am free to see the changes
---
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
Please check your facts! I would have someone who works for a "research" company to know how to research. I specifically asked Sorenson about a Linux port, and they said they're all for it, but that _APPLE_ hadn't bothered to port the code.
Personally, I have a Broadband connection to the Internet (1.5 Mbps). Most RealVideo files are only set for 28.8 or 56.6 connections, so the video quality is not much improved. Only a few of the RealVideo SureStreams are of high quality, but they still are not crystal clear. Otherwise, we're stuck with the same low-quality audio/video streams as everyone else. We just get to access them faster.
Until more sites offer streaming media for multiple connection speeds (some have done so already), those like myself who have coaxial cable connections to the Internet will not benefit at all from high bandwidth.
awkwardone
www.tealeaves.org "All you need is love." -
--
The shareholder is always right.
Not only is this a market dominated (in reality, simply controlled) by 3 players, these companies are likely to use very dirty legal tactics to continue their hegemony over this market. Unfortunately, streaming is going to only be more important on the web of the future. It will be an enormous shame if there is no open source solution - or, worse, if even the development of an open source solution is stiffled.
:-(
Check out this link to read about Real's legal tactics to try to shut down a product that offers the ability to capture streaming files and convert them. If Real succeeds, then even an opne source project allowing file download or file conversion of streaming video would be illegal.
Sorry if I'm joining in with a few of the "Wha?" posts, but you can download the source for Apple's Quicktime 4 server (possibly also known as the Darwin streaming server) for Mac, Windows and Unix from Apple's website. They give away the server and client software free. I hardly see this as 'controlling' the market.
--- Apparently I have an old
Anyway, we have working not-release-ready code in CVS (the bitstreams are mostly uncompressed, that's the unfinished part), an XMMS plugin, sample encoders/decoders and are currently finishing up the bitstream format by integrating the just-finished VQ code.
Things are moving right along. Expect a public shakedown cruise of the first cut later this month (January 2000). By then, I hope to have some free time to 'freshen' the web pages a bit. Right now, hacking HTML is too seductive to risk ;-)
Monty
monty@xiph.org
http://www.xiph.org
My thoughts on this...
So if we move to some sort of open source software for video streaming does that mean we will end up with more and more bandwidth being taken up with home videos and the such, @ least @ the moment if you need to spend some money to get the required video streaming technology in place it prevents (or reduces) the amount of rubbish clogging the web....
...but then again with video streaming open maybe we will find new directors and movie makers etc that don't pander to the Hollywood rubbish we are subjected to today *dreams* And with current advances in bandwidth maybe that won't be a problem in the future, so I guess it is all about choice.
Oh and of course any type of limiting of choice is a bad thing. As the article says "sit quietly and we will control all you see and hear"
Dave
----
Sunday - The 7th working day of the week
A monkey in every office....
MP3 is short-hand for MPEG1 - Layer 3.
Phillip.
Property for sale in Nice, France
Real uses rtsp, but not rtp. They use a proprietary protocol to transfer stream data from the server to the client.
Which brings up my question:
When will we see IEEE 1394 support for the OpenSource OSes?
When will OpenSource OS users be able to take audio/video from a IEEE 1394 source and make AVI and MP3 files?
The BSD's are working on this support on a kernel level (which means the code can be hi-jacked into the Linux kernel if they want to), yet IEEE 1394 seems to suffer from RS-232ism...It's a great standard because of all the different ways you can implement the standard. Not easy to write code for.
If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
I'm sorry. I tend to view any sweeping erronious statement as flamebait, no matter what the target. My fault.
So, in order to take this further off topic:
FireWire is Apple's trade name for IEEE-1394. In spite of Apple's best efforts, they haven't been able to kill it. To quote from our friends at M$:
Looks like quite a few systems manufacturers have embraced the technology. From what I've seen being offered by other manufacturers IEEE-1394 is coming on strong as a superior replacement for SCSI for drives, scanners, CD burners, etc. Thank goodness.
Here' s a list of computer products according to the 1394 Trade Association
On the video side, Sony, Panasonic, JVC, Phase One, Kodak, and Canon are already shipping IEEE-1394 equipped cameras and tape decks.
Here is a list of consumer products
The primary force behind the overstressing of the USB is Intel, and I have the feeling that the vast majority of manufacturers are laughing at Intel for that. USB and IEEE-1394 are co-existing systems, each with its own best range of applications.
--
NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
When did they kill Firewire.
Oh wait, I remember. They wanted to be compensated for the R&D investment. Silly Apple.
Yes, I know. They tried to charge too much at first. They backed off, and now it's a big 25 cents!
Wow.
I can almost see how that might force a system manufacturer to use the $200 processor instead of the $400 one. Or maybe I can't.
Oh wait. Why am I responding to flamebait?
--
NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
Hello People - has anyone visited publicsource.apple.com?? Darwin Steaming Server = publice source available?? Did I miss something here???
Im sorry, you missed my inference. I have used applications (such as games) thru SVGA lib etc. running out of console mode, and I did state that I believed that the graphics were fine. This shows an ability to bypass X altogether and create a new GUI through that, or OpenGL. I know what an API is, ok? I'm sorry that you did not take the time to *infer* what I wrote and chose to read what you wanted to, hence, that is a fine line, between what I posted and what you read. All in all, Peace, still, even to you.
spam, spam, spam, spam, e-mail, news and spam.
Why dont we just
a) Design our own codec (totally open ofcourse)
b) Make some tools (encoders, decoders)
c) make some server apps (casting the stuff)
d) make a server app which will re-route any other stream you ask for thru itself, while converting to our new standard.. (only thing that needs to use proprietary codecs)
and viola! end of these damn codec probs
Im game....
Simon
The real linux_penguin has Slashdot ID 101961. Anyone else is an impostor. Including Bruce Perens.
Does anyone stream MPEG2? Sure. Ever watch DirecTV? Slightly different application (one way satellite broadcast), but otherwise similar. You did ask. :-)
See the stuff at http://www.xiph.org/. They're working on several things. Right now it seems they're looking at a general design for streaming arbitrary 'stuff', and are also working on a good audio compression format. The hope is to eventually include video and other audio codecs. Martin
In order to deliver streaming video to the masses, you need a lot more bandwidth, or a smarter way of getting it to people.
Caching Proxy servers have been around for years and do a great job of reducing the backbone bandwidth requirements, but they have been unable to cache or share streaming video due to the proprietary formats being used, many of which do not lend themselves to use by multiple clients.
Proxy servers used this way in a Hierarchy would dramatically reduce the bandwidth required to distribute video, especially broadcasts. It would be great if an open source solution took this into consideration.
codecs are not the problem. mpeg is open and works just as good as MS and Real's. It is streamable. Check out mpeg.org for more info. Somebody just needs to write the code. Too bad I don't know how.
There's nothing stopping you from using a different player (IIRC, both Cisco's IP/TV and the Java Media Framework come with QuickTime-compatible players).
;-) and the ability to drop packets in favor of resyncing the media stream? Well, now you need to talk about the underlying format, now dontcha ;-)
;-) Mea culpa, tryin' to recover here!
I wasn't aware that IP/TV could parse QT-headered information. Very cool.
This is one of the things I generally like I about Slashdot--chunks of knowledge that aren't composed of out-and-out flamage. You'd think I posted that people's mothers were spawns of satan or something.
One thing I've begun to take very strong issue with is the presumption that it's acceptable to have a fleet of codecs required to play any single media file, with all the codecs wrapped in a single consistent wrapper(Quicktime/AVI wrapping Cinepak, Sorenson, MPEG-1, MPEG-2, AC-3, MP3, Metavoice, etc.) SDMI is planning to use this method, with the idea that "if one company's system is broken, there will still be 19 left."
Talking about an open source streaming solution is empty without talking about the underlying protocol--hell, I've got an open source streamer right here(cat mystream.mpg | nc -l -p 5000). What? You want to use a custom UDP based architecture without any of that annoying Flow Control(poof goes the net
Experience has taught us that, even on the most compatible platform--I'll calm the flame war by not saying its name--so called "wrapping" architectures fail miserably with surprising regularity. Sure, Quicktime as a format is open, but Sorenson has gone on the record--no compatibility for Linux. Oops, now we ain't gonna be able to watch the Star Wars Preview...gotta go get a closed platform for that.
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
P.S. What the *hell* was I doing posting as sleep deprived as I was last night...I don't think I've ever woken up to as much of a Slashdot mess as I have tonight
MOV? All the pain of an AVI, with free delays while you deny Apple their cut. From the guys who killed Firewire...
:-)
Ugh. [Dan slaps himself around a bit.]
Firewire's launch has been botched--there's no other way to describe the bottom line that having one company call something Firewire while another calls it I-Link while others refer to an IEEE standard is just bad marketing sense that I'm sure some licensing scheme brought about.
Too bad, too, because besides simply having the most awesome interface name of the last twenty years, Firewire pretty much is one of the more perfect external interfaces imaginable--though I don't think they've done the security wrangling that the SIO guys are doing. For those who don't understand security considerations of one bus uniting all devices,
imagine the concept of a rootmouse that once plugged in issues calls directly to the hard drive retrieving critical files, all independant of the underlying operating system. That's the kind of worry you just don't have when your mouse is hanging off a 9600 bps UART.
But overall, saying something like this was pretty much flamebait. Off hand, unsubstantiated, assuming that the rest of the audience took as obvious fact what is really a rather contentious issue--these are all things that pretty much guarantee you're gonna fuck something up, and as *ahem* numerous AC's felt free to "adjust my perspective", I fucked something up.
There's very likely a good deal of hype streaming out of Intel against Firewire, and I fell right for it. Damnit.
I was pretty exhausted when I wrote this post, but that's not really an excuse. I don't usually ask for moderation, but if someone wouldn't mind tossing a few points on this apology post, it might quell the flamage
Sorry, all.
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
P.S. Couple of you AC's expressed a problem with my writing in general? Email me, if you're not afraid of revealing yourself.
Around the time of the Star Wars Sorenson Compressed Trailer, one of the major Linux video player authors requested access to the Sorenson codec to play that trailer. Reports were that Apple refused to give the coder access to the codec.
Go look back through Slashdot archives--I read it here.
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
QT streaming server can serve any codec -- it doesn't really care what it is. Likewise, the quicktime player will play multiple codecs, including MP3 and mpeg2.
We have not even begun to get confused. You've actually got more than just "the server" and "the codec" involved--you've also got the "wrapping architecture around the codec" to deal with. Does QT Server stream not only Quicktime Encoded MPEG-1 streams, but also data that conforms to the standard *.MPG file format? It may! It may not! The general theme though is that while the QT player might be able to handle that variant of
I'm not crazy--there's a definite chance that this software plays nicely with whatever you throw at it. But it's honestly not a hard problem to stream MPEG, and it's generally just not a good idea to stream video when nobody has enough bandwidth to get an acceptable level of service.
--Dan
...It will be necessary to interface BGL low-level primitives to existing video and 2D APIs, high-level widget libraries and GUI builders. A feature reference that provides an example of the kinds of requirements for vector graphics is SVG (Scalable Vector Graphics), currently under specification at the W3C (see http://www.w3.org/TR/WD-SVGReq )...
http://www.opengl.org/News/Special/BGL.html
I was just reading about some opengl and coding and spotted this article. Looks like this idea is being looked at.
links:
http://www.opengl.org/News/Special/Features.html
peterrenshaw ~ Another Scrappy Startup
...doesn't make the GIMP less functional. Just because they use Photoshop doesn't magically make it better than the GIMP. Design agencies use what they've been using in the past- vis-a-vis, Photoshop. They use it because they "know" it- they recognize the name. It's the same thing that went before with IBM and is going on now with MS. Do a feature to feature comparison with Photoshop- I think one will find that there's something to the original poster's comments. The GIMP is better than Photoshop in at least some ways and comparable in most of the others. Just because someone doesn't use it, doesn't make the thing they use better. I know of a lot of people that use PowerPoint to do graphic arts work because they don't know that Photoshop or Corel exist. Does that make PowerPoint better than anything from Adobe or Corel? No. So why would that apply in this case?
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Err, umm, their "BSD-based" MacOS X
I.e., the mere fact that it has a bunch of Mach and BSD code at one layer is insufficient to make MacOS X so much like the free UNIXes of today to cause the availability of code for MacOS X to make a port to various free UNIXes a no-brainer.
They can, but you'd have to provide reason for them to believe it's worth the effort. Linux as yet still has a pretty small marketshare on the desktop, and Apple would want to recoup the costs by people registering QuickTime Pro - usually content creators, not an audience prone to using Linux.
It's be nice, but don't hold your breath until Linux marketshare rises up a few points. It's hard enough to even get them to make a decent player for Windows.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
- Jeff
I suppose we'll never get the code on Sorensen from Apple, but can anyone give insight as to why they won't at least port and provide provide, say, a binary of their quick time player/plug in for Linux. That's something I'm getting sick of - having to find a mac or windows box to check out a .mov file... at least I use linuxppc at home so I can just dual boot without having to move my butt.
As Linus Torvalds commented not too long ago, the starting point of the western calendar has a margin of error much greater than the one year we are all quibbling over (estimates of Christ's birth range from 7 BC to 6 AD depending on who you listen to), so calling 2000 the millenium, or 2001 the millenium, or 1994 the millenium are all equally correct, and equally incorrect.
... the monks in the dark ages setting up the Julian (and later the Gregorian) calendar didn't really get whole numbers, else they never would have stuck year 1 right after year -1, with no zero in between. We should dump the whole mess anyway and go to 13 months with 28 days each, and use the extra day as a holiday.
...
However, you are right. 2001 will be the 2000th year since year 1, and there (stupidly) was never a year 0
In any event I will celibrate the start of the 3rd Millenium AD a second time in 2001 and get two great parties out of it
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Have a look at the Free Expression Project (http://www.free-expression.org/); these people are developing a copylefted suite of streaming media tools (server & client, encoders and codec(s)). They've been working on it for a while, and will be pretty grateful if other coders want to join their efforts.
I read the article and I don't understand how the lack of free software is going to prevent anyone from creating and distributing video content. Sony will happily sell me a video camera, VTR and other expensive gadgets without any restrictions on content. The software vendors will also sell me encoding software and video server software without any restrictions on content. So what's the problem? The television networks had power because they controlled the distribution system, not because they controlled the technology.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
The creation of new algorithms is difficult. It's one of the things that cannot be done easily by the open source community, which has brought us a lot of very high-quality products in other areas, because you need a very specialized knowledge (signal processing, lossless compression etc.) that only few people have. There was a very well-written comment by Eric Scheirer on this on Slashdot months (a year?) ago, but I couldn't find it.
This webnoise article, linked on slashdot in may is probably what's being referred to here. The comment in question is toward the end of the article.
Now, generally people say this sort of thing for two reasons. Most commonly, they actually believe that no one else on the planet is as smart/knowlegeable/experienced as they are, and couldn't possibly produce rocket science of the requisite level. This is despressingly common, and one of the psychological hurdles (like fear of being judged on work-in-progress as if it's the best one could do in a polished effort) that holds people back from adopting open development practices. This is another strain of what RMS called the Cathedral style of development. It's what was said about writing compilers, operating system kernels and desktop applications, and I don't buy it here either.
The other reason is when the authors are trying to create a aura of "professionalization" around their work, usually so they can remain well placed in their employer's finances. The arguments are similar: "We're trained professionals. Do not try this at home," but the motivation usually has more to do with greed (or at least comfort) than fear.
Neither of these arguments are in line with the values of Open Source, and they amount to arrogant selfishness from that point of view. I'm not arguing that codec design doesn't require specialized knowledge, clever research, etc. Just that it's a fallacy that no one but Eric Schrier &c. can do it.
He did make some other points that a little harder to refute. For example, that the unfair 'fair licensing' patent situation is an historic artefact of the designing bodies being large corporations I can't dispute. He also makes the argument that allowing patented technology into the mpeg standard helps ensure that major corporate players use the standard, that the standard includes the best technology, and that the best technology be patented, rather than buried in an undisclosed proprietary standard. This appears to be well-reasoned, and is certainly consistent with his other claims.
I differ about this being the best course, mostly based on what we've learned about network effects and life in an exponentially-growing market. And vis á vis the dvd stuff, it appears that patents are more restrictive than trade secrets in an open source context.
How did Apple kill FireWire? They invented it. It's in most of the shipping Macs, aside from the low-end iMac and the iBook. Did they kill it by asking for ONE DOLLAR PER PORT? Give me a break...
The dollar a port wasn't the issue. It was Intel suffering from same Not-Invented-Here syndrome as Apple used to have.
IEEE 1394 is open. Anyone can use it. Apple just wanted money for the use of the FireWire name... Isn't that aweful? A company spends hundreds of millions of dollars to create a wonderful new bus archecture and gets slammed for asking an extremely modest fee for it's use.
Apple didn't kill Firewire... Intel did.
So let me get this straight... A dollar a port adds up the the most expensive part of the system???
Intel Celerons run $100 or so
Pentium III's run $400 or so
The BX chipset is about $18-23
Integrated SCSI adds about $120 to the price it seems....
If intel would license firewire, chipsets would run you what? $25
I think you've just fallen for the FUD that was perpetrated in order to get consumers uninterested in the technology, so Microsoft and Intel could retain full control of their platform.
That's got to be the worst yet... They didn't kill it by asking for money for the actual ports, but by asking for money for the NAME? No...
One point that's been brought up is that Firewire is far from dead... but it would have been so much less so if there hadn't been so much Wintel FUD concerning it, when the truth of the matter is that Microsoft and Intel want to hear nothing about Apple possibly owning a piece of their platform. It's bad enough that Quicktime runs under Windows...
Firewire could potentially kill off IDE, SCSI, USB, Serial and Parallel ports, Video capture hardware, and probably others as well... For instance if USB speakers could be workable, FireWire sound could have been as well. Imagine the simplicity the Wintel world could have had if not for Intels stubbornness...
I'd suppose that even includes the what, Lintel? world as well... You'd basically have had Mac hardware, except with an x86 chip instead... All plug and play, supposing ISA can be killed off...
I'll continue to say - blame Intel... And yes, we Mac users already have the benefits, because it's not dead... it just should have been bigger than it has been/
By "wrapping architecture around the codec", do you mean "file/stream format". The QT file format is open as well. In addition, you could even port another codec to QT so you don't have to use Sorenson or one of the other kick-ass compressors out there.
So, let's see... you could write an open QT compressor to compress a stream, use the open Apple streaming server, decompress with a client side codec, and then play using the standard Apple players (or write your own). QT is open and extensible at each stage in the pipe.
As for "not enough bandwidth", I think you are seriously mistaken. My cable modem rocks, and the Sorensen/TPM trailer was very good quality. Streaming is an evolving technology.
You are absolutely right on one point, though, you are getting very confused.
Matt Slot / Bitwise Operator / Ambrosia Software, Inc.
Apple killed firwire by putting restrictions on the ability to use the trademarked name "firwire".
try selling a technology to consumers under 3 different names. Gee, is it FireWire, 1394, i.Link? or any of a couple OTHER names that companies have come up with.
It's like Beta/VHS all over -- FireWire is faster (and I know, i do DV editing with it every day) but USB is open for anyone who wants it without worrying about liscensing issue. And it's "good enough" for the average consumer, so it wins...
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
I seem to recall 'www.free-expression.org' being involved with this.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
The best solution is probable: control the viewer and server. If a codec maker dose not want to go OSS then we should make it hard for them to get users.. up to the point that they are really a hell of a lot better then anyhting we are using.. at which point we should compramize a little.
I'm not sure why you think this is the best solution? The problem(I think) is "How do we create a situation in which *anyone* can distribute their own media?", something along the way in which HTML has opened content distribution to the masses. Server might be useful in doing so, in order to prevent large corporations from dictating who can and can't distribute media. Viewers, I suspect is *almost* a pointless battle, excepting that most corporations don't support Linux. In that respect, the battle is just to gain recognition and equality.
The more powerful question is how to give people the capability to create content in the first place, and this is unavoidable; they have to own fairly high powered machines, they need some extensive video equipment, and they need the appropriate software.
Whether you like it or not, the two best solutions I can think of are Apple's iMac DV and Sony's Vaio computer systems, with Firewire, software, and computing horsepower all bundled together in one fell swoop. All that's needed after that would be some tapes and a digital camcorder, which is still unfortunately in the $0.8k range.
The battle over the clients just dictates who can see the media, not who can distribute it. The battle over the servers may be a moot point, what with Apple open sourcing their Quicktime server(but not their codecs) All that remains is for Apple to port a binary only Quicktime player for Linux, BeOS, etc.
It is also worth mentioning that codec makers make money by licensing the authoring software (i think) or with crap attached to the codec, so there should probable be a push to implement OSS versions of the authoring software and codecs in countries where the patent dose not apply.. then make the OSS version the default, i.e. default RedHat xanim has no support for the codec so the user is forced to choose between downloading a single OSS xanim which is illegal or downloading a million codecs. This will cut into there proffit margin.
Now you're getting somewhere; but somehow I suspect anything the OS community can come up with, the commercial houses will just come up with something better-one could always use the GIMP/Photoshop conflict as an analogy, and I really don't think Photoshop will be dying anytime soon. It supports too many professionals who just want to get their job done, and are willing to pay for it, rather than deal with the GIMP, much as a lot of people would rather deal with Mac or Windows over Linux, because both are rather incomplete in the useability department, though marvelous strides have been made.
So I don't know too much about the Apple Quicktime Server they've open sourced; if it's anything like I imagine it, codecs aren't the issue, clients are the issue. If someone has content, then anyone can stream it because of this open source server, thus solving one problem with the media distribution system. I don't think one can get around the high cost of media content, if only because one still needs equipment and software. And clients, well, that something someone has to fight over the decoding codecs.
-AS
-AS
*Pikachu*
The article seems to talk about how media content and distribution will be controlled by three corporations, Apple, Real, and Microsoft, as an analogy to CBS, NBC, and ABC. However, as far as I can tell, this analogy is crap. The three broadcasting networks control content, because up until now it was fairly expensive to create a video. They aren't winners because they control the video format(Beta, VHS, or DV), because they control the airwaves(they have to license out frequencies, not that they can own them!), or because they control the TVs(hardly! Sony, Panasonic, etc.), but because they have the funds to create content with actors, sets, special effects, scripts, and storylines, and they can attract advertisers.
So in comparison, the format(codecs), the distribution(wires, cables, and lines), or the clients(Quicktime, Real, or Windows Media) is also similarly pointless. It's the production software, which from Adobe costs $600 for special effects and $900 for video editing), $1.4k for an iMacDV with firewire and additional software/hardware, $0.8k for a cheapo Sony Firewire enabled digital8 camcorder, and maybe even a USB/Firewire CD-R for backup/archival/storage purposes at $0.3k
Getting actors, scripts, sets, etc, is a little harder, but Blair Witch proved it can be done. Most actors are starving/unemployed/checkout baggers, I guess, so it should not be too hard a problem =)
So once everyone(if Apple can get an iMacDV into every household) has the capability to create video content, what's stopping people? Serving it? Viewing it? Isn't that what Apple's Open Source Darwin server is about?
One thing I concede; Apple isn't yet supporting Quicktime for Linux. That sucks, but it's hardly the reason why media distribution will be controled by the big three; it's just short-sightedness on Apple's part.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think this is a problem over codecs, streaming software, or even distribution; all that exists, it just remains up to the consumer to create content!
-AS
-AS
*Pikachu*
This needs to be seen by everyone talking about writing codecs, formats, servers, clients, etc.
There is, IIANM, the open source like Darwin server, and this tidbit tells us we can write our own codecs for Quicktime; the problem being that Apple hasn't released the general Quicktime player for Linux, etc. But if we can write our own codec and player, then the problem disappears!
-AS
-AS
*Pikachu*
Wasn't it developed for audio compression?
I'm not sure whether you have refuted Eric's theory of the hardness of creating new compression algorithms in the open source community. I'm not one of the PhD-level experts mentioned, so I think I'm relatively objective.
It is, of course, not totally unlikely that somebody comes up with a new idea for a compression algorithm, the idea works, the algorithm can run on modern hardware, somebody creates a C library and públishes it under the GPL or a similar license, the inventor gives the algoritm to the public domain, avoiding patent issues. But how probable is this?
If you create compilers or operating systems, you have a very complex project, but you have many smaller tasks that can be implemented by different people (simplifying a bit). Coming up with a new compression algorithm is a different thing.
MPEG-4 might be better for low bitrates. But the problems come with the patents. See this more audio-oriented FAQ on MPEG-related patent issues. Especially interesting:
18. If the open source community develops a new compression standard, can we use it without paying FhG?
Yes, you could of course improve (or just take) existing ISO reference source code for video encoding and decoding. But I guess ESR, RMS etc. won't be happy with that - they want something that is legal everywhere, and that might be a good idea in the long run.
The Geeks You Need Do Not Have The Hardware
This is the constant by which I believe all Open Source software is developed. If the Geeks You Need have access to the hardware, The Software You Want will result, purely because we can't help it. We just do it, its cool, we scratch.
I don't have a video capture card. Even if I did, I wouldn't have any content worth streaming. Maybe if a bunch of movie creating people came and begged me to do it and gave me a capture card I'd be inclined, but otherwise, wheres the point?
I think you overestimate the algorithm problems. Video capture is one of those things that would inately suit the kind of thought processes Geeks have, polygons, optimisation over time, limits and granularity. These are not hard concepts, and believe it or not, such things could be broken down into small pieces for easy addition by a group of like minded people.
Its a simple problem: With no content to drive it, there is no itch to scratch. mp3 players only became a big thing when cds were worth ripping. Until then, there was no content. Ripping a video simply isn't practical, and even if you did, there is no need to stream the results, when you can get better compression just using mpeg.
mbone have done a good job of handling the video-conference end of things, leaving only realtime tv style stuff, exactly the kind of thing I got on the net to get away from. Ads piss me off, lack of pause pisses me off, the quality pisses me off. If I wanna see a movie, I'll hire it, nobody but corporates can afford content worth playing realtime, or the hardware to support it.
Think Dawsons Creek, sure, if it were available and in decent quality, I'd watch it streamed, but what Open Source developer can afford to get hold of content which gains that kind of devotion? for just about everything else, download then play is fine..
The rumour that this is some kind of big thing for the future is a misnomer, Net people won't stand for ads that get in the way of their content. Can you imagine geocities forcing you to sit for 2 seconds between each page click looking at an image? I think someone tried that once, it sank like a stone. Its too easy to go elsewhere.
You can't win a fight.
I would rather the researchers own the patents themselves, and merely license them under the OPL. If someone wants to use the patent other than as the Open Patent License allows, they can go to the patent holder, in this case the researcher or perhaps the university, to negotiate terms.
This would be much better if it is finatially realistic. I was under the impression (from things RMS has said) that patents were really too expencive for the researchers to obtain and defend.. which is why I suggested using a holding orginisation.
The other problem I see is the researchers time. I am a graduate student in mathematics and I could very well see getting myself into the situation where I discovered things which were relevent, but I did not have the time to do the patent grunt work.. which to me includes actually figuring out what it might really be applicable to in addition to all the patent paper work.
It might make sence to have a non-profit orginisation which did some of the research into the applicability of the research and actually applied for the patents in exchange for partial onership. I'm realy thinking of something where I can give them some realy raw shit and they will sorta check off a list of things that it could apply to and go patent them, i.e. use exactly the tactics which the big nasty co.s use, but since anyone can use it via the OPL we are the good guys.
Hell, you could even implement it as start up headed for an IPO.. with partial onership in a crapload of patents and after winning some big lawsuits you could make yourself a lot of money.. and make the world safe for OSS in the process. There isn't really any reason to restrict it to patents relevent to software either.. do drugs patents and all sorts of other things.. just refuse to let drug co.s who wont OPL there patent use any of them without paying.
I realize there is a little conflict of intrest here since this org. would need to descided between pushing a co. to OPL or just letting them pay up and use it, but the orginator of the idea would still own most of it and would have a lot of say in the process. Plus, the more money we extort the more likely we are to see real patent reform.
Just a though..
Jeff
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
> Another hack was done at one point so that it would stream meta-refreshing jpegs.
Given that we just had an update on the status of the revision to the jpeg standard here on slashdot last week, and that it offered incredible quality wavelet based compression, couldn't icecast be modified to stream the new jpeg format when it is released? Wouldn't this be open source?
Work for Change & GET PAID!
I think that even if you are not making any money from the implementation of a patented algorithm, you can be sued for damages related to the destruction of the POTENTIAL revenue stream that the company (or individual) might have made had they been able to use their patent.
Hmmm...
They must put sufficient description of the algorithm into the patent for anyone skilled in the field to be able to replicate the invention. The patent is published by the Patent Office. A piece of software that actually runs on a machine is just another description of the patented algorithm. It's only the use that infringes, not publishing a translation of the description (which happens to be clear enough that a computer can "understand" it, too).
Seems to me that if they can sue the open-source coder, they should also be able to sue the patent office - or anyone who publishes a textbook that describes the patented technique. B-)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
The list above only mentions the Compaq Presario 5600 series. I just bought a 5800 series machine (5888 - their current 700 Mhz Athlon box) and it also has firewire.
So it looks like Compaq is sticking with it for a longer haul.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Unfortunately, most (all) of the good video compression algorithms are patented and cannot be used.
I was under the impression that patents block the use of the patented item COMMERCIALLY - but that you can make one for your own personal, experimental use, provided you don't sell it or the product of its operation.
Assuming the above is true - it would imply that one could make open-souce codecs and use them to compress and view movies, and that these codecs could be distributed, provided it was for free.
There would be a violation if you showed, gave, or sold decoded movies to others (which is typically already a copyright violation), distributed video you'd encoded using the patented codec, or charged (even a media fee) for a distribution containing the codec source. So no servers and no including the codec in a commercial Linux distribution - the customer would have to download it from an open web/ftp site.
Do we have a patent lawyer in the house, to check whether my understanding is correct?
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Having an open source codec is only half the battle. If the program that you are interested in is only available in a proprietary format on an OS you prefer not to use, you are sol, no matter how good a competing codec may be. I already stopped listening to one radio program that I could only get online, because it switched from Realaudio to a Microsoft only format. The open source codec has to be sufficiently superior to entice content providers to use it in place of or in addition to the proprietary ones. Otherwise, it is the operating system wars all over again. Having a superior OS on your computer does you no good if the program you want/need to run is only available for the inferior but dominant one. The same thing for streaming video content.
While many of the codecs supported by xanim are not free (in both senses... still don't understand that analogy), I'm sure there are some in there. It's a good list of codecs to start from if you want to check all of them. I was unable to find a page with a list of free/non-free video codecs in the 10 minutes I spent on it.
Does anyone know what codecs could possibly be used for this?
---
END OF LINE
What I don't understand is why they can't just call it "IEEE 1394" and be done with it.
:-)
"My computer has 2 1394 ports!"
---
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
This has all happened long ago! When motion pictures were invented at the turn of the century, patents were used by Edison and several large Eastern industrialists to try to dominate the creation and distribution of moving pictures.
It's rather odd, but the same Hollywood that now screams to expand it's protection via questionable IP laws, once was a group of lawless pirates ready to flee to Mexico if the Edison patent police showd up. This story in the millenial edition of The Economist talks breifly about Hollywood's checkered birth.
When an open source video streaming player gets under development, hopefully the project won't have to be run out of Uzbekistan to escape the Real/Microsoft/Apple patent police. If it is, though, thank Hollywood for the inspiration!
An excellent primer on video codec technology may be found here.
What's most needed at this time (in my opinion) is an open source ILS server that is compatible with (sorry) Netmeeting.
To start pulling more people over to linux, we need to start converting server platforms, allowing clients to use either M$ or linux software.
If there's no good free ILS/netmeeting server software available, the server side stays tied to M$/non-free alternatives, wich is not what's wanted.
There's a link on the vic page to IVS, another very similar also-opensource tool.
I haven't used either of these tools myself because I can't afford the hardware, but I have a feeling that the Linux/Wintel crowd is ignoring a lot of research that has already taken place. Research people are often uninterested or incompetent in packaging and marketing their tools, but they may well have already done the hard part for you. And it looks to me like Apple and Microsoft stole most of their ideas from these guys.
ASF's are semi-open, at least MS publishes specs
The CODEC's are protected like crazy tho.
-Yarn - Rio Karma: Excellent
icecast (see http://www.icecast.org) is a program for the streaming of mp3 audio. But changes have been made to the program at various points in its development to allow it to also stream MPEG video across the 'net. Another hack was done at one point so that it would stream meta-refreshing jpegs.
:)
Now for the obvious question -- if it can be modified to support this, why doesn't it support it out of the box? Relatively simple to answer. At present, streaming MPEG video takes up a shitload of bandwidth. I seem to remember that the internal network of the developers was strained when they streamed the video. So, some sort of better compression of video is needed. Secondly, multicast would be really useful. It's a feature on the near-future TODO list, but will involve lots of rewriting as well as updating clients to support (for just the audio; clients don't even exist really for streaming mpeg video
--
Jeremy Katz
There's a good article on http://www.dv.com/magazine/2000/0100/johnson0100.h tml on why you might not want to jump on the streaming bandwagon. Streaming was originally developed so you wouldn't have to wait for the entire movie to download. What happened was that people didn't like constant interruptions from network conjestion so the purpose of streaming video became copyright protection. When you see those stream-only websites, the reason they do that is to prevent you from copying it and uploading it to your website. On the other hand, Linux has pretty good low-bitrate downloadable solutions. MPEG-2 with sound can go as low as 200kbit/sec. VALinux, which does all its multimedia on Win NT incidentally, hosts 300kbit streams.
But even if it were, standards bodies should insist that methods that are adopted into standards are available royalty free to anybody, or at the very least royalty free for open source implementations.
In fact, they often do, and many standards have and will have free implementations as a consequence (JBIG and JPEG2000 being two of them). I suspect that with MPEG-2 and MPEG-4, it's the influence of the greed and money of the media industry and Hollywood that causes them to be governed by "patent pools". At the very least, corporate lawyers look at the money those companies are making and wondering: how can we get a slice of that.
I have no problem with taking a cut from big media companies. The problem I have is that we still need a free format for free content, for socially important content, etc., something that allows people who don't have a lot of money to get their content across the Internet, using a free infrastructure.
While proprietary streaming video technology is a lot cheaper than a television station, it can nevertheless exclude a lot of voices from participating in the media. How?
First, proprietary technology, adopted as a standard and protected by patents, still ends up being a lot more expensive than equivalent free technology, and the price alone keeps people from using it.
Think not only of the cost of the encoder or a small streaming server, but of the cost of putting up a large streaming server that can reach a lot of people. Companies developing the streaming technology are going to charge for the use of their proprietary server technology based on commercial uses; maybe that ends up being only a fractional cent per connection, but that quickly adds up and becomes out of reach for non-commercial content providers.
A second problem is that the technology will likely be licensed selectively when it comes to large service providers. The heavy duty streaming video servers may end up only being available from a few large hosting companies, and those may have restrictions on content similar to those of large television companies. That hasn't happened yet, but it is another way in which proprietary distribution technology can limit available content. And the analogy to the broadcast networks and their bland, low-quality content is quite close--in the case of the broadcast networks, it wasn't patents but broadcast licenses that were exclusionary and led to the dumbing down of America.
And lastly, proprietary technology is self-perpetuating. If you leave the development of standards and technology to a few companies, they are going to develop and patent all the "innovations" and perpetuate their hold on the market. Many of those "innovations" may only be simple tweaks, ideas that would easily and naturally occur to any open source developer, but they will nevertheless be protected for decades to come. By playing the patent game right, companies can keep content in proprietary formats in perpetuity.
instead of an entirely new codec why not just use a version of MPEG-2 compression? MPEG-2 does not mean CSS, just in case anyone is flame happy for whatever reason. MPEG-2 is designed to be streamed, it's what DTV among other things are going to use. The bonuses of MPEG-2 is that a good number of newer video cards have hardware decompression and a good deal of those cards have X servers already written for them so a good deal of their specs are already known. MPEG-1 and 2 are also open formats and any Joe Programmer can makes an app using the codec. The hardware acceleration is a big bonus but even without it a smaller video frame wouldn't be too difficult for your CPU to decode. One of the best advantages of MPEG-2 is the good compression ratio, even lowbanders on 28.8s and 14.8s could get a decent quality picture and sound.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
QT streaming server can serve any codec -- it doesn't really care what it is. Likewise, the quicktime player will play multiple codecs, including MP3 and mpeg2.
Also, does anyone actually stream mpeg2? This is a serious question. I haven't seen it, but of course I don't have much time to look for content at the only place I have access to enough bandwidth to make streaming video worthwhile.
-- It only takes 20 minutes for a liberal to become a conservative thanks to our new outpatient surgical procedure!
Unfortunately, most (all) of the good video compression algorithms are patented and cannot be used. Even if some may not like it, Microsoft's ASF (players and encoders, surprise, are both free; looks like someone has a lot of resources) is very good, it uses MPEG-4, suitable for low bitrate video. From my personal experience, the competitors don't come close.
The creation of new algorithms is difficult. It's one of the things that cannot be done easily by the open source community, which has brought us a lot of very high-quality products in other areas, because you need a very specialized knowledge (signal processing, lossless compression etc.) that only few people have. There was a very well-written comment by Eric Scheirer on this on Slashdot months (a year?) ago, but I couldn't find it.
Even if there would be a product, standardization is another large obstacle. Take image file formats: There are products superior to JPEG (like DJVU or LWF), but no website creator uses them, many people wouldn't know how to install the plug-ins (which are available for free). I guess even JPEG2000 will have a hard time once it's out. The success will depend on decoders being built into standard browsers by default. And they should work flawlessly (remember PNG)!
The article is correct in it's concern that only an OSS broadcasting solution can creat the future we all want.. where anyone can broadcast there video over the internet.. and patents are our obstical. The solution appears to be ``compramize our principals in the short term, but not in the long term.'' I will explain..
A legislation solution (I think this is RMS's proposed solution) seems unlikely.. especially for Algorithms that really do require an understanding of a good bit of math to create.
Many mathematicians are getting kinda sick of inventing some cool new thing to help sociaty only to see some company steal it's applications by putting one word like computer, audio, or video in front of it.. and many researchers could probable be talked into giving the open source community a list of possible applications when they invent something new.. so we could patent it first and use a viral patent license. Unfortunatly, this is considered too expencive by people in the know (like RMS). I personally feal this is workable if the patenting orginisation were less principaled then the FSF could pull something off by doing the following:
1) Use an extreamly viral license the prohibits mixed use of the patent with any patents not distributed under the same license, i.e. no company can use our patents unless the cross licence with the rest of the world via our license.
2) Allow companies to get arround 1 by paying thorugh the nose and use the money to reward the researchers and pay for lawyers, i.e. compramize our principals occasionally.
Unfortunatly, the above dose require a lot of orginisation, a lot of conenctions, and a lot of work.
The best solution is probable: control the viewer and server. If a codec maker dose not want to go OSS then we should make it hard for them to get users.. up to the point that they are really a hell of a lot better then anyhting we are using.. at which point we should compramize a little.
It is also worth mentioning that codec makers make money by licensing the authoring software (i think) or with crap attached to the codec, so there should probable be a push to implement OSS versions of the authoring software and codecs in countries where the patent dose not apply.. then make the OSS version the default, i.e. default RedHat xanim has no support for the codec so the user is forced to choose between downloading a single OSS xanim which is illegal or downloading a million codecs. This will cut into there proffit margin.
Jeff
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
The real problem are the video codecs. Most of them are not even owned by the respective companies (e.g. most of the high-compression, high-quality codecs that Apple/MS use are licensed from other companies - Sorenson, Cinepak, Indeo). Note that for some of these it is possible to create freely-distributable binaries (a la Xanim) but it is highly unlikely that these companies will release the algorithms or source code any time in the near future.
What would probably be the best bet is to scour the academic literature on video compression and/or bug people in the field for info and create an alternative codec that is freely distributable. You could then produce a plugin for QuickTime, VFW, etc. to encourage the general adoption of the codec. If a content-based company can run a server and deliver content without technology licensing fees, I'm sure they'd be interested.
There are three things a video codec requires:
- spatial transform, eg idct, which I think is patented. There are many wavelet types, some of which may not be spatial transformed are used to find the most significant information; the rest is chopped.
- Coding scheme: huffman is unpatented, syntax-arith encoding is (but when does it expire?) Both require that lots of analysis be done on symbol frequency. This is tedious, not difficult.
- motion compensatio: in oreder to make use of duplication between frames - again, not hard.
. The open source community should not write off the idea of doing its own video codec. The most difficult part is the transform; if a decent unpatented one can be found, the rest is within the capabilities of many coders. Video codecs are EASIER to write than audio codecs, as the proportion of information that the eye actually percieves is lower. In order to do decent compression in audio, very complex models of the ear are required; this is not true of video. Oh, and the eyes colour resolution is lower than its luminance resolutionLots of companies with large amounts of money invested in overly complicated streaming systems will complain, but there's a real bottom line:
The standard video format is MPG, because MPG Just Works. Everywhere.
AVI has failed. The general perception of an AVI file is one that might play, might not, might suddenly install a new codec, might not, who knows. No predictability.
MOV? All the pain of an AVI, with free delays while you deny Apple their cut. From the guys who killed Firewire...
RM. Realmedia ain't bad, but it just doesn't scale up too well. There's this common delusion that only people with broadband links should be able to view high quality video--in this paradigm, RealMedia can do OK, since relatively few people have consistently extreme high bandwidth links to the Net. But, ya know what? This paradigm leaves millions of people unable to view high quality video, except on television.
Presume people can download clips and watch them later, and suddenly the stream-biased, bandwidth-capped format that is RealMedia suddenly looks stale and chunky.
The bottom line, beyond quality issues, is that MPG has won for the same reason MP3 did: It Works. All the various copyright protection systems are obsessed with creating situations where the consumer tries to do something and It Doesn't Work. As I'm sure the consumer trials are showing, when Things Don't Work, consumers simply refuse to buy in. And that's the key--the investors may fund, the studios may create, but it's the consumer that pays for it all.
MPG may not be a low bandwidth streaming format, by any means, but the general obsession of streaming--and streaming only--is short sighted at best, and suicidal at worst. It will be interesting to see how this pans out over the next few months.
See y'all at the DVD trial...
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
Quicktime streaming source
Can't help ya with on the client side. Maybe Apple doesn't know you want it.
--
NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local