Slashdot Mirror


New MPEG 4-Based Open Source Codec

Jestyr writes: "Let me inform you about our new MPEG-4-based codec called 3IVX. You probably heard of DivX ;-) as a movie compression format. And indeed it's great. But we (the whole 3ivx.com team... want to go a bit further. Our goal is to optimize compression so that the file size is smaller, of a higher quality and fully streamable. Moreover the codec will be supported on all platforms (Windows, Macintosh, BeOS, *nix (inlcuding Linux), Amiga ...). To accomplish this the code of the player will become an open source."" I'll believe it when its running on my desktop, but I'd love to see the world standardize on a high-quality video format that is open source. Damn Sorenson.

176 comments

  1. Pronounciation guide? by Xerithane · · Score: 2
    Serious question: How in the hell do you pronounce this?

    I have been looking at it and can't come up with anything that any normal sane person would say a few times a day.

    --
    Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
    1. Re:Pronounciation guide? by Cyclopatra · · Score: 2
      Looks like "thriv-ex" to me...

      --
      "We can't all, and some of us don't." -- Eeyore
    2. Re:Pronounciation guide? by Ronin441 · · Score: 1
      It's pronounced: "This was the only four letter domain name that was left."

      Expect to see a few more like this over the next couple of years.

  2. program for ps2? by icejai · · Score: 1

    Why would they need programmers for the ps2?

  3. Re:Open source scam... don't think so by thing12 · · Score: 4

    The term 'codec' is short for 'coder/decoder'. So for them to describe their product as a codec, which they do, it means the encoding portion of the software will be open sourced as well.

  4. Re:Suggestion: Don't GPL the player by bfree · · Score: 2

    That is exactly what I was arguing (though had yet to reach the simple clarity you have no made me realise regarding the LGPL). I was not trying to suggest that the warfare was bad....I was saying it would be good. If something like this was GPL'd and then someone tried to fork the format into a GPL and non-GPL version, we could all enjoy the fight. If it was under a BSD style license and someone started an open and closed fork, it would be the rantings of Free Software campaigners (like me so don't say I'm flamebaiting) that would be calling for the end of the fork, and this would mean the fork would stay and that would be bad for everyone. MP3 is strong because (despite some IP idiots efforts) it is easy to get decoders and encoders and it is a format that provides something people want. No video format is strong yet because the IP idiots have control, once everyone has the opportunity to get a wide range of tools to play and create/edit in one format for all platforms, that format will be hard to shift unless its bitrate/quality is severly beaten to the benefit of the majority of users (and unfortunately windows alone can do that at the moment, but not for long).

    Bottom line, if anyone here is working on any form of a video codec, please please please GPL it and start making your money from the work you can do around the codec and not from the language the codec entails.

    --

    Never underestimate the dark side of the Source

  5. Re:Just like DVDs? by Andronicus · · Score: 1
    Not quite. FlaskMPEG is designed to interpret the MPEG-2 streams from DVDs and output them to separate encoder softwares. It is a front-end which interprets the .VOB format, and pipes it to another encoder to do the real work.

    It comes with bbMPEG (3rd party encoder) which can produce MPEG-1 (i.e. VCD) or MPEG-2 (i.e. DVD, SVCD) streams, but not MPEG-4.

    It can also pipe to the Windows AVI system, where you can pick from any AVI codec you have installed (like DivX, or Indeo, or whatever).

    No MPEG-4 support.

    --
    USNG: 14TPU4605
  6. Re:What have you done?! by Arcanix · · Score: 1

    No, you have no chance. That's my girlfriend and the only reason she seems interested is because I have her get losers to give her gifts and then I sell them and make a tidy profit.

  7. "you can't give away an MPEG4 encoder" by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 2

    That link might be out of date; recently Stux has mentioned that patent royalties on the encoder might prevent it from being distributed gratis.

  8. $100.00 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    I hereby pledge $100.00, with God as my witness, to the group that promises to implement a free codec better than Microsoft's MPEG4 implementation. Set yourselves up on a website with your promise to implement the codec by a certain date, and I will contribute my money. If you don't do so by the date, I get my money back. If you can accomplish this, you will be wealthy.

    What, you don't think $100.00 is very much? Don't understimate the power of numbers. Put the total amount that you want to be paid individually, the amount you will need to spend in a type of "open budget", and let people come and contribute the money. I know tons of companies, even the one where I work, that would certainly donate cold hard cash to see an excellent, open MPEG4 implementation. Help usher in the dawn of collaborative production!

  9. It's a pity the media player looks so awfull! by Snaller · · Score: 1

    What they hell are they doing? Trying to play macintosh suddenly? The media player looks awfull.. not to mention the screen realestate just doubled *grrrr*

    --

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
  10. opencodex by datrus · · Score: 1

    I took part in the opencodex contest and won it. The codec libraries (based on h.263+) where finished late september. The quicktime component was assigned to somebody else, and was the reason the whole thing took so long. I am now working on the component myself. The quicktime API is a real mess. Anyone interested in helping me out with this is welcome... The codec shared libraries are fully LPGL and are available in the usual automake/autoconf form. As for 3ivx, i believe the player is open-source but not the codec. One cool feature is postfiltering, but it increases the decoder complexity a lot. A second version of the opencodex codec is scheduled for mid-2001, it uses localised wavelets and therefore eliminates the need for postfiltering.

  11. Re:Mediaplayer8 codec demos by zachdms · · Score: 1

    As Anonymous Coward already said, you're referring to the file format question rather than the encoding/decoding. If you compare clips at equivalent bitrates, the new WMV8 codec should compare very favorably to the latest Sorenson (the best codec I'm currently aware of for usage within QuickTime).

  12. Re:Mediaplayer8 codec demos by Snaller · · Score: 1

    The encoder is free. Unfortunately, it doesn't encode to AVI's, but to WMV's, which are not readable by every application. Regardless, if you don't mind using Windows Media Player (which I don't), you can download the Encoder for free and convert your existing AVIs. The quality is exceptional. I tried with an AVI but when it was about to start the encoding it opened an errorbox and said soemthing about wrong encoding ?? Wots that? The normal media player can play the AVI just fine.

    --

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
  13. Re:Open source scam... by ink · · Score: 1
    Almost every video game.

    That's what my PlayStation 2 is for.

    A large number of pieces of hardware.

    Like S/390 perhaps? Or how about Alpha? What about ia64? Didn't think so. Windows is behind the times.

    A decent, stable office suite.

    StarOffice works fine for me.

    Fonts that don't look like complete ass.

    Freetype has been out for years now.

    Professional-quality graphics programs (Photoshop and Illustrator).

    Hmm, you keep on defining these software packages as "necessary" -- but then you attach brand-names to them, which precludes any such product that isn't released for Linux. That's a self-fulfilling profecy, because by your definition Linux cannot have said products. Letting that aside, Linux has numerous commercial and free applications that perform the same functions. (Corel Draw and the Gimp, for example).

    DVD players.

    It's illegal to make an open-source DVD player; not much we can do when the law is against us... but if you want to claim that Windows is better because Microsoft has better lawyers (who are in bed with the MPAA), then go ahead and take the dubious prize.

    The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.

    --
    The wheel is turning, but the hamster is dead.
  14. no it doesn't and no it's not by crayz · · Score: 1

    It doesn't look DVD Quality and it's Sorsenson, not MPEG4. I've seen both, and MPEG4 is better.

    Also. 300K is equal to 2400k, which is the unit the original poster was measuring in. To get down to 750k, try a 100k movie.

    1. Re:no it doesn't and no it's not by Kwikymart · · Score: 1

      um, k = kilo, K = kelvin

      Thus:

      KB = kelvinbytes (which is nothing)

      kB = kilobytes

      Kb = kelvinbits (which is nothing)

      kb = kilobits

      MB = megabytes

      Mb = megabits

      300K = 300 kelvin

      2400k = 2400 kilo = 2,400,000 units

      750k = 750 kilo = 750,000 units

      100k = 100 kilo = 100,000 units

      (I just wanted to get that straight for you guys)

      --

      Buying a Dell computer is equivalent to dropping the soap in a prison shower.
    2. Re:no it doesn't and no it's not by journey- · · Score: 1

      unless you have a brain, in which you can automaticaly, through that given my nature, realize what context you are in, and automaticaly know that K is reference to kilbytes, and k references kilobits.

      Too bad your average troll doesn't also have common sense.

    3. Re:no it doesn't and no it's not by Kwikymart · · Score: 1

      You should realize that our society relies on standards, and if you dont follow standards bad stuff happens. If you do even basic physics problems, you will find you are dealing with many different weird and akward units. Its best to keep everything standard. Its not good enough, in my view, to just "realize what context you are in"; it basically limits the addition of more different units and creates unessesary trouble. I am quite aware of what he meant by "k" and "K", but standards are there for a reason.

      --

      Buying a Dell computer is equivalent to dropping the soap in a prison shower.
  15. Who is Sorenson? by FattMattP · · Score: 2
    Damn Sorenson.
    Who is Sorenson and why are we damning him?
    --
    Prevent email address forgery. Publish SPF records for y
    1. Re:Who is Sorenson? by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 2

      Sorenson Media, makers of the eponymous proprietary video codec that is included in recent versions of QuickTime. A lot of alternative OS users are annoyed that there's no version of Sorenson for their favorite platform.

  16. Re:When I tried 3ivx... by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 2

    If you were going to write a codec for Mac OS, why not use QuickTime?

  17. Re:Interesting by Foogle · · Score: 2

    Well DivX ;-) is hardly cross-platform. It's also only available as a Windows Codec, since it's just a binary-hack of an older Microsoft version.

  18. Re:Nice compression! by Enahs · · Score: 1

    Heh, no joke. This sounds like more of a potential landmine than KDE1 or writing your own MP3 codec without paying the licensing fee. Thanks, but I'll wait for Tarkin. :-)

    --
    Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
  19. Patents and Open Source by Detritus · · Score: 2

    Is it possible to have an open source project that uses patented technology? How would the patent holder be able to collect license fees from the users of the program?

    --
    Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    1. Re:Patents and Open Source by Dasein · · Score: 2

      Of course you can build patented algorithms into open source projects and still make money off the patents.

      As a matter of fact, all patents are available publicly and one of the criteria for a patent is that you must describe the invention clearly enough so that a person "ordinarily skilled" in the art can replicate the patented technology.

      Even if a company were to cut and paste the code from an open source project into a closed-source commercial product that would not effect, in any way, the enforceability of the patent.

      The rub comes in where companies want to keep thing a "trade secret". There is no time limit on trade secrets and the must be kept secret, and don't prohibit someone from independently inventing the same thing.

      Trade secrets and open source don't mix but patents and open source can coexist.

      As and aside, most of the patent licensing revenues are derived from deals between companies not from end users. End users pay for a product, which is generally more than just a collection of patents.

      Whether patents are a good or evil is a completely different subject.

      --
      You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake -- but you could be if you got off your ass.
    2. Re:Patents and Open Source by Dasein · · Score: 1

      In the case of an author using unlicensed patented technology, you are absolutely correct.

      The original question was:

      "Is it possible to have an open source project that uses patented technology? How would the patent holder be able to collect license fees from the users of the program?"

      However, I interpreted this as, can I use patented technology in open source?" The answer is yes, if it's licensed properly. The fact that a patent holder has made and open-source implementation of the patented technology available or licensed the technology for use in an open source project does not effect the enforceability of the patent.

      The rub is where people want to keep something a "trade secret". For that technology to enjoy trade secret protection, it must continue to be a secret.

      That's one of the reasons that there've been a lot of problem with video card companies -- they've sometimes wanted to keep things a trade secret.

      Patents can mix with open source and given the current patent climate, it may be a good and reasonable self-defense measure to pursue patents for open source projects.

      It's common for companies who are sued for patent infringement to look through their patent portfolio and try to find a case of infringement going the other way. They squabble a bit, settle, and cross-license. Patents can be defensive as well as offensive.

      --
      You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake -- but you could be if you got off your ass.
  20. the one woe of open source... by TWX_the_Linux_Zealot · · Score: 2

    <rant>

    A new codec is great, especially if new nifty features are created, with one exception, that being when multiple different codecs that are very similar in end behaviour are created. One can look at similar products both having an unusual effect on the market in terms of Gnome and KDE, neither of which is a bad product, both doing roughly the same thing, with slightly different ways to achieve the same result. Unfortunately, neither one blows the other out of the water, so I as a user have to keep different sets of stuff on my computer to ensure compatibility.

    In this new codec, it sounds nice, but I'm curious as to what features, features that will actually matter, will seperate it from DivX. If there really aren't any then wouldn't it just make sense to approach the DivX people and see if they are interested in revising the codec? I remember when QuickTime and Intel's AVI fought it out, and at the time I was using them the Quicktime codec seemed to blow chunks compared to the AVI, but the AVI format wouldn't play cross-platform. now, we have MP3 format, which is nice, cross platform, pretty good compression, no watermarking capabilities, etc, with the only drawback being the whole royalties thing. Microsoft introduced their proprietary format, which from what I've seen is not taking off. The lesser of evils here is clear.

    I don't see how DivX and this new one really have major differences, in the end, that will affect me, but I'm not an expert. What I do see getting ready to develop is two formats fighting to be 'dominant', and neither one winning, instead fragmenting the users similar to how KDE and Gnome, vi and Emacs, etc have, and making people coding universal players stock up on asprin. If people are willing to rally behind a standard that is 'good enough', without settling for crap and staying with something actually worthwhile, it's okay if it's not "bleeding edge", after all, most people aren't there anyway...

    </rant>


    "Titanic was 3hr and 17min long. They could have lost 3hr and 17min from that."

    --

    IBM had PL/1, with syntax worse than JOSS,
    And everywhere the language went, it was a total loss...
    1. Re:the one woe of open source... by bigdweeb · · Score: 1

      just to throw this out there too... the DivX ;-) people are supposedly working on DivX deux, Project Mayo. The site doesn't give much in terms of details yet though.

    2. Re:the one woe of open source... by twitter · · Score: 1
      I'm not sure about the Open version, but a Free one might not be pay for play like the old Divx boxes were.

      Choice never really hurts.

      --

      Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

    3. Re:the one woe of open source... by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 2

      I'm curious as to what features ... will seperate it from DivX

      3ivX is standards-compliant; DivX is not.
      3ivX might become open source; DivX will never be.

      wouldn't it just make sense to approach the DivX people and see if they are interested in revising the codec?

      The DivX people don't even have the source to DivX; how are they supposed to revise it?

  21. maybe you should read again by Srin+Tuar · · Score: 3
    Moreover the codec will be supported on all platforms (Windows, Macintosh, BeOS, *nix (inlcuding Linux), Amiga ...). To accomplish this the code of the player will become an open source.

    They say nothing about opening their codec, just the player. Moreover, they already have investors, IPO plans, and an NDA. They arent going to release their necoder if their investors are worried about a guaranteed profit angle.

    Pretty much more of the same. Even if it works its not anything Free enough to displace WMP. Nothing to see here, move along everyone...

    1. Re:maybe you should read again by thing12 · · Score: 4

      Yup you're right - on this page I see in more detail that the encoder will be free but not open sourced. Damn damn. My bad.

  22. Re:Mediaplayer8 codec demos by Foogle · · Score: 3

    I've been waiting for the final release of this codec to do any actual work with it, but I'm really looking forward to this. Even if Windows Media 8 is only marginally better than Windows Media 7, it will still be the best codec around, hand down, in terms of quality and compression. Right now RealVideo and Quicktime are only holding on by their name-recognition... Microsoft has really created a formidable video system, and you don't have to pay ridiculous amounts of money, like with some other companies.

  23. Suggestion: Don't GPL the player by !Xabbu · · Score: 3

    Sure, open source it, but don't GPL it. Let companies like MS and Real etc. adopt aspects of the player into existing closed source programs. If you GPL the player they most likely won't adopt it, and if it isn't adopted then all of their efforts are for nothing. Best case if the code was GPL'd would be that they create their own player over time and by the time that happens something new will come out. Just a thought.

    Good luck! Sounds like a nice toy! maybe we can get rid of Quicktime or RAM's..

    ...I had a dream!

    - Xabbu

    --

    - Jimbob
    1. Re:Suggestion: Don't GPL the player by bfree · · Score: 2

      I actually came into this story primarily to post the exact opposite sentiment! Now that I have read more I actually couldn't care about this 3ivx as it reads to me as a half-arsed scam (they will give an open source player and that's it!). I will still explain why I would hate to see something like this released under a license other than the GPL.

      Imagine a codec was released under a BSD style licensce, the most likely outcome would be for MS and Sorenson to pick it up if it has any worthwhile qualities and then to hack their IP into it or it into their IP and then release this as a binary. Now at this point we have just lost cross-platform compatibility and the battle will return to the battle of the commercials.

      Imagine it is GPL, no company is going to pick it up unless it is better than their own product, in which case they will pick it up and figure out how to release software with it/to use it and still make money. The take-up may be incredibly slowed, but at least if their is a take up it will be of the same codec that everyone is using, and not a closed hack on it which creates the same mess as we have had up to now.

      This will get modded as flamebait, but do you work for aplle, sorenson, real or MS? If not WTF are you thinking?

      --

      Never underestimate the dark side of the Source

    2. Re:Suggestion: Don't GPL the player by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 1
      Well, let's see: if it's better than current technologies, and it's not GPL'ed, you're right. MS & company grab it and close-source it with minor changes to make it incompatible. Generally, the same situation that we have now, but windows users get a slightly better-quality product. I don't see how that's a loss, unless you just want to make the MS users suffer.

      If it's GPL'ed, MS and the gang won't touch it. If it's really significantly better than current codecs, they'll use the specification, write their own version, change and close-source it again. It will take a little longer, but the end result is the same.

      Ideally, I'd prefer that this was GPL'ed (this is sort of a moot point; it looks as though this whole thing is probably a bit of a scam, but anyway...), but I don't think it would make any difference. Corporations simply refuse to work with open-source anything. I've been trying to get my employer to consider open-sourcing a Linux project we've been working on; not only would the community benefit, but they would be able to reuse quite a bit of GPL'ed code. However, they estimated that developing from scratch would 'only' double the development time, and they would get all the advantages of being able to keep it closed source. (What those advantages are were, I'm afraid, rather unclear.)

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    3. Re:Suggestion: Don't GPL the player by bfree · · Score: 2
      I don't see how that's a loss, unless you just want to make the MS users suffer.

      I have no interest in making MS users suffer, but the fact is that everyone would suffer because cross compatibility would be gone, you would be back to two (or more) implementations and only one would be able to play a given stream. If it was GPL'd however, if someone tried to make an incompatible version they would be faced with warfare from all the platforms they didn't support (let alone the effort required to make sure you didn't let any GPL code into the re-engineered version). Would apple and sorenson and MS and real all create their own incompatible imlementations or would they just say "fuck it" and write thier higher level aps so that they can use the codec?

      --

      Never underestimate the dark side of the Source

    4. Re:Suggestion: Don't GPL the player by Ross+C.+Brackett · · Score: 2

      Yes, but if it's truly better, people would use the GPLed one over the closed source one, drawing more people away from closed software. If it's not as good, people just won't use it. This is the same reasoning RMS used when he said people should stop using LGPL.

  24. Re:Open source scam... by modecx · · Score: 1

    I'd really like to see good(and easy) open-source support for printers ala Windows - Mac. CUPS may do it some day, but if there is ever to be good market penetration for desktop *ix, such printer support is essential.

    --
    Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
  25. opencodex by datrus · · Score: 1

    I made some h.263(+) libraries for the opencodex contest. The code is really SUPER clean and the encoder and the decoder compile in less than 20k (vlc tables included).
    Unfortunately I have to finish the really nasty part of the contest: the quicktime component. Quicktime is really a nightmare to program. The benefit is that after this component is done, all quicktime movies (sorenson,...) can be converted to the opencodex format.

    Anyone interested in the libh263 source code (LPGL) can contact me (david.janssens@pandora.be). Full source should be publicly available when contest is over (ie: qt component is ready).

  26. patents everywhere by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 2

    3ivX is an implementation of MPEG-4, which is covered by more patents than you can shake a stick at.

  27. What a lame statement... by tswinzig · · Score: 2

    Microsoft has really created a formidable video system, and you don't have to pay ridiculous amounts of money, like with some other companies.

    Yeah right. You just have to be running Windows, which means you already have paid ridiculous amounts of money!

    --

    "And like that ... he's gone."
  28. Yeah by sacherjj · · Score: 1

    A decent compression without using Windows Media Player? Can it be?

    1. Re:Yeah by Bpr · · Score: 1

      Funny that DivX, aka mp4, was ripped from microsoft and their asf is a degraded quality of mp4

      --
      -- Whee
    2. Re:Yeah by Edmund · · Score: 1

      While you are in part correct, there is, in fact, MP4 (MPEG 1.0 Layer 4) compression in existence. I remember seeing several articles regarding it back in '98 or so. A search on old slashdot articles reveals nothing, but I think it had something to do with David Bowie......

      - Ed.

  29. Microsoft Optical Intellimouse by $pacemold · · Score: 1

    > Until now, the only useful thing I've really seen come out of that research was the Optical Intellimouse.

    Optical Intellimouse uses technology from HP.

  30. Re:Open source scam... don't think so by thing12 · · Score: 1

    Check this out... Compression/decompression may be the primary definition but Coder-Decoder is also valid.

  31. Decisions, decisions... by istartedi · · Score: 2

    If I create a great codec and sell it, I make money but Slashdot wants to condemn me to Hell. If I create a great codec and give it away I'm dirt poor but Slashdot wants to send me to Heaven.

    I wonder what St. Peter thinks of all this.

    Me personally, I seem to recall that at the beginning of all this, there was a certain other famous guy who's name also began with an S, and wanted to send people to Hell.

    "Come", he said "eat of the CVS tree, and in the day that you eat therof, you will become an Open Source God". So the coders did eat, and their eyes were opened, and they received stock options...

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  32. Interesting by Foogle · · Score: 4

    I've had mixed results from using the various binary hack MPEG4 codecs available. The best MPEG4 I've found so far (and I've tried a number) has been Microsoft's official Windows Media 7 MPEG4 format. It's truly excellent. The ISO standard implementation doesn't hold a candle to it... I hope these guy's have done some serious optimizations.

    1. Re:Interesting by Sadfsdaf · · Score: 2

      Try this out- http://divx.euro.ru/

      It does DivX. The player is open source, you can build it yourself. It works in linux/freebsd. What it does is it reads .dll codecs. You stick the dlls in /usr/lib/win32.

      Download the source and the binaries.zip. Extract the zipfile and stick it in /usr/lib/win32. configure/compile/install the source and type in aviplay FILENAME.avi and ta-da! you've got DivX in linux!

      It even plays FRICKEN ASFS and SMR codecs. =]

      The codecs themselves DO NOT use open source dlls though, so it's up to you weather you like this or not, but it's fine, especially with playing ASFs and DivX.

    2. Re:Interesting by isaac_akira · · Score: 1

      Also, DivX *has* been successfully reverse-engineered. A few weeks (months?) ago, it was ported to Macintosh by a group without access to the source.

      Heh, I believe you are talking about the same people who created 3ivX, and the source of this whole discussion. They started off reverse engineering DivX to make it work with Quicktime on the MacOS, but decided just to create a new, cross-platform protocol based on all the reverse-engineering work they had done.

    3. Re:Interesting by Skirwan · · Score: 1

      You can get your compelling evidence at mac.divx.st. I'm running it on my Mac right now, and it works quite well.

      Unfortunately, it seems to be down right now. I'm betting it's hosted on the same server as 3ivx, and has been /.ed to oblivion.

    4. Re:Interesting by technos · · Score: 2

      No. Wrong. I said, and I quote:

      only because there is a wrapper around the Win32 codec.

      Windows media codecs are DLLs that all implement the same set of compression / decompression calls, per se. Once the codec wrapper is written, you can substitute the codec of your choice. Reading a Sorenson stream is no different than reading a DivX stream, or a MS MPEG-4 stream. Please see http://divx.euro.ru for the tool, called avifile, that drives pretty much every decoder/encoder for Linux. It uses the native Win32 DLLs to provide all of the real functionality.

      --
      .sig: Now legally binding!
    5. Re:Interesting by Anomolous+Broward · · Score: 1

      Hi. You're wrong too. Microsoft has quit with the dll codecs. They are, from now on, all ActiveX DirectShow filters (still technically dlls but completely different APIs) which don't work like you're saying. There are no wrappers for those ones. Too bad. Bye for now.

    6. Re:Interesting by Per+Wigren · · Score: 1

      But the DivX-codec is STILL not open source! It uses the windows x86-DLLs in an extremly stripped down version of Wine. Thus it can't be used on non-x86 platforms.

      --
      My other account has a 3-digit UID.
    7. Re:Interesting by technos · · Score: 3

      DivX ;-) is NOT cross platform. Sure, you can play the movies under Linux, BeOS, blah, but only because there is a wrapper around the Win32 codec.

      All the players that will play DivX will also play Windows Media 7 MPEG4 as a result. Sorensen too, CmdrTaco.

      There are even compression tools for all of the Windows formats, courtesy of avifile as well..

      --
      .sig: Now legally binding!
    8. Re:Interesting by Foogle · · Score: 2
      DivX, with or without the smiley face, is not an open standard, nor has it been successfully reverse-engineered. XMPS has plans for DivX support, and it's listed on their website, but I'm fairly certain that it's non-existant. I don't know if they've implemented this yet, but XMPS was planning a Win32 codec-wrapper. Sounds sketchy to me, but it would (theoretically) allow you to use DivX videos.

      However, the only confirmed way to watch DivX encoded videos (to my knowledge) is through any number of windows applications that are using the DivX ;-) codec. This codec is simply a binary hack of a stolen alpha-release of Microsoft's MPEG4 codec.

    9. Re:Interesting by zachdms · · Score: 1
      There's multiple sets of compression/decompression calls, though. The VfW interface, the QuickTime interface, DShow, etc.

      Only the DivX hack of MS MPEG4 will support the VfW codec interface (presumably what you're referring to) with AVI files. Sorenson is implemented as a QuickTime codec, and TMK doesn't at this time have a VfW compatible codec available. The Windows Media video codecs only work within Windows Media files, same as the RealVideo and QuickTime Sorenson codecs. You couldn't accomplish what you're referring to with a simple VfW wrapper. Maybe what you're referring to does more than providing a wrapper for VfW, but the proof is in the pudding: abstractly, a simple VfW wrapper for Linux will technically not be able to support Sorenson or non-hacked Windows Media video codecs more recent than MS MPEG4 v2.

    10. Re:Interesting by Foogle · · Score: 2

      As others, and yourself, have pointed out, the DLL method does work. It's hardly open source, nor is it portable beyond x86 architechture. As for the Macintosh port, I have heard nothing about this, and you aren't offering any compelling evidence that it actually exists. And as for the Matrix screenshot, I was unable to find it, although I don't doubt that it was once there.

    11. Re:Interesting by Tychoma · · Score: 1

      I can watch DivX movies no trouble at all on my PI 200, with Windows media format i have no chance at all.

      --
      Karma: Shitty (mostly due to American moderators)
    12. Re:Interesting by Tuzanor · · Score: 1

      HUH?! I just downloaded the divx codec last night and it was available for windows, linux, macOS and BeOS...

    13. Re:Interesting by gleam · · Score: 4

      Good lord, have you looked anywhere in the past few months? XMPS supports DivX. XMMS supports DivX through two separate plugins. Xtheater and lamp both play DivX. It's not a "theoretically", it's a "does".

      There are very few problems with DivX support in linux. The windows dll method works quite nicely, and performance is just fine on my system.

      Also, DivX *has* been successfully reverse-engineered. A few weeks (months?) ago, it was ported to Macintosh by a group without access to the source. It's not a particularly difficult task, since the method used by the codec is very simple.

      In any case, if you check the XMPS website (at least last time I checked) you can even see a screenshot of the software playing the trailer from "The Matrix". Unconfirmed? Sheeeeeeesh.

      Regards,
      gleam

      --
      this .sig is not a .sig.
    14. Re:Interesting by Foogle · · Score: 2
      I stand corrected: After checking out that site you pointed me to, I realize that DivX ;-) is available on the Macintosh. Of course, that doesn't make it any more Open Source or even cross-platform. It uses the Macintosh version of the Windows Media Player, and the Macintosh version of the hacked binary that was originally stolen from Microsoft in the first place.

      There is no open source DivX ;-) codec. It was stolen from Microsoft in the alpha stage and remains a second-rate codec, due to this. The newer versions of Microsoft's MPEG4 scheme are *much* better. After all, why wouldn't MS use their own codec, if DivX ;-) was really so good? I have tested each of these various MPEG4s and am quite satisfied that Microsoft's Windows Media Encoder does the best job of compression relative to loss in quality. And I've heard even better things about their upcoming version of Windows Media.

    15. Re:Interesting by rufo · · Score: 1

      The lead coder on 3ivx is also the guy who wrote the DivX codec for Mac. You can find it at http://mac.divx.st/, or you could if it wasn't /.ed from all the 3vix.com sitegoers. Rufo

      --
      My English teacher once told me that two positives don't make a negative. Two words for her: Yeah, right.
    16. Re:Interesting by rufo · · Score: 1

      There is a DivX decoder for Mac, however, mainly because it relies on the Windows Media Player for Macintosh (yes, that's what it's called... not Macintosh Media Player, Windows Media Player for Macintosh... *sigh*). Works OK, although the framerates aren't quite as good as the PC DivX is. It's coded by the lead coder of 3vix, and can be found at http://mac.divx.st (although since they're both on the same web server, it's /.ed right now).

      --
      My English teacher once told me that two positives don't make a negative. Two words for her: Yeah, right.
    17. Re:Interesting by Anomolous+Broward · · Score: 1
      a simple VfW wrapper for Linux will technically not be able to support Windows Media video codecs more recent than MS MPEG4 v2

      Exactically.

    18. Re:Interesting by zachdms · · Score: 1

      No: DivX is a hack of MS MPEG4 v3 and lower. Windows Media Video 7 and the new v8 codecs aren't playable via that codec. Sorenson also requires its own decoder, hacked or otherwise.

    19. Re:Interesting by motardo · · Score: 1

      of course, you can only use this on windows, all of the other hacks are cross-platform. DivX ;-) is my favorite of them all, it looks really nice if you tweak it correctly.

      -motardo

  33. We need to get rid of patents! by Proud+Geek · · Score: 1

    Like everyone pointed out, the best MPEG4 codec is Microsoft's. We need to get rid of patents, or else the only way we'll get technology on Linux is when M$ doles it out to their lackeys at Corel and Apple. And it definitely won't be free, then!

    --

    Even Slashdot wants to hide some things

  34. Re:When I tried 3ivx... by plastik55 · · Score: 2

    Why doesn't someone start duplicating the Quicktime API, so that its codecs can be used in other operating systems?

    --

    I have a positive modifier on Troll. When I mod someone Troll their karma should go UP!

  35. Re:Mediaplayer8 codec demos by Auckerman · · Score: 1

    SInce you are the third person to say this...I ask you point to one spot i called quicktime 4 a codec....

    --

    Burn Hollywood Burn
  36. Re:MPEG-4 by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 2

    AFAIK, the important parts of MPEG-4 are final.

    A zillion companies have announced that they will be supporting it; the latest set is the Internet Streaming Media Alliance.

  37. mirror here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2
    here (but watch out for the window.open javascript)

    (as reported on the website itself, which won't do much good when it goes down)

  38. Re:Mediaplayer8 codec demos by Auckerman · · Score: 3
    "Until now, the only useful thing I've really seen come out of that research was the Optical Intellimouse."

    Close but no cigar. The mouse is actually using HP patents, not Microsoft. The only thing I've seen come from MS is a talking paperclip in a word processor.

    --

    Burn Hollywood Burn
  39. But What about Toms Hardware by Decado · · Score: 3

    Will we get 6 different iterations of pentium 4 performance comparisons on toms hardware for this new technology?

    --

    Slashdot: Proof that a million monkeys at a million typewriters can create a masterpiece

    1. Re:But What about Toms Hardware by Locus27 · · Score: 1

      Tom's has the coolest graphs.

  40. Re:Open source scam... by MKalus · · Score: 1

    >>so all the linux zealots can have one fewer thing to use the windows partition on their boxes for, bringing the total down to 793.

    Mind to show me the list?

    --
    If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
  41. Cross Platform Re:Interesting by Xibby · · Score: 1

    It's not exactly Open Source, but Avifile does a wonderful job of playing DivX ;-) encoded movies using the windows dlls. The latest version (0.51) fixed one of the playeres biggest bugs, crashing when seeking.

    As stated earlier, XMPS also plays mpeg4. There's even an xmms plugin (uses libiaries from avifile and SDL)

    --
    I'm going to go back in my box and will think within the limits of my box: MS Sucks Linux Good I read too much Slashdot.
  42. Re:Open source scam... by borgboy · · Score: 1

    So? I can at least INSTALL W2k. 4 out of 6 major distro's Sig7/11 half way through install on my W2k box that NEVER BSODs

    --
    meh.
  43. Enlighten Us by Danious · · Score: 1

    So, can anyone point to a good source of enlightenment for those of us throughly confused by now about CODECs, formats, compression, QT, Sorenson, etc? A nice web-site explaing the different bits, how it all fits together, a bit of history, how to do it yourself, etc.

  44. they can implement their own by dalinian · · Score: 1

    Hmm, wouldn't it still be possible for proprietary software makers to design their own implementation as long as they didn't use this hypothetical code, even if it is GPL'd? So if the format is good enough, they might adopt it anyway.

  45. Re:Open source scam... by Strog · · Score: 2
    He said Professional-quality graphics programs . Corel Draw and Gimp are not in the same class as Photoshop and Illustrator. Don't get me wrong they are good and 90% of the people out there don't need Photoshop and Illustrator but they might want them.

    I've considered a PS2 but I still will keep my Windows partition for the type of gaming I do. A PS2 doesn't do very good on UT/Q3/Etc. mods or custom maps for the strategy games I like to play.

    I can do without winanything(winmodems, winprinter, etc.). Windows can keep those pieces of hardware.

    StarOffice works fine for me too but it is a more resource hungry than I would like. I can see why people with less than top-of-line computers complain about it and I'm not a fan of the integrated desktop. Hopefully the open version will get leaner.

    Freetype doesn't fix everything but helps a lot.

    We will have to see if Intervideo will actually release LinDVD. They look like they might be closer but they have been taking a lot longer than people want to wait. They better have been chipset support than there current list because I don't have any of those video cards.

  46. About 3ivx and MPEG4 by rin · · Score: 1

    3ivx is not Open Source yet, but they hope to make the decoder OSS eventually. The encoder may never be OSS due to MPEG4 patent issues. The MPEG4 patent people probably won't announce their license policies until Spring.

    3ivx uses QuickTime because it's cross-platform and it's the official MPEG4 packaging format.

    3ivx isn't truely MPEG4 yet -- that's a longterm goal. Of course, DivX ;-) isn't really MPEG4 either, and neither are any of the MS codecs.

    It's just an early preview release so far. Obviously 3ivx needs major performance improvements, not to mention a sound layer, before it will be able to compete. But the developers seem confident they will get there.

    DivX ;-) is probably illegal. Project Mayo is still vaporware. OpenCodex is MIA. MS's stuff is limited to Windows (and maybe Mac). So I'm not writing 3ivx off just yet.

    1. Re:About 3ivx and MPEG4 by davidu · · Score: 3

      1. 3ivx is not Open Source yet, but they hope to make the decoder OSS eventually.

      How do you know this? Do you have some sort of information that we don't?

      2. DivX ;-) is probably illegal. Project Mayo is still vaporware.

      The legality of DivX ;-) is unknown, we are lucky I suppose that microsoft hasn't done anything, but seing as how the cat is out of the bag, would it matter? Also, to be vaporware, doesn't a company have to promise a release date and break it. When does projectmayo plan on releasing? When have they said they are? There web site is a bit thin but I wouldn't call them vaporware quite so soon.

      In any case, I think it is down to 3ivx and projectmayo. Let the best codec win.


      -Davidu

      --

      # Hack the planet, it's important.
    2. Re:About 3ivx and MPEG4 by rin · · Score: 1

      One of the 3ivx developers ("Stux") posts on this forum, for what it's worth.

      As for Project Mayo, I just meant they're vaporware so far. I certainly hope we see something solid (and legal) from them in the future.

      One thing I'm wondering about: where's Apple? One would think they have everything to gain from making an open, cross-platform, true-MPEG4 codec that could displace the proprietary MS stuff...

    3. Re:About 3ivx and MPEG4 by halbritt · · Score: 1

      1. 3ivx is not Open Source yet, but they hope to make the decoder OSS eventually.

      How do you know this? Do you have some sort of information that we don't?


      Have you checked the site? There is no source, therefore the product is not open source. They can trumpet and wave their hands in the air all day long claiming to be OSS, but until the release the source, they aren't.

      The same goes for Project Mayo being vaporware. Announcing a piece of software that doesn't exist yet is vapor. They may fully intend to eventually release a piece of software, but there are many cliche's that tell you the value of good intentions.

      I became excited when I saw this story, I became disappointed when I went the the site and couldn't find source code. Maybe someday there will be a good OSS MPEG4 Codec.

  47. divx, asf, etc can be played on descent players.. by crazney · · Score: 1

    eg, xtheater, i use it to play all my divx's and asfs.. its avaiable here

    and if your wondering, a good mpeg player is mptv, here - the back end thing is free, but the front end is not free, but there is a SDK for it.. so if an opensource person would like to write a descent frontend, thatd be good!

    cheers crazney

    "Who is General Failure and why is he reading my hard disk ?"

    --
    stuff
  48. Re:Open Source, I don't think so by SpinyNorman · · Score: 2

    The Heroine Virtual MPEG library is MPEG-2, not MPEG-4, and the comment on their web page about MPEG-4 being basically a wrapper for MPEG-2 is BS.

    I really doubt the claim that the Heroine MPEG-2 CODEC has been optimized to the point where it can achieve the same quality as Microsoft's MPEG-4 (i.e. DivX) at the same bitrate. I havn't checked out the exact same clip compressed both ways, but I've played the xmovie samples and a bunch of DivX's, and it seems that for the same quality DivX's are way smaller...

  49. Re:projects that really are free by sarchasm · · Score: 1
    and

    FLAC

    --

    ----------------

    Overheard: "Aww, why'd you go and install Windows on a perfectly good machine?"

  50. Re:fp by Bob+Abooey · · Score: 1

    Me Too

    Hello Going for -100, if it's any consolation to you I maxed out at around -125 but now it seems that the code has been altered to stop me from gaining more negative karma. And to make matters worse some confused, well meaning moderator has modded me up a few times so that I'm now at -121. I fear if I keep posting I am in danger of slipping over -100. I plan on sending Commander Taco an email to petition him with regards to fixing this problem. I feel this new code feature will take away my chance to participate in any meaningfull way.

    Bababooey to you all !!!! !! !

    Bob

    --

    All the best,
    --Bob

  51. This is not open source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    The buzz in the community for months has been that 3ivx (I pronounce it "three-vix") is going to be open source. Can't people read? Look at the web page. It clearly says the _player_ will be open source. As far as I can tell, 3ivx has never said anything about open sourcing the codec itself. Besides, did you look at the demo content they have posted? It sucks! The quality is nowhere near as good as DivX ;-) and it doesn't even play full speed. No news no news no news. Lame.

  52. Re:Mediaplayer8 codec demos by prisoner · · Score: 1

    Are the MS tools free? I went to the MS site and they have something for download made by "sonic foundry". Is that it?

  53. Just like DVDs? by Tyrannosaurus · · Score: 3
    How many open source encoders are there for DVDs? None, that I am aware of. Yet an open source decoder was on the scene relatively quickly.

    Which way would you rather have it? A Winblows only, proprietary, guarded by 6 million attack dog lawyers format, or a format where the open source community already has half of the equation?

    Yeah, it would be nice to have it both ways, but lets not get pissed off when stuff is handed to us!

    ---

    --

    ---
    Gort! Klatu Barata Nikto!
    1. Re:Just like DVDs? by Vanders · · Score: 1

      t can also pipe to the Windows AVI system, where you can pick from any AVI codec you have installed (like DivX, or Indeo, or whatever).

      No MPEG-4 support.


      Um, if i have an MPEG-4 CODEC installed, then it can use that. You even say so yourself, as DivX;-) is an MPEG-4 (Alike) CODEC. The AVI file format is just that, a file format. It doesn't specify the encoding scheme used.

    2. Re:Just like DVDs? by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 2

      Heroine Virtual has an open source MPEG-2 encoder.

    3. Re:Just like DVDs? by barleyguy · · Score: 1

      One word - FLASK.

      It's an open sourced, GNU licensed MPEG-4 Encoder. Why not just take the decoder released by these people, modify it so it works with the style of MPEG4 that flask outputs. Then tell their encoder software to piss up a rope.

      Instant compression and decompression, add water. (Especially is the movie is Titanic.)

      --
      --- "So THAT's what an invisible barrier looks like!" - Time Bandits
  54. Re:only thing worse than mediaplayer is quicktime by Wire+Head · · Score: 1


    Plenty of other options? Name one. There is no (modern) quicktime player for Linux that I am aware of.

    WireHead

    --


    WireHead

    The previous message was created with 100% recycled words.
  55. VRML 97 in CODEC by mpesce · · Score: 1

    Does anyone know if VRML 97 (which is the 3D composing layer of MPEG-4) is included in the CODEC?

  56. Join the Ogg by Julian+Morrison · · Score: 1

    The Ogg Vorbis team has "add in a compatible video codec" on their todo list. The 3IVX team should join forces with them, so as to make the Ogg meta-format invincible :-) (Provided of course it meets the Ogg "guaranteed no patents" design goal)

  57. Re:Open source scam... by Sloppy · · Score: 1

    What, if anything, would actually make you happy?

    A standard.

    I don't want to use any file formats for which there is any central choke point from which permission to read or write must be obtained.

    Ogg Vorbis is an example of such a standard, for audio.


    ---
    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  58. Re:You can't be sure ANYTHING is patent free by KjetilK · · Score: 1

    It is an unfortunate state of affairs, but no one can claim to know that a paticular project is patent-free.

    If I've got this right, you can if you use stuff published in research papers that wasn't patented at the time the paper was written.

    And, that's what the Xiph-folks do, isn't it?

    Further, since it is the responsibility of referees to know if something is new or not, when something is published in a refereed journal, and doesn't contain a reference to a patent, then you can be fairly confident there are no patents to be afraid of.

    But I could have gotten this all wrong, of course.

    --
    Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
  59. Re:Open source scam... by bfree · · Score: 2
    It's illegal to make an open-source DVD player

    Read my lips.....BULLSHIT

    You must be are American and hence subjected to the most absurd legal system in the world (and to those who deny this I quote your Presidential Election AND Todays' lovely cryptography/seizure addition to the Medal of Honor bill....I don't need to mention teenage Swedes do I). I am Eurpoean and hence can happily write a DVD player, GPL it and then stick it onto any distribution system I want that is not corrupted by US law

    --

    Never underestimate the dark side of the Source

  60. Re:only thing worse than mediaplayer is quicktime by um...+Lucas · · Score: 1

    The app isn't the app. It's apple's player. There are plenty of other player to choose from, especially on the Mac platform. At least with older versions, when they first "upgraded" the look of the new player, you could still continue to use the old one if you so desired...

    Yes, the apple suppled front end is garbage, but don't trash QuickTime iself for it, because there are plenty of other options...

  61. Re:So how do you pronounce 3IVX? by ChazeFroy · · Score: 1
  62. Not Sorensen's Fault by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 1

    At least, not entirely. People from Sorensen have said things to the effect of "We would, but Apple doesn't want us to." about less restrictive licensing.
    --

    --

    There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    1. Re:Not Sorensen's Fault by Enry · · Score: 2

      ...and if you ask Apple, you get exactly the opposite. It's the classic "point fingers everywhere but here".

  63. projects that really are free by pixel+fairy · · Score: 4
    free as in no crap about patents, nda, etc so theres no chance of another sorensen happening.

    Xiphophorus

    and

    Fiasco!

  64. Not quite there yet by SethD · · Score: 5

    The 3ivx codec/player has a lot of potential, but if you look closely, there's not much going for it yet.

    First of all, it requires QuickTime. Not only that, but the player really isn't anything but a quicktime plugin. That right there is enough of a problem to make me shy of it.

    Ok, now. Another problem is this. The encoder isn't even released yet (that I know of??). What good is the player if there isn't an encoder. Until this is released what good does it do us except let us "ooh" and "ahh" about what it could become.

    Performance: All I've heard about 3ivx is how poor the performance is, unless you've got a P-III with about an 800mhz CPU. So much for all of us who aren't making 75 grand a year and have to stick with the same computer for a little while.

    Look what else is out there: Right now the standard is Divx ;-). It would take some pushing around to change the standard, but I could see this happening...except that we've got MS Video 8 coming, Divx Duex, and who knows what else out there that just has a lot more potential.

    My conclusion: It has potential, but it's gonna take some kicking and screaming to make everybody happy with this one...Good luck!

    (the comments contained in this posting are simply my own opinions)

    1. Re:Not quite there yet by iamblades · · Score: 1

      The answer to all your problems is that its still a beta. Its slow because they are still porting it to various OSes and havent started optimizing it. It is reaaaaallllly sloth-like though...

      --
      Shit adds up at the bottom...
    2. Re:Not quite there yet by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1
      First of all, it requires QuickTime. Not only that, but the player really isn't anything but a quicktime plugin. That right there is enough of a problem to make me shy of it.

      These guys are developing a codec. They could waste their time writing their own player but synchronization is hard as are many other aspects of a good player. By writing a Quicktime plugin they can focus on the codec, then write a player when that's done. Yeah, that means you can't use it on Linux yet, but it's hard to fault a development project from focusing first on their core product.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  65. Open Source, I don't think so by davidu · · Score: 5

    Ok, lets see here

    1. What we want is a REAL open source codec. We don't want an open source player, API, or "framework" -- we want a true MPEG-4 open source codec.

    2. The 3ivx website has released a closed source codec that integrates into quicktime but from what they have released so far, it doesn't compete with Windows Media Format or Sorenson AT ALL. I sure hope that they will release something of decent quality soon.

    3. Of all the groups working on a nice MPEG-4 codec, we have seen many die, fizzle, or simply lie. OpenCodex.com is pretty much off the face of the planet and now their website is just some virtual hosting site. 3ivx has said they have a supperior product, and that it will be open source, so far both have been false. That leaves it to ProjectMayo -- the group started by the creator of DivX. They haven't released anything yet but they sure seem to be the most professional. Perhaps we can appeal to them to become open source.

    No matter what happens, the community is ready for a REAL MPEG-4 codec that does not just have some open player, it needs to be fully open so that it can be ported to all OS's, optimized, and hacked to be even better than a small group of developers could imagine.

    just my $.02,

    -Davidu

    --

    # Hack the planet, it's important.
    1. Re:Open Source, I don't think so by driftwood · · Score: 1

      3. Of all the groups working on a nice MPEG-4 codec, we have seen many die, fizzle, or simply lie. OpenCodex.com is pretty much off the face of the planet and now their website is just some virtual hosting site. 3ivx has said they have a supperior product, and that it will be open source, so far both have been false. That leaves it to ProjectMayo -- the group started by the creator of DivX. They haven't released anything yet but they sure seem to be the most professional. Perhaps we can appeal to them to become open source.

      You seem to have missed Heroine Virtual as an opensource alternative. They are the programmers behind XMovie, Broadcast 2000, and a new MPEG library that rivals MPEG-4 in it's bitrates and quality. Currently they are only supporting *nix OSes, but the program and lib sources are there if anyone wants to port them to other desktop dominant systems.

      --
      Where are we going? And why am I in this handbasket?
  66. Ummm... by Bad-Tech · · Score: 1

    Where's this Windows partition your talking about? Is there a .deb for it?

  67. Re:Mediaplayer8 codec demos by Auckerman · · Score: 1
    "it will still be the best codec around, hand down, in terms of quality and compression. Right now RealVideo and Quicktime are only holding on by their name-recognition..."

    Err. Wrong. Microsofts "advancements" lag Apples by a long shot. Keep in mind MPEG4 is based of Quicktime 4.

    --

    Burn Hollywood Burn
  68. Re:Mediaplayer8 codec demos by cezarg · · Score: 2
    Yeah, I submitted that as a story the day the codec was out, but the zealots running this site rejected it within two hours!

    One problem thatstill needs to be addressed is real time encoding. If content providers want to utilise the technology they'll want to be able to do this to live feeds such as newscasts and sports coverages which I suspect is not feasible yet or at least not at bitrates MS are quoting. Having said that the codec is very impressive regradless. MS is flexing their muscle again and only stupid or ignorant people (such as slashdot editors) would neglect such advancements.

    Way to go slashdot. you guys rock.

  69. But Will The Content Providers Cooperate? by Schnedt+Microne · · Score: 1

    It simply won't be enough for there to be a wide open format. The content providers will have to, well, provide content in that format.

    If it's perceived as the 'Pirate's Format' the content providers will boycott it.

    --
    Hay thar.
  70. Re:Mediaplayer8 codec demos by Auckerman · · Score: 1
    "One problem thatstill needs to be addressed is real time encoding."

    Using a Mac and Quicktime, one can already do real time encoding without any special cards.

    --

    Burn Hollywood Burn
  71. Re:Mediaplayer8 codec demos by IvyMike · · Score: 3

    Microsoft spends something like four billion dollars a year on research. Until now, the only useful thing I've really seen come out of that research was the Optical Intellimouse.

    But I have to say that I've just tried the WM8 stuff, and it's pretty good. Actually, it's better than that--it's scary good. The audio compression blows away RealAudio, and although I've only listened to the few samples available, seems to be able to rival mp3 quality with a much better compression ratio. The video is pretty good (although I think that 'DVD quality' is a stretch--I easily noticed artifacts that I wouldn't tolerate on a DVD.)

  72. When I tried 3ivx... by antdude · · Score: 2

    I was not impressed. Why does it use QuickTime 4 player? Why is the video clip samples not impressive? Anyone else noticed this?

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  73. Re:Slashdotted by Draoi · · Score: 1

    My question is, how do you pronounce 3IVX, anyway? Thrivix?

    Three Fucks. As in "Who gives ..."! 8-)

    --
    Alison

    "It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." - Albert Einstein

  74. Re:Mediaplayer8 codec demos by iamblades · · Score: 1

    Divx is good but I must say, WMP8 is slightly better. Those 750k streams are better looking than most 1100k+ divx files. Divx has problems in certain areas, mainly gradients and really fast motion, the fast motion part is somewhat acceptable, however if you look at a fine gradient, ie. a sky, encoded in Divx, you will see highly noticeable artifacts. The WMP8 streams arent DVD quality, yet, but they are the closest I've seen under 1000k.

    --
    Shit adds up at the bottom...
  75. Re:Talk is one thing... by iamblades · · Score: 1

    They have a working beta, available at 3ivx.com. All it is is a quicktime plugin, and it has yet to be optimized for any platform, ie. its fucking slowww....

    --
    Shit adds up at the bottom...
  76. Re:Its roman numeral encoded leet speak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    just as C followed B, and X followed W the successor to V, so too does EivX follow DivX, only it's in 'leet speak.

  77. Some facts and sense by Fross · · Score: 4

    Geez, there's a lot of hot air and FUD going on here at the moment, so here's a few facts. Most of these can be gleaned from just looking through their website.

    - 3ivX is/will be a codec for encoding audio and video, based on MPEG-4. Hopefully it will be better than most other MPEG-4 codecs out there, the player, at least, will be open source.
    - it is still VERY much in development! all the stuff out there on 3ivx.com is *test*. it is certainly not ready for public scrutiny or evaluation. Why this got posted to /. (or accepted) i dont know, as it's certainly nowhere near ready for release.
    - to quote from their site:

    As explained in the previous report, we would like to remind you that the code contains absolutely no optimization. Nothing is assumed about the hardware - and this is to facilitate the ports to other platforms.

    ...emphasis their own. The purpose is to get this product 100% MPEG-4 compatible and stable, and then to speed it up.
    - In terms of multiplatformability, 3ivx runs under Quicktime, but also runs under XAnim. So now you know.
    - One of the performance targets of 3ivx is to get fast encoding, as well as decoding. So far, it has encoded up to almost 3 times as fast as the Sorenson encoder. And this is still in development, with no optimisations.
    - i dont know what planet people are on who are saying the codec is poor quality. Screenshots on the 3ivx site show it positively kicking Sorenson's ass at the same bitrates.
    - the support page lists all sorts of other technology bits going into 3ivx, so check it out.

    So there you have it. It's a free, multiplatform open source and hopefully high quality audio/video codec. It looks to be good, especially if it can be better than Div X ;-) (which in terms of piracy is the format of choice, which says a lot about its quality), and beats waiting around for MS to port WMP to Linux. Ha!

    Though given everyone whining about the lack of a good codec for Linux for the past year or two, I'm surprised why everyone has suddenly attacked it without doing some research beyond reading the first line of the article. Get involved. :)

    Fross

  78. MPEG4 and wireless... by glebite · · Score: 1

    It's interesting that this article goes on about open sourced codecs - there's a company here in Ottawa called Lumic which is doing stuff in this field:

    Lumic's low-power, reconfigurable solution makes it possible for 2.5G/3G wireless handset OEMs and PDA vendors to offer real-time, interactive mobile multimedia applications, using MPEG-4 and other open industry standards.

    I just thought it interesting as I recently had a job offer from them, and here is an article about MPEG-4.

    But MPEG4 on wireless? I'd like to see that happen - true two-way video conversations.

    Nortel is running these ads showing off this type of technology too. We're into some fun toys in the next year or two for sure.

    --
    I donate all spillover Karma to the charity of my choice... Ada was still a babe despite what people may say...
  79. Re:Mediaplayer8 codec demos by Foogle · · Score: 2

    The encoder is free. Unfortunately, it doesn't encode to AVI's, but to WMV's, which are not readable by every application. Regardless, if you don't mind using Windows Media Player (which I don't), you can download the Encoder for free and convert your existing AVIs. The quality is exceptional.

  80. Re:Explain the patent/license issues for MPEG-4/3i by technos · · Score: 2

    MPEG is the Motion Pictures Expert Group. They sit around and think of newer, better ways to present movies.

    MPEG-4 is a standard for compression of movies, much in the same way MPEG-2 is used for DVD and MPEG-1 was used for VideoCD. It supports less resolutions, but a much lower bitrate and is a much more lossy format. It was designed for video streaming.

    DivX is a binary hack of an unreleased Microsoft 'MPEG-4' codec. I have that in quotes because it isn't exactly MPEG-4; Hard to conform to a standard that doesn't really exist, so they made a bit of it up as they went. There are other hack codecs, such as the Angelpotion codec, as well.

    Microsoft has since released a 'MPEG-4' version (Again, quotes) from the same heritage as the DivX codec, but with additional tweaks, mainly to make it stream better. A newer, better version is expected to be released with Media Player 8.

    Well, at least that's how I understand it, but I may be wrong.

    --
    .sig: Now legally binding!
  81. Re:((subject)((what)?)))? by shutdown+-h+now · · Score: 1

    (((he)((must be)))(a lisper)).

  82. MPEG-4 patent info by Hobart · · Score: 2

    Some info on the patents on MPEG4 is here: http://www.m4if.org/

    --
    o/~ Join us now and share the software ...
  83. thanks by twitter · · Score: 1

    this is good stuff. Will someone please mod this up?

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  84. Re:Mediaplayer8 codec demos by cezarg · · Score: 1

    Do you have any URLs? I'm quite interested in this stuff particularly the realtime side of things.

  85. Open source scam... by SClitheroe · · Score: 5

    What's the value of an open source decoder, without a similarly open sourced encoder? I checked the website, and can't find any mention of the encoder and its source code.

    This company just wants unpaid help to port their player around in the hopes of gaining market share...

    1. Re:Open source scam... by Foogle · · Score: 4
      It's not quite as high as he was saying, but it's high enough:
      • Almost every video game.
      • A large number of pieces of hardware.
      • A decent, stable office suite.
      • Fonts that don't look like complete ass.
      • Professional-quality graphics programs (Photoshop and Illustrator).
      • DVD players.

      There are probably others, as well, but that's all I can think of right now. And for each item on that list there is limited support under Linux. For example, I won't deny that KOffice has serious potential... If it didn't crash every two minutes. I'm sorry, but I'm sticking with Win2k. It's at least as stable as Linux and, unlike Linux, the applications are there.
    2. Re:Open source scam... by bfree · · Score: 2

      Well, no matter where you are you can always (if you are willing) take the approach seen in the great McDonalds case where the authors of a McD critical leaflet spent a few years in court costing McD's a huge amount of legal fees while they didn't pay a penny in legal fees AND (far more importantly) were all worthless (no assets) so that McD's could never recoup the money.

      Bottom line, look what happened in Sweden regarding DeCSS. It is the U.S. that causes all the problems so I will say it again.....Should all coders be in Europe?

      --

      Never underestimate the dark side of the Source

    3. Re:Open source scam... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This company just wants unpaid help to port their player around in the hopes of gaining market share...

      So, what's wrong with that?

      For years now, every time Quicktime is mentioned here, everybody jumps in and complains about the Apple/Sorenson issue: Since there is no Quicktime for Linux and the codec is not open source, you guys will have to boot into Windows every time you want to watch the SW Episode I trailer.

      Now someone comes along and offers a better codec and the source to their player, as well as a free encoder plus the option for a more advanced version for a fee (Sorenson does the same)...

      And again you complain?

      What, if anything, would actually make you happy?

    4. Re:Open source scam... by MeltyMan · · Score: 1

      With the decoder openly available, the proposed compression sceme is; its up to everyone else to do the encoding. But i see and agree with your point. The company is trying to gain the support of the open source environment, without truely adhereing to it's philosophies.

      --
      "Ummmm..." ...The programmer's "Om."
  86. Finally, cross-platform filth! by Sentsix · · Score: 2

    I can't wait for the day when all pr0n is viewable on my linux boxen...

    Midwatch Industries

  87. Re:only thing worse than mediaplayer is quicktime by um...+Lucas · · Score: 1

    Oh... the original poster wasn't complaining about the lack of linux binaries. Just the appearance of Apple's player in Windows and MacOS.

    Peter's Player was a great player in it's time. I'm not on a Mac at this moment, so i can't verify that it still works with the newer quicktime versions, but if you respond to this and ask, i'll run upstairs and download it to the mac there and let you know...

    BetterPlayer.

    You have to remember, quicktime is just an API. The player application just uses the hooks that the extensions (MacOS) and DLLS (Win) provide.

  88. MPEG-4 by rschroeder · · Score: 1

    how can a codec be MPEG-4 based when MPEG-4 isn't close to finalized yet? What advantages will this have over that standard? Isn't this just adding to the mess? I don't see Industry support coming any time soon.

    although I guess mp3 didn't have much industry support either.

  89. Slashdotted by ElrondHubbard · · Score: 1

    The site is /.ed, of course. My question is, how do you pronounce 3IVX, anyway? Thrivix?

    --
    "The deep-fried Mars bar is a symptom of a wider crisis." -- Nutritionist Ann Ralph, on the Scottish diet
    1. Re:Slashdotted by Wolfier · · Score: 1

      three-vicks probably fits....

  90. DivX != DVIX by TWX_the_Linux_Zealot · · Score: 2

    They are NOT the same thing... It's an entirely new beast...
    "Titanic was 3hr and 17min long. They could have lost 3hr and 17min from that."

    --

    IBM had PL/1, with syntax worse than JOSS,
    And everywhere the language went, it was a total loss...
  91. DivX != DVIX by TWX_the_Linux_Zealot · · Score: 1

    They aren't the same thing... DivX is a new codec, DVIX is an old, bad, dumb DVD method that allowed for that stupid pay per play stuff...

    "Titanic was 3hr and 17min long. They could have lost 3hr and 17min from that."

    --

    IBM had PL/1, with syntax worse than JOSS,
    And everywhere the language went, it was a total loss...
  92. Re:don't be a pedant by bn557 · · Score: 1

    the k is kilo B is byte b is bit hence kbps (baud rate - kilo BITS per second) and kBps (how fast you boast to your friends about - kilo BYTES per second)

    --
    Humans are slow, innaccurate, and brilliant; computers are fast, acurrate, and dumb; together they are unbeatable
  93. Re:Mediaplayer8 codec demos by complex · · Score: 1

    thank god this was posted.

    divx is a kludge. a hack. while most of us here are ok with that, futzing with rogue .dlls, a normal non-geeked user will want to be able to trade a cd-r full of home movies (or other assorted sundries) with their even dumber friend. if this second friend can't wedge it open with media player 7/8 and it's automatic codec download (which is actually kina cool), then he's gonna give up.

  94. Bored much? by kinglink · · Score: 1

    A. Hacked codecs of MPEG4 generally fail with 1 exception. DiVx :) (Or what ever you call it) The Microsoft MPEG4 is the best for pure compression (works the best) DiVx codec works the best for multiplatform use (since Microsoft is not exactly being forth coming with their codec which is why there are HACKED versions of it) Why not take the time and get away from MPEG4 Why do we stay with it. 3ivx is just another hack. no matter how good it is just a hacked version or an alternate version of a hacked version. We don't need more codecs. We should start to make ONE codec for video that works on All platforms (read: don't let Microsoft work on it) one codec for all audio (Mp3s are almost the best) one codec for pictures (that is almost complete) and one "codec" for internet. I admit this does not lead to diversity and if a new codec comes along we can change the system but with out standarization people have to get huge system files with millions of codec. And I realize that "codec" is not the right word for some things but the idea is there. When will the madness end?

  95. Re:Lets wait and see what the mpaa does by kinglink · · Score: 1

    I admit you NEVER know but why don't they attack MP3s then? (you know RIAA would love to and are already trying to get all MP3 formats deleted but a codec is just a compression scheme the files is what causes the problem (just keep saying that no matter what anyone says)

  96. Oxford explains it by mcice · · Score: 5

    So much hype, so little news.

    First, there is only a 3ivx decoder which in fact
    is a Quicktime 4 plugin. The de-facto standard
    these days is a AVI-encoding enabled (i.e.patched)
    version of Microsoft's MPEG4 V3 DirectShow filter
    and that DS code alone is worth three months of
    writing and debugging. But then, to make a codec
    you need an encoder as well and this is also still
    missing. But that is not the most difficult part.

    Microsoft has spent a huge amount of work on
    improvements for the original, specified MPEG4V1
    written-down-on-paper standard for film encoding.
    Which means they already have quite an edge
    because if you look at the output of their V1 and
    their V3 codecs, you will notice how much better
    V3 deals with low (800-- kbit/s) bitrates. These
    movies of course are ~512 Pixels (and up) in X
    resolution, for 1.85:1 you see 224 pixels in Y
    direction, pirated movies have around ~640x288
    pixels in case you never seen one. Compare that
    to the unplayable 12.5 fps stamp-sized demos on
    3ivx' webpage, there's a difference isn't it.

    As for Windows Media Encoder 8, while their AAC
    implementation now cuts off at 16khz and still
    stinks at anything above 64kbit/s compared to
    MP3@128 (wme7 cuts off at 20 but lacks sound
    transparency just like wme8), the new WME8
    codec is now slightly better than DiVX ;-) even.
    The visible-macroblock plague from V3 is very
    well hidden now without smearing the picture,
    which is quite a stunt at 500 kbit.

    Thinking three years ahead, if you should be able
    to once buy&download movies in MPEG4, you can
    certain that MS will be supplying the codec,
    because (once again) piracy has bought MS a huge
    marketshare. Some russian chap even ported the
    codec to Linux by emulating DirectShow DLL calls
    (ouch). Combine this with a P3-Nvidia-5.1-Dolby
    Digital-whizzbang X-Box and you can get a glimpse
    what your kids may want for x-mas 2002 B).

    Merry Christmas
    from Germany.

  97. Re:Mediaplayer8 codec demos by Auckerman · · Score: 1
    For those of you who want to see some truly amazing advancements in Quicktime 4(which is essentially MPEG4), go check out this page:

    http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox/x-men/fullscreen _trailer3.html

    If you have a high bandwith connection the 300K streams looks quite impressive. DVD quality.

    --

    Burn Hollywood Burn
  98. Actually by Srin+Tuar · · Score: 1
    we wont even get the full deal on the player half of the codec either. The version they are going to "Open Source" is a crippled version without "encryption" support (read "fair use prevention" support).

    I'd rather not see this format become popular. I'm sure it will have plenty of attack dog laywer's guarding its patents and what-not. Lets just keep waiting for Ogg Video.

  99. it doesn't matter by Bad_CRC · · Score: 1
    if the player is good, unless you can stream the media, and there is a good quality compressor available. I hope it works well, cause I'd like to see quality video on linux as much as anyone. But unless people actually encode their videos with it, the technology won't matter, no matter how good it is.

    ________

  100. There are no "DivX ;-)" codecs... by zachdms · · Score: 2

    DivX is just a warez collection of hacks to the Microsoft MPEG4 video codec, WMA audio codec, and the FhG MP3 codec. Gej and Max pretend it's theirs so they can gain street cred and hopefully $$$. Anyways, when you're comparing the WMA v8 codec to DivX, you're either comparing it to FhG's MP3 codec or to WMA v1 (IIRC). People just cloud the codec field by claiming "DivX" is a new codec. (And likewise, WMV v8 vs. "DivX" is just WMV v8 vs MS MPEG4 v3.)

    1. Re:There are no "DivX ;-)" codecs... by mcice · · Score: 1

      You are fully correct but didn't I say just that? I left out Gej and Max to cut my comments short, but you are right there too, I even once wrote them and asked them if they were good enough to go from cracker to MPEG4 codec developers and there was no reply. The WMA audio vs. MP3 thing was just a sidenote.

  101. DivX ;-) Deux by SkyIce · · Score: 3
    A successor to DivX is already being worked on at http://www.projectmayo.com/. From the site:
    Here at Project Mayo, we want the job done right. Project Mayo is the heir to DivX ;-). Our members include the creators of DivX ;-), and we're using that talent to solve the problems standing between today's Internet and where broadband video ought to be. Some of the technologies we're developing are a Big Deal and will take some time. So be patient. But soon, we will start releasing tools and applications for the community to kick around. Then, when all the pieces are in place, we will launch our official site and our true identity, and there will be much rejoicing. Stay tuned.

    Doesn't look like it's going to be open source, but it could definitely cause some troubles for 3ivx if it competes.

  102. slow like hell by Frederic54 · · Score: 1

    I saw it on betanews 2 days ago, it's slow on a PIII-800 (in windows), so obviously there's optimization to do!
    --

    --
    "Science will win because it works." - Stephen Hawking
  103. You can't be sure ANYTHING is patent free by youngsd · · Score: 4

    The way patents work, you can't be sure that any project is free of patents. Unfortunately, most of the people starting these "patent free" projects think that patents are like copyrights and trade secrets -- if you don't copy, you're alright. Patents don't work that way.

    A safe rule of thumb would be to assume that anything is likely covered by an issued or pending patent filed by someone -- hopefull it is someone who isn't a vulture. Even when standards organizations make their members agree to license their patents on reasonable terms, they have no control over the companies who are not members. The number of software patents are growing so quickly you can never be sure a particular concept is not patented (even if you could look through all of the hundreds of thousands of issued software patents, you have no insight at all into the hundreds of thousands that have been in the application phase for a few years and are almost ready to issue).

    It is an unfortunate state of affairs, but no one can claim to know that a paticular project is patent-free.

    -Steve

    --
    Democracy is a poor substitute for liberty.
    1. Re:You can't be sure ANYTHING is patent free by rhizome · · Score: 1

      >It is an unfortunate state of affairs, but no one can claim to know that a paticular project is patent-free.

      It's dangerous to surrender on this point, though. I don't think programmers should yield to Fraunhofer and their ilk based on probable intersections of original code and generalized patents. The Xiph crowd are proactive in determining that they have legs to stand on. You may not realize that commercial distribution of MP3 files encumbers upon the proprietor a royalty of not less than US$15,000 per year payable to Fraunhofer.

      I can't support the nihilistic concept that independent media artists, producers, and disseminators should accept this barrier just because patent-holders would prefer we didn't try to get around it. Surely we shouldn't cast programmers as a hopeless bunch who will accept that the software they write should never approach the edges of a flat earth.

      --
      When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
  104. Re:Mediaplayer8 codec demos by Wag · · Score: 2

    Yeah, I'd have to agree with the DVD comment.

    While the artifiacts are clearly visible it's still excellent. Nevertheless, that 750k stream is the best looking stream of realtime video I've ever seen over my 1.5mbps cablemodem, and that includes some 1mpbs MP7 streams. They must have used a very high quality source for that sample.

    The audio is excellent too.

  105. mirror by toyfoo · · Score: 1

    mirror of 3ivx site: http://www.hollywood.org/mirror/

  106. Re:DivX ;-) losers by zachdms · · Score: 1
    None of these guys had anything to do with "DivX" codec development, though, and they're lying if they said they did. They're just hackers/pirates. It'll be interesting if they can pull something legit off, but they've proven zilch to date.

    -Zach (who last he checked had code in the three codecs DivX is ripping off)

  107. Nice compression! by Proud+Geek · · Score: 3
    That really was the idea behind MPEG4 all along, that it should provide compression for streaming applications, and that MPEG2 should be used for movies where the quality was really important.

    But it would be really good if they could use some open and unencumbered standards. DIVX;-) was really cheap, just ripping off Microsoft's binaries and putting some cracks on them. I don't think they could have made a truly free implementation because of all the patents involved, so I think it's time to move beyond MPEG4 and get a totally new and free standard, like Ogg Vorbis is doing.

    --

    Even Slashdot wants to hide some things

  108. HP did the opti mouse by DABANSHEE · · Score: 1

    Yes HP's Agilent are the ones who developed the optical mouse, they just licensed the technology to MS & Logictech.

  109. Its roman numeral encoded leet speak by Decado · · Score: 3

    3ivx = 3-iv-x = 3-4-10 = ealo

    Sorry for the lowercase roman numerals, bloody lameness filter rejected it with all uppercase :P

    --

    Slashdot: Proof that a million monkeys at a million typewriters can create a masterpiece

  110. MPEG4 mired in patents by q000921 · · Score: 2

    You may not be able to create any video codec without infringing on some patents, but as I understand it, if you try to implement something non-trivial that is MPEG4-compliant, you will be infringing.

  111. Re:don't be a pedant by Kwikymart · · Score: 1

    No its not actually. However, if you find me a text of some sort then maybe i'll beleive you. BTW, please restrain from personal attacks; it only shows how much of an egotistical arrogant asshole you are. Calling people "idiots" and not having any proof to back yourself up is pretty dumb. Maybe you are the one that is the "idiot"?

    --

    Buying a Dell computer is equivalent to dropping the soap in a prison shower.
  112. Re:Mediaplayer8 codec demos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    QuickTime 4 is a format encoding. The part of MPEG4 people actually care about is the codec. There is no "QuickTime4" codec, but most people tend to use sorensen. Sorensen was not developed by apple.

    I'd be interested in some real studies comparing the Sorensen codec to the MPEG4 codec.

  113. Re:Mediaplayer8 codec demos by Snocone · · Score: 2

    Don't bother at the moment ... Sorenson 3 is coming out with QT 5 and it should be *dramatically* improved over current generation codecs. Which MSFT's still is, just a very good one.

  114. Re:Mediaplayer8 codec demos by Wag · · Score: 1

    There are major problems with Quicktime's implementation on Windows. That, and mainly that keeps it from being a contender.

    That's a pretty big hurdle considering that Windows machine are almost the whole market.

  115. lets not forget by drfrog · · Score: 1

    mpeg-4 is to be more than just for video and or audio it will be encompassing streaming web based techs such as html vrml/web3d/x3d javascript and java too im all for the 3ivx but just leave room for dessert ok?@!

    --
    back in the day we didnt have no old school
  116. Re:Who the fuck is Sorenson? by sporktoast · · Score: 1

    Silly, don't you remember, she was the kicky marxist MTV newsbot who asked Bill Clinton whether he wore "boxers or briefs?"

    A better question would be, who the fuck is the loneliest monk?

    --
    In a related story, the IRS has recently ruled that the cost of Windows upgrades can NOT be deducted as a gambling loss.
  117. *New* mp4? by Monkeyman334 · · Score: 1

    MP4 has been around for a while as far as I know with a standard already set.

  118. Mediaplayer8 codec demos by Wag · · Score: 5

    For those of you who want to see some truly amazing advancements in Microsoft's utilization of the Mpeg4 codec, go check out this page:

    http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/en /c ompare/video.asp

    If you have a high bandwidth connection the 750k stream looks quite impressive. Almost DVD quality. The audio demo is quite good as well, sounding much better than mp3 encoding at the same data rate.

    There's a beta version of the encoder available from MS if anyone wants to fool around with it.

  119. Talk is one thing... by Picass0 · · Score: 1

    This sounds great, but until they at least have a working beta isn't this story better suited for Sourceforge?

    'Till then, it's vapor.

  120. Explain the patent/license issues for MPEG-4/3ivX by VValdo · · Score: 3

    One thing I don't get with all the MPEG-4 and the Windows Media Player and DivX ;) and all is who owns what.

    For example, I heard DivX was adapted from some leaked Microsoft source code. Does that mean that DivX is not fully free? I'm sure M$ didn't GPL that code.. so what's up with that?

    Similarly, is the MPEG-4 codec itself free? Is it like MP3 where some institute somewhere owns it? I know it's been in development for a long time, so are there relevent patents involved?

    And now 3ivX....apparently also a derivitave of someone else's work (MPEG-4)... How "legit" is the whole thing in terms of free-as-in-speech-ness? Will 3ivX-in-hardware players conceivably be legally available someday Can anyone use the 3ivX standards without paying a royalty?

    Sorry, just kinda confused. I appreciate the technological acheivements here, but I'm curious about the licensing/other issues.

    W
    -------------------

    --
    -------------------
    This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  121. another mirror... by phutureboy · · Score: 4