Slashdot Mirror


Nancy Goes Head-to-Head With MPEG-4

Justin Rossi writes: "EE Times has an article about Nancy, 'the lightest video codec' which is taking Asia by storm and finally bringing streaming Video to handheld devices. What I wonder is how it shall fare against MPEG-4, Ogg Tarkin, and MC-10."

176 comments

  1. A Condensed History of the Penis Bird by Klerck · · Score: -1

    For years now, the common American penis bird has been a staple of every American's daily diet. Whether it be penis bird sandwiches, fried penis bird, or perhaps penis bird under glass (for the rich), we all have penis bird at least once a day. Many Americans have no clue how the penis bird became so important in the pyramid of a balanced diet, so in this article I will attempt to explain its history and why it is so useful.

    In the early 1870s, Francis Zefran became the first penis bird breeder in North America. He started his famous Penis Bird Ranch in Canton, OH. At the time, not much was known of the penis bird's nutritional value, but the Penis Bird Ranch changed all of that. Not only did Francis Zefran raise penis birds to sell their colorful plumes (a VERY lucrative business), he also set up the world's first research lab dedicated solely to the study of the penis bird.

    The lab found many interesting things. First, it was discovered that the penis bird was actually semi-sentient. Second, the scientists found that the meat of the penis bird was high in protein, vitamin A, vitamin B, and calcium, while low in fat, cholestorol, and sodium. Never before had such a nutritious meal been had without supplement or fortification. The scientists of the lab recommended immediately that the penis bird become a part of every American's daily diet.

    When the news of the penis bird's usefulness reached president Rutherford B. Hayes, he was absolutely ecstatic. You see, President Hayes owed a number of favors to Francis Zefran because as I said earlier, the penis bird plume trade was an extremely lucrative business and Mr. Zefran was important in getting RBH elected through a number of monetary gifts. President Hayes immediately asked Congress to pass what we all know today as the Hayes/Zefran Penis Bird Consumption Act.

    The act did a number of things to make the penis bird a daily meal, most important of which was the requirement that for every four people in a household, one penis bird must consumed every day. Another thing the act did was create an artificial monopoly for Francis Zefran's Penis Bird Industries. The act stated that the only supplier of penis bird meat in the US would be PBI. As one would imagine, this quickly made Francis Zefran into the richest man in the world. He was soon a multi-billionaire (quadrillionaire with today's inflation). Never before had a single man seen such wealth.

    Many challenges were made to the Hayes/Zefran Penis Bird Consumption Act, and several even made it the Supreme Court. It was argued that the act was unconstitutional and went against liberty itself, but once the detractors tasted delicious penis bird meat for the first time, they immediately dropped their cases and followed the law to the letter. We all know today that penis bird is the most delicious meat man has ever known, but at that time, the only meats people ate were pork and beef.

    In the early 1970s, though, challenges to the act began again. Many argued that the monopoly given to Penis Bird Industries by the act was in all ways unamerican. The Supreme Court finally agreed, and in 1974, Section II of the act was struck down. This in effect opened the market to competition for all.

    Today, Penis Bird Industries is almost no more. Today we have the market leader Penis Bird Meat International facing against Penissoft, a recent startup. Where will the future lead the penis bird market? Only time will tell us, but one thing is certain: penis birds are here to stay!

    < )
    ( \
    X
    8====D

    -klerck

  2. Would this cause a.. by saqmaster · · Score: 1

    .. headache for the massive groups of people who encode DiVX movies anyway?

    If streaming media became a reality on handheld devices, all of these movies would have to be re-encoded and released for such mediums.

    At least the file sizes would be smaller ;)

    --
    "Never let the truth get in the way of a good story..."
    1. Re:Would this cause a.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yea sure, tell me when I can fit 300 MB DivX movie on my handheld :P

    2. Re:Would this cause a.. by Klerck · · Score: -1

      begin-base64 644 uuhello.jpg
      /9j/4AAQSkZJRgABAQEAAAAAAAD/2wBDAAYEBQYFBAYGBQYH Bw YIChAKCgkJ
      ChQODwwQFxQYGBcUFhYaHSUfGhsjHBYWICwgIyYnKSopGR8t MC 0oMCUoKSj/
      2wBDAQcHBwoIChMKChMoGhYaKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgo KC goKCgoKCgo
      KCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCj/wAARCABaAHgDASIA Ah EBAxEB/8QA
      HAAAAgIDAQEAAAAAAAAAAAAABQYEBwACAwEI/8QAPhAAAgED Ag MGAwQHBwUA
      AAAAAQIDAAQRBSESMUEGEyJRYXGBscEUMpGhFSNCUnPR8AcW JD M0U/E1YmNy
      4f/EABkBAAMBAQEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAECAwQABf/EACERAAID AA IDAQADAAAA
      AAAAAAABAhEhAxIiMUEEMkJx/9oADAMBAAIRAxEAPwD5+BrX Iy B5mszXMt4h
      715qR6I+dnfDo6n/ANjUa7YiP4gVI0VT+hIiPJ/maiXoJiJG /C c1CS0EX5MY
      9EkVME8mxkUyMym24WwQy7etIVlcmHD54lOPypx0ljdxd2pB xg DPSg19HSOW
      nwKCUGwU0dhgVFy34UHtg1vNKsv3uPap0t5sETdm/E0sohUg jB hmIUVuyK6s
      vUHFRbcXCxkLGwJHM1NttPuTE2I3PF1xUHEomR9PCqHDHcVN uY 2NuWXDY8q8
      ttLuhMzvGcHpiu76fciM8AKj3zQrTkBJ0SSMnHuKBXCTz3TR 8X BCuCSObUyz
      2c8TEgBh1A2NL19IbadgcgEda18S7YZ+TNOEix28TiEAYU5N ZS 92n1RorXuL
      XL3Ew4QF326msq/SvoIStXQgZ2JrQH9YPf8AnXorVfvCnSGL K7 NIG0eMH9w/
      OoF5EYpXU8smifZrI0mH+ED+YrXWIuOJnHMVKUbWEIyqbFsy vb EoTlDuPanD
      spfO0iJbjhbJLNyHoM0pXKccfD1GMfnR3ss6pEkm7ADDKDyI zi p32ia4+xzu
      rFrq+j47lIwB4+HGfQb8qPWFlBAoFrGGYj7/ADJ+NAordb5c 4V iRkgc+dMPZ
      +1VeGBZGAY54Ac4/lUm80rHjt4F7LTJGIeReI0UIa3iIFu7D 0q TEXsCCQbhB
      sQxwR8a11vtBHFbl47YrHjJZt8eewpGrxFVx9fYvz3rCfDI4 iz 90mvLS7uJR
      hUjVOrOaDXOuJcTMY0Z1YbArj4iob6wLdGkltwIgM+LP0qse F/ RXbxDfNaI0
      ZeSSPbng4pe1LRF1pltrVGdWPjmYYCD0PU+1dtIjvtRjDyW6 LA zDucBV4upJ
      NWEtv3dqmbqG2QcxGnGw9M7AUyj0+idFPWU7q3YK10e0e6he V5 k5yO3ETj5e
      1ZVoa4bN9HuI0R3PCeEnckkczWU6bejT/Ov6nxkDtWqf5m/L Fa hjtisQ+P8A
      GtKRistLs7tpkA/8K/SttTlEdm+eorzRsCyjCnw92uPbaoOv Oe 7Ven/NTliI
      RVzINlA91ewwJnikcCnHUOyN5pH2m501TcWMaCW5Qc4up9xg Zo J2HTj7QQMR
      ngBYe/L61fmgQRva3MM+ClwjLJnqCMH8qnxpVpqbd4VnpN0o a3 uIpA0RGDk9
      D/WfhTx2FWKW9mldASnIE7gjz9KrTQoy0DquGAJ409f3h1Bp t7 F3d1BM3dxG
      WUeEgjp0+NSlA28MvLR6upo45ZXLOMqcIXGx8/8AmlrW75U0 cX IbvIQTsVCF
      8kgH0zzxRKeW5aZ/tEJMzDOO6Ix6ZNRtRklFnKt3aHumTh8U Xp 542pIZItyb
      /hX+o9o47zUDLCGtIwcLFCCwQdQM86jxXH29ZI3WSV1XAZyB hR 5/CtLe1m+0
      +KJOBSRxAZB59Njv8K3TS7vv3LoURs5wM4HwrR1bNylCCqxp /s 2uTqLlJ5eG
      OzJUAczkdfxp9vm0nuSXaVnG/C0pG/ttVX9kJE07U0iu+KFC 7c Uo24gdxn06
      U93WtaVbjNvbxSSkcwOIn41zi2eZ3grpml3rq2NlN9m08zDh OG wfCfWsoVrW
      vXktv9ns7MK0oxxuOED1xzrK5wbOU01lnyqDtisB8Y960U7m vV O4/rrWujzE
      WpoP/Tbf+En0ofrp8S/151P0I40yA+USfSgeq3BlmY/sjb51 Cf oTjXnYwdgD
      nXCRzCfyq6rCUtAUDcJZSMjpkVSnY9Ta3scv7TJvVp2F2Cow SD 70qi1EupK2
      RNM0KC6mlt8rbXlts5G4IA+WNwfKo1va3dlO09tc91kkDvEI BH vv+dFZ1lGp
      rfWrqJSndupOOLyPvz/oVGub28yRI8RQ5BHd/XNDqXjOKV/T se 0eoRSFro8X
      QssgYHyyCK01ftq13ZNarFxcYIJCAY/AUtavPHHHheYGKAPP NC VmbaPIBGfO
      qR4okXzyTxjZpt5bW5y0HGSP2yalTais2Vht44V58QIoCJlM fF xZUgVrfXCW
      8DEMMnYDOMmhTbodzqPYMQyCVwkswK8sAUdhurSxtXeFUZkU sf M4FV7ZXrq4
      SQke1MNtwuoKnb3ppRVUiMJO7kd7y/jZhPcTDvSduFtlGayi lj cRRR8DY9qy
      gopYaF+iXw+V1546V6v3vb+da16rYbfrWgxdtLQ0luHR4znl Cn yFLrku4HVm
      HzozZtjQk/hJ9KAh8TRe+ayzVtIbj+sd9MThkQDmBTRZ3ToQ Dt 60maNcGS4y
      CCM0zRzgt7CrpC6mMC6j3a5J5DOaGXuqcXFg4OdqGX17wLuQ AP PrQ0SPM5K5
      B8z0rlBAfIcNZu5jHJKBnh5+QpQutSle+sjcSMVaZVIztg56 U2 a4eDS5AvUf
      Sq9upV/SWmK+y98CfxFBbNI5S8GyzrMusKoVztz9KFdqUa7t Yx IrBFkDYBxj
      nvR20Ze5AwM+dZMiSNwMMhunxouPuism+lirpN+0c8ccrEhs YJ 5+1OtjfBAF
      J3FIut6ebKZWjz3ZOQR0NENF1AzL3chBkTr1NLB34y9k5au0 R+ iuxKpycGso
      NY3Q3wefMVlPSAnhSlzY3Vof8TbzReroRUYDxjevpPXIIZdJ uV lijdSrbMoI
      r5uk2mbHn9aaLtCRdssPTh3miIo/2l+QpauiVZSOY/8AtMOn 7a MMf7S0BYA9
      7n9w1mf8i0fowdnZW+ziZ87n8qOvqaRpgHLnkM0s6acWcWNt ql Sc5j14edaI
      oEjfUdV3Kg8TjoPP1oWmpXvDgXDgZ5DautgoaEEgEnzHrXdU XJ 8K8/KlfkKQ
      Jby7kThknkZTzBNAtRiU3MJlH6vIBby33ppkRd/CPwqDqkUZ sp covLyrox2w
      Xgdtbi4ggGJg0ajYv1HvUb+8Nx33EqIR5Nmh9qzHQIMsTsBz rg o3FGbZRvKC
      9zriXcPdXVuR/wByHP5GhCymKXvYicruPWtZOvv9a3jA4Tt0 qM sdgiksDdjr
      KhjvtkZ35VlLcP8AqmHThNZVlPLO6H//2Q==
      ====

    3. Re:Would this cause a.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

      Nice try. Is there a browser that will interpret this inline?

    4. Re:Would this cause a.. by colmore · · Score: 1

      Right now... IBM microdrive. It's a bit extreme, and it will kill your batteries, but the hardcore Ipaqers all have 'em.

      --
      In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
  3. WHAT CNN DOESNT TELL YOU by King+Africa · · Score: -1


    (look in my history for earlier news reports)

    04 December 2001 : Taliban in Kandahar Remain Unaffected by US Bombing

    ISLAMABAD (Islam News): The Governor of Kandahar, Mulla Muhammad Hasan Rahmani said Monday that despite heavy American bombing on Kandahar, the Taliban forces remain ready to fight. He further said that Mulla Muhammad Umar was safe and that the Taliban are defending Kandahar under his command and directions. He added that only Afghan civilians are being killed by the bombardment. "Nevertheless, we are ever-determined and our morale is high like before."
    Mujahid Kills Three Northern Alliance Soldiers in Kabul

    KABUL (Islam News): An Arab Mujaahid who was carrying explosives on his body detonated himself when attacked by Northern Alliance troops. Instead of surrendering himself, he preferred to go to Paradise, while sending the Alliance troops to the Hell-fire (we ask Allah that it is so).

    Brothels and Vulgar Cinemas Re-Open in Kabul and Herat

    KABUL, HERAT (Islam News): After the departure of the Taliban from Kabul and Herat, the vulgarity is rapidly increasing in these areas. Saunas and swimming pools which the Taliban closed for women have already been re- opened by the Northern Alliance. Furthermore, prostitutes have re-started their activites outside these swimming pools and saunas. Is this the type of 'modern' Islam that many anti-Taliban hypocrites amongst the Muslims have been calling for?

    Anti-Taliban Pushtun Convoy Destroyed

    KANDAHAR: During American bombardment of Kandahar Province, troops led by anti-Taliban Pushtun, Gul Agha, attempted an advance from Takhta Pul towards Kandahar Airport. They were ambushed by units of the Taliban. Three of their vehicles were destroyed, three of them were killed and dozens were injured. This was the first attempted advance on Kandahar Airport and it was rendered futile by the Taliban. It should be made clear that there have been many news reports concerning offensives on Kandahar for quite a few days. However, all of these reports have been baseless; the aforementioned attack was the first attempted advance of the enemy on Kandahar Airport.

    Martyrdom Operation Kills Five Americans in Kandahar Province

    QUETTA (Baluchistan Times): Mullah Ameenullah, the Taliban official for border affairs, reported that five American Special Forces troops were killed and 20 were injured Monday in a martyrdom operation near the small Kandahar Airport, 20km from Kandahar city. In the ensuing firefight, eight of the Taliban were martyred, may Allah accept them.

    FBI Opens Immigration Controls at Karachi Airport, Pakistan

    KARACHI (Daily Jang): The Pakistani newspaper, Daily Jang, reported over the weekend that the Pakistan Government, in line with its betrayal of Islam and the Muslims, has allowed the FBI to open immigration controls at Karachi International Airport. Their job is to scan the passports and details of every traveller leaving Pakistan and check them through American intelligence computers in case any traveller is wanted by America for 'Islamic activism'. Further posts are planned in international airports in Lahore, Islamabad and Peshawar. This dispels the rumours that the Pakistan Government was pursuing a double policy of cooperation with the United States.

    www.qoqaz.net

  4. If it's as good as they say... by BitwizeGHC · · Score: 2, Offtopic

    If the video codec really is all it's cracked up to be, then it looks like WE HAEV A WINNAR. I doubt that MPEG-4 can hold up for very long against something which achieves similar results in a tiny fraction of the memory and CPU power without serious push from a monopoly or oligopoly.

    --
    N4st0r, trixx0r h0bb1tz0rz! Th3y st0l3 0ur pr3c10uzz!
    1. Re:If it's as good as they say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
      If the video codec really is all it's cracked up to be, then it looks like WE HAEV A WINNAR. I doubt that MPEG-4 can hold up for very long against something which achieves similar results in a tiny fraction of the memory and CPU power without serious push from a monopoly or oligopoly.

      Well every 6 months or so, someone announces a "NEW! REVOLUTIONARY! FAST! ULTRA-COMPRESSING!" video codec. Until now they failed to deliver their promises.

  5. Future of codecs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you want Nancy's video in Nancy, or Ogg Nancy?

  6. Hmmmm by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 3, Informative
    I still don't get this hype about "video-on-cell-phone". Now correct me if I'm wrong but standalone "videophones" were "to be the future", they never catched on. Why would it be different for cell-phones even if you have the bandwith?

    I just can say: cool a new codec, which will perhaps allow me to watch some extra pr0n on this slow computer....but then I'm running Linux and this thing is proprietary, so implementation probability is about 10%. However the chinese got their hands in it, so not all is lost.

    1. Re:Hmmmm by autopr0n · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Well, we never had the bandwidth for real videophones.. they were all choppy as fuck when they came out, but now that we do have the bandwidth people are doing video conferencing with webcams and such all the time. It just isn't exciting anymore.

      A cell phone with a cam and enough bandwidth (read 3g networks) might actually be popular since you'll actually be able to get a decent video feed.

      --
      autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    2. Re:Hmmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "..and has been designed into Sharp Corp.'s latest Zaurus PDA."
      As Zaurus runs on linux, you probably wont be alone.

    3. Re:Hmmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, the BBC were using video satalite phones for their reporters in Afghanistan, before the Northern Alliance started winning and they were able to get proper OB rigs into the country.

    4. Re:Hmmmm by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

      japan has video payphones & video cellphones already due to their high bandwidth data comms rather then the 9600 we have here (uk!)

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    5. Re:Hmmmm by ugglan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Just think about it for a second. Stationary videophones failed because everyone knows pretty much what our friends look like (and if you didn't, you would after the first call).

      But cellphones are mobile. Suddenly we will have the ability to transmit snapshots and live moving images and sound of our current surroundings, wherever we are. This is personal live television (and more. much more.)

    6. Re:Hmmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      Firstly, the word is Satellite. Secondly, sat phones are just good old H.263 variants, with all the attendant CPU problems. Learn to do some fucking research before posting you fool.

    7. Re:Hmmmm by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 1

      But do they use it? I mean, it's all nice to show off but if those phones are not really practical they are a non-issue. So you have video payphone, but you need to call your ma: now well ma has a normal phone (as most people do, even in Japan, I think), so the picture stays black. Unless a lot of people actually *use* it, it makes no sense.
      As a comparision, 5 years ago, I read in my cell phone manual something about SMS. I loved the idea and wanted to try it: bummer, to whom could I send it since virtually none of my friends had a cellphone. I send my first SMS about 2 years after the purchase of the phone, mostly because *then* cellphones were popular (and I had a dinosaur model *grin*)

    8. Re:Hmmmm by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 1

      Best reply I got up until now: I didn't think of it as a handheld wireless webcam. Sounds fine, but on the other hand, how many times did you call a friend which you wanted to show him/her something in your surroundings. Most of the time you call someone to make an appointment or the like (well, I do...) I thought it would be nice to show text or something from a paper/screen but I don't think the quality will allow that (unless Nancy is *really* good).
      Well best idea so far, but not really an killer app...

    9. Re:Hmmmm by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 1
      Question: when was the last time you did videoconferencing?

      I know, I attended some courses back in 1998 that were given by means of videoconferencing, but that's about it. I also have a friend who is often in Mexico and uses a webcam to talk to his familiy here at certain times: apart from that....sorry, never saw a real life example.
      Video conferencing is still a very small nice.

    10. Re:Hmmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Well, we never had the bandwidth for real videophones.

      I believe I once heard that we've had the bandwidth for analog video phones for about 40 years, now. I read that they were demonstrated in the 60's, but the telephone company basically didn't see the point, and never marketed them.

    11. Re:Hmmmm by jacoplane · · Score: 1

      You wouldn't want to just use this to show something to your friends. Maybe you see something somewhere that you'd like to look at yourself later. Kind of a camcorder built into your phone. This kind of thing would be awesome for parties, or for when you see that :P

    12. Re:Hmmmm by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 1
      Ehm....for plain snapshots a cellphone with integrated digital camera (cheap versions of course 640x480x24 in jpeg) would be more than enough. You don't need a fancy video codec for that.

      How many times do you want to temporary record some kind of moving video: I recon, when Aunt Stacy falls with her face in the aniversary cake I'm sure it will be great to see that a 100 times...but then you were probably not filming anyway ;-)

    13. Re:Hmmmm by ugglan · · Score: 1
      how many times did you call a friend which you wanted to show him/her something in your surroundings.

      Many, many times. Just the other day I was looking at a new apartment and wanted a second opinion from my friend, I really wanted to be able to just quickly show her around the place, it would have been perfect with a mobile videophone.

      And I'm sure you will think of ways to use it too as soon as you realize that you actually can! What I'm getting at is that once the possibility is there and is simple/transparent enough, people will dream up a thousand uses for it. (Including 950 uses for sex of course.)

    14. Re:Hmmmm by RedX · · Score: 2
      How many times do you want to temporary record some kind of moving video: I recon, when Aunt Stacy falls with her face in the aniversary cake I'm sure it will be great to see that a 100 times...but then you were probably not filming anyway ;-)

      Yeah, I mean just how useful were those portable video cameras in NYC on Sept 11? Oh, that's right, they happened to catch some of the most broadcast video clips of the attacks. And imagine what types of images we could've gotten if the people sending IM's and email from in and around the twin towers during the attacks happened to have a video cam on their cellphone where they could've snapped some stills or captured a bit of motion video.

    15. Re:Hmmmm by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 1
      I'm still wondering when I personally could use it... Only on very very rare occasions, which most of the time are forseeable and thus a regular camera would do (or computer/webcam setup). Okay you lose the realtime, but you gain quality.

      Besides, how many times do you visit an Apartment in your life *and* want a second opinion of your friend? Even the most mobile people will not move more than once in a year. Even if this friend is an architect who could point out faulty stuff in the apartment, viewing over cell-phone won't give him a decent impression to make a good judgment. He'd better come in person and use your regular cell-phone to make an appointment. Also think of the lighting: notice how often normal pictures/normal video have bad lighting? This will not be good on a portable vidphone.

      I know this is slashdot, but real-life interaction beats any electronic interface man can invent.

    16. Re:Hmmmm by Corrado · · Score: 2

      Well, I go to the grocery store all the time and I usually come back with the wrong thing. Could this help?

      Also, what about Christmas|Birthday|Wedding shopping. There have been many times that I cannot explain what I am looking for to my wife|sister|mother|father (who's in the store). She calls me and shows me the product and I reply "No, the red one on the left". Very cool!

      --
      KangarooBox - We make IT simple!
    17. Re:Hmmmm by operagost · · Score: 1

      All you need is an ISDN link for pretty nice quality. The problem is still cost. Both ends still often need to have the same equipment to ensure compatibility.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    18. Re:Hmmmm by colmore · · Score: 1

      Here at school tons of kids have cheapo webcam/microphone setups that came with the computer. I know for a fact that people are using internet videophones.

      --
      In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
    19. Re:Hmmmm by fishebulb · · Score: 1

      reminds me of that dilbert chapter. most people are ugly and you dont want to see them. id rather see an attractive looking person on the phone so he used the idea of digital representatives. sounds like an applicaple idea for this type

    20. Re:Hmmmm by colmore · · Score: 1

      This all sounds a lot like the arguments against any massively successful new technology. Remember the best products don't fill needs, they create them. You don't need a cell phone. Ten years ago you got along just fine with payphones and your home, you just planned around the fact that sometimes you'd be out of touch. Similarly you don't need an always ready video broadcast / recording capability, but in five to ten years, you may very well want it pretty badly.

      --
      In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
    21. Re:Hmmmm by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 0, Troll
      Sure, the situation you describe might have been very interesting (great, people sending live-video from *within* the towers....how would that look on CNN...not good, believe me...the calls from the plane were alreaduy "too hard").

      The wireless networks would have collapsed within three minutes, having the same net effect: no video coverage at all.

    22. Re:Hmmmm by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 1

      Well, there is always the "lazy way": give money to the one that wants that present and let them choose themselves. That is how I handle this situation.

    23. Re:Hmmmm by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 1
      Don't misunderstand me, I'm not against new technology. I just try to put me in the schoes of "Joe Normal Consumer".

      There always is a "need" for some kind of technology: I have a cellphone, to get to your example. The reason I bought is (5 years back, they were very expensive then) was that I was a student and had often to take the train and needed to tell my parents when I arrived. Since that day I had a cellphone, nowadays I still do but I use it max. once a month when I really could have avoided it.

      The real question here is: what value do video-cellphones add to the "Joe Normal Consumer". If there is none (e.g. WAP), it won't be embraced.

    24. Re:Hmmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "choppy as fuck"
      Hmm, interesting.
    25. Re:Hmmmm by Sentry21 · · Score: 2

      I still don't get this hype about "video-on-cell-phone". Now correct me if I'm wrong but standalone "videophones" were "to be the future", they never catched on. Why would it be different for cell-phones even if you have the bandwith?

      First, ever seen Earth: Final Conflict? The Globals they use are quite cool, and have a lot of functions other than just video chat, though it IS nice to see the person you're talking to.

      Other applications that spring to mind are calling home and looking at live feeds from your home security cameras, or interpreting the body language of people you're talking to.

      You could use it to show someone where you are (example use is construction sites, to shoe how done is done), or what you're talking about ('no no honey, THIS kind of margerine). Theoretically, you could use them as wireless webcams or videocameras, and take inventory of an area - documenting fire damage, for example, theft, or just before/after shots of your yard during a landscaping project.

      There are lots of applications that I can think of now, and probably more that could be thought of by people after the technology is commonplace.

      Me, I find the idea sort of exciting.

      --Dan

    26. Re:Hmmmm by TheNut · · Score: 1

      How many times, 200 years ago, did someone decide they *REALLY* need to make an appointment *right* now?

      15 Years ago, how many of us needed to call people up and tell them they were on the bus?

      If people can show others their surroundings, uses for it will spring up. This has been and always will be the way with technology.

      --

      Learning at some schools is like drinking from a Firehose

    27. Re:Hmmmm by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 1
      Oh, 200 years ago people did make appointments...ever heard of an "audition with the king"? Of course: you had to go to the castle, ask for your appointment and hope. But really how different is it from today? You still need to make appointments "the conventional way" (that is asking and hoping) nowadays. Nobody gets an appointment "right away" because you have a cellphone. That's just timeshifting: instead of making a mental note and calling later, you call immediately. Note that if someone wants an appointment with me, he has to call or email me and then -perhaps- I'll consider giving him some time next week.

      15 years ago plenty of people wanted to call when waiting on a bus and that is why often a phonebooth was near the busstop (at least it often is in smaller villages).

      Nothing really changes, you know... Guessing what users will do is quite a hard task: remember WAP? How many use it? It was "the thing that users will jump on". Sure, everyone has a WAP-phone, but people who really often use it? Nah, no way.
      I'm talking about frequent usage by common users: only future will tell. I'm all for more bandwith, more multimedia, more fancy stuff...but then I am a geek and it needs to be affordable to get widely adopted, otherwhise it'll stay a geek-toy that few will use. BR

    28. Re:Hmmmm by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 1
      Troll moderation? Nice... must be due to my nick or an American that can't cope that I think that the calls from the planes were "hard". Honestly, those made me *cry*.

      A fact is that GSM networks all over the world collapsed or overloaded when the 11/09 events happened... What makes anyone think video transmissions from cell-phones would be different?
      Yes, this is my troll acount, but it doens't mean I troll all the time.

    29. Re:Hmmmm by Maso · · Score: 1

      Video phones sound good until my wife rings me up while i'm in the pub/playing golf/etc and says, "You said you were at work, show me."

      I predict they wont take of for this reason - Do kiddies really want their mum to know where they are?

    30. Re:Hmmmm by Fjord · · Score: 2

      Kids are both bad at thinking through the consequences of having such a technology and typically unable to dictate to their parents how they can be monitored. If anything, parents being able to better spy on their kids would make these things catch on more.

      Another factor: phone sex

      --
      -no broken link
    31. Re:Hmmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mmmh .. what I can notice is that if you were working for a space tech company .. in an environment allowing you to show your geeky face to the tiny aliens .. you would change your, wouldn't you ? who knows ... Fork !!! Yes, that was a forking comment.

    32. Re:Hmmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not "firstly," it's "first." Adverbs don't modify linking verbs.

      Correct usage would be:
      "I reamed your cum-guzzling dumpster slut of a mother firstly, before my dog did."

  7. What a strange name for a video codec by autopr0n · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "Nancy"? Was it named after some coders girlfriend or something?

    From a CPU (and therefore an electrical) standpoint the algorithm is better because it uses much simpler mathematics. But I wonder what the video quality would look like. Is it comparable to Mpeg4 based codecs like DivX? This is great for handheld devices, but I doubt it'll make much of a dent on the desktop unless the image quality is a lot better. We already have way more CPU power then we know what to do with :P

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    1. Re:What a strange name for a video codec by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Both Nancy & Ogg Tarkin will fail, if for no other reason than the dumb names that have been given to them.

    2. Re:What a strange name for a video codec by woodstok · · Score: 2, Informative

      It wouldnt surprise me a bit if it was named after someones girlfriend. However I dont see that as a bad thing. Just look at Debian, it was partly named after Ian's girlfriend Deborah and it turned out the be the best linux distribution ever.

    3. Re:What a strange name for a video codec by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

      Nancy is OK... and it won't fail because of a stupid name.

      Just think about Bill Gates who named his company after his dick.... didnt stop him.

    4. Re:What a strange name for a video codec by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      coders don't have girlfriends, you fool!

    5. Re:What a strange name for a video codec by ayjay29 · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Nancy"? Was it named after some coders girlfriend or something?

      Can't decide if you are sexist, assuming coders cannot be female, or I am homophonic, assuming coders cannot be lesbians.

      --
      Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated up.
    6. Re:What a strange name for a video codec by ayjay29 · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      Fisking MS spell checker. I'm not homophonic, I'm a hay thrasher!

      --
      Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated up.
    7. Re:What a strange name for a video codec by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      "Nancy"? Was it named after some coders girlfriend or something?

      More likely someone's secret crush. As every geek knows, nothing get the ladies like naming proprietary codecs after them. Except maybe naming a virus after them.

    8. Re:What a strange name for a video codec by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      "Nancy"? Was it named after some coders girlfriend or something?

      WTF is wrong with that? Every day I use a computer that contains chips inside it named Agnes, Paula, and Denise. :-)

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    9. Re:What a strange name for a video codec by Judebert · · Score: 1

      Woo-hoo! Another Amiga user!

      --

      For geek dads: Contraction Timer

    10. Re:What a strange name for a video codec by operagost · · Score: 1

      I call my computer lots of names, but most of them are not as pretty as those. :p

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    11. Re:What a strange name for a video codec by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does the slashdot crowd not get out? Everybody knows a "Nancy" is a slang for a girlish homosexual. I thought the slang was well-known enough that I was surprised to see it being used it for a video algorism.
      http://www.pinkuk.com/interests/slang.asp

      (And I don't live in the UK, either..., it's just the first hit off a google search of "nancy" & "slang")

    12. Re:What a strange name for a video codec by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a comic strip called Nancy, which I think sucks... but apparently it is well known among artists because the artist that drew it used the fewest number of shapes possible to get the idea across. Ie, three flowers in a bunch of flowers, and no more.

      This may be what this codec's name is referencing.

  8. Probably not by autopr0n · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The benefit of this codec is it's ease of computation, not necessarily it's image quality/bandwidth ratio.

    Anyway, since it's so quick to encode (you can do it real-time on a 50mips machine... so cell phone, pda, whatever) You'll probably be able to convert the files as fast as you can copy them to the device, or if you want to stream the videos to a cell phone you can have your computer decode them and then reencode them for broadcast.

    Unfortunately this thing seems to be a lot more tied up legaly then MPEG :( It could be a cool way to put videos on my iPaq (Mpeg is still a little choppy)

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    1. Re:Probably not by sgurujee · · Score: 1

      Do we have any specifications??
      How fast is it ??? Whats the compression ratio?

      Also, I somehow do not know how catchy the video email is going to be . Does this mean streaming video ??

    2. Re:Probably not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      it's THAN! with a fucking A you CUNT!

    3. Re:Probably not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      will somebody PLEASE mod autopr0n's shitpost down???

  9. Quicktime / realplayer? by forgoil · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Two formats I can't play in my favorite player (which happens to be just the mediaplayer, but it's the same thing if you are using other players). Will this be the same thing all over again? I don't mind new formats, especially if they are good, but if I can't watch them where I want to, who cares? If the big companies has to buy licenses to get them in their devices, and then force all publishers to use their special software... you know the drill.

    I don't care if the software is closed source as long as protocols, codecs, formats, etc are open so anyone can implement and use them.

    1. Re:Quicktime / realplayer? by larkost · · Score: 2

      Well.. the QuickTime format is freely available, it is the codecs that are not. In fact codecs are the most difficult part of the whole process, the most expensive to develop, and the parts that make the most sense to sell in a capitalistic (or better said monetary reward based system). The Ogg video codec is a neat idea, and I am waiting to see if they have any real success.

    2. Re:Quicktime / realplayer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your freedom should matter more to you. Read the essays and hear the lectures on GNU's philosophy page for reasons why your freedom should matter most. By definition people are not free to implement closed protocols. Nobody can legally rewrite Sorenson's codec, Microsoft's codec and others. Learn to value your freedom.

    3. Re:Quicktime / realplayer? by kubla2000 · · Score: 1

      Or, run Linux and use one of the many players that's able to use various open-source codecs and find that your one player is an integrated multi-media device.

  10. Good enough for now? by standards · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think Nancy is well-suited for devices that don't try to be video devices - like cell phones and PDAs.

    In the relative scheme of things, non-video devices have low-resolution, low quality displays. And obviously the manufacturers of these devices are unwilling to spend significant CPU or board real estate for video purposes.

    Devices that need to deliver high-quality video won't bother with Nancy - as anything that isn't a cell phone will have the power and capability to use a quality codec.

    Nancy is just a stop-gap solution for delivering very low quality video to underpowered devices. As soon as the video demands increase, or as soon as the power of these devices rise, Nancy will be obsolete.

    1. Re:Good enough for now? by ghostprovidence · · Score: 1

      For my money, i say there's always room for more efficient solutions. How many of us are running "obsolete"code in one place or another 'cause it happens to work better?

  11. Market wont accept... by macemoneta · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...video conferencing on the desktop, which has been available for years. Why does anyone think that they will want it in their cell phone?

    --

    Can You Say Linux? I Knew That You Could.

    1. Re:Market wont accept... by Rog7 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Because they can. When everyone says that videophones have already flopped they're assuming the concept just doesn't work or isn't as cool as well all thought it would be.

      What you're missing is that once something becomes cheap and convenient, it doesn't need to be supercool. This sounds like one more step towards mass-market feasibility.

    2. Re:Market wont accept... by budGibson · · Score: 1

      This comment is not as obvious as it seems. The market will not accept the price performance trade-off it has been presented with on the desktop. Further, because of this price performance trade-off, no critical mass of users has built up to make it really worth it.

      The handheld market could change an important part of this equation by increasing the base of other users I could interact with. Further, if it is sufficiently low cost, people might not mind low image quality or slow frame rates. I hold up as my example jpeg photography which is used a lot on the net. The quality is not photographic, but because of convenvience, it is finding alot of uses. Alot of people have them; everyone can read them.

    3. Re:Market wont accept... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ummm... We use cell phones for just about everything in Europe. Americans are so America centric.

      Just because you all have not caught on yet, due to a lack of your standards body agreeing with the rest of the worlds, doesn't mean something will not be accepted.

    4. Re:Market wont accept... by sam@caveman.org · · Score: 2

      luckily cingular is buying 4 billion dollars of european cell (nokia, ericsson, siemens) tech to bring 3G to the states. zdnet carries the story.

      -sam

      --
      burn the computers. go back to the abacus.
    5. Re:Market wont accept... by icejai · · Score: 0

      Look at Japan. Practically every single friggn cell phone sold there has video conferencing capabilities. And they fly off the shelves!

      It's all about novelty.

      A cell phone is a cell phone is a cell phone, but teens don't care about cell phones. They want to dress them up like barbie dolls like they did with tamagotchi's, and be able to talk with their friends face to face when it's not physically possible. Cell phones are practically toys over there! They string them around their necks like necklaces for goodness sakes! You ever walked into a chinese mall in your city/town? Heck, there are ENTIRE STORES who's entire revenue stream relies on kids wanting to 'soup-up' their cell phones with lights, face plates, and background icons!

      If there's a market for cell phone face plates, flashing keypads and antennae... there *will* be a market for video conferencing on cell phones.

      There just needs to be a reliable (and cheap) way of supporting the technology.

      Of course this might not happen in the U.S. Being able to make video-conferencing calls may require a level of geekiness that your average joe bloe won't have.

      Japan's teenagers are #1 as far as their math and science skills go... which may mean they've got more geeks per capita than the U.S. will ever have!

    6. Re:Market wont accept... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heck, there are ENTIRE STORES who's entire revenue stream relies on kids wanting to 'soup-up' their cell phones with lights, face plates, and background icons!

      Just wait until they start puting big wing spoilers on them!

  12. But don't forget the rest of tonight's lineup! by inio · · Score: 1

    Melanie Haber vs. Cinepak!
    Audrey Farber vs. MPEG2!
    Suzan Underhill vs. Sorenson!

    and tonights prize fight...

    Betty-Jo Bialowski vs. DiVX!

    1. Re:But don't forget the rest of tonight's lineup! by Scutter · · Score: 1

      Didn't I hear that line on the other side of the record?

      --

      "Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
    2. Re:But don't forget the rest of tonight's lineup! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's OK... they're speaking Chinese.

      What about my Pickle?!?

      You're lucky I let you keep your brown paper bag!

  13. Speculation (Re:If it's as good as they say...) by Hanno · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If [...] then it looks like WE HAVE A WINNAR

    Bla.

    Has anybody actually seen it and compared it to existing solutions?

    Until then, both the article and the company's website are a little too light on details for me.

    --

    ------------------
    You may like my a cappella music
    1. Re:Speculation (Re:If it's as good as they say...) by digitalunity · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Maybe you weren't paying attention. With backers like Sharp, you're guranteed it's not vapor. The basis for the algorithm easily leads me to believe the specs. Floating point is too complex for phones. This thing doesn't require anything that a cheap, full features microcontroller can't do. The fact that other companies like Vodafone are interested also gives it credibility. I can see this thing getting messy though, being owned almost 3/4's by the chinese government.

      :(

      --
      You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
    2. Re:Speculation (Re:If it's as good as they say...) by -brazil- · · Score: 1

      The question is not what it requires, the question is what it produces. Producing shadows that vaguely look like a thing you're trying to describe doesn't require anything that someone with two working hands can't do, so would you call that a promising new digital video codec? And the idea that big names guarantee a non-vapor product is a joke.

      --

      The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.
      --Henry Kissinger

    3. Re:Speculation (Re:If it's as good as they say...) by deanj · · Score: 1

      Yes, I saw it on a that Linux PDA at JavaOne last June. I was pretty impressed. I don't have much experience with MPEG-4, but Nancy did look pretty good.

  14. Name is irrelevant by October_30th · · Score: 0

    If software fails because of the given name, there's no hope for humanity.

    --
    The owls are not what they seem
    1. Re:Name is irrelevant by alen · · Score: 1

      Take a look at names Microsoft gives it's technology vs Linux. Active Directory, Intellimirror and other catchy names is what sell it. Who want to surf the Internet with Konqueror? Sounds like a death metal band.

    2. Re:Name is irrelevant by gpinzone · · Score: 0

      Take a look at names Microsoft gives it's technology vs Linux. Active Directory, Intellimirror and other catchy names is what sell it. Who want to surf the Internet with Konqueror? Sounds like a death metal band.

      Close enough...

    3. Re:Name is irrelevant by Rob+Kaper · · Score: 1
      Who wants to surf the Internet with Konqueror? Sounds like a death metal band.


      First came the (Netscape) navigator, then the (MS Internet) explorer, then the conqueror.


      You might dislike the adjusted spelling which emphasises on using KDE technology, but Konqueror is actually one of the better names used for an open source project.


      Or would you have preferred KDE Internet Suite 2001 Professional Edition including HTTP Data Exchange Manager 2001 and HTML Renderer 2001 SE (with CSS Plus!) ? ;-0


      Names like Active Directory and Intellimirror are just as meaningless to me. Is Active Directory something to store the files I am working on right now? What exactly is that directory doing with my files anyway? Does it work with passive FTP? Can I use Intellimirror with my AMD as well? Is it a proxy/cache server?


      That said, I do understand how the phrase smooth fonts is more suitable for most users than anti-aliasing.


      But eventually users don't care about the name. Noone avoided MP3's because they weren't named .DigitalMusic, right?

    4. Re:Name is irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Noone avoided MP3's because they weren't named .DigitalMusic, right?

      I believe the name does matter to a certain extent. MP3 is easy to say, and sort of catchy. Ogg on the other hand, well anyone trying to say that will sound like an idiot!

      Notice Microsoft doesn't have any product names that are difficult to say?

    5. Re:Name is irrelevant by abischof · · Score: 2
      • Who want to surf the Internet with Konqueror? Sounds like a death metal band.
      Just to clarify, "Konqueror" sounds more like a power metal band than a death metal band. Some power metal bands include Demons & Wizards, Kamelot, and Virgin Steele. And, here're some examples of death metal bands: Cannibal Corpse, Morbid Angel, and Solstice of Suffering. See the difference? :)

      See also the Metal FAQ for more info on metal genres.
      --

      Alex Bischoff
      HTML/CSS coder for hire

  15. *BSD is dying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic
    Netcraft confirms: *BSD is dying

    Yet another crippling bombshell hit the beleaguered *BSD community when recently IDC confirmed that *BSD accounts for less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of the latest Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as further exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

    You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood. FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers.

    Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

    OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.

    Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.

    All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS hobbyist dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.

    Fact: *BSD is dead

  16. government regulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    I would how americans feel about the government mandating interoperable cell phone systems (eg. gsm in europe). Its interesting that these countries like China and Korea are going to get working 3G systems up and running years ahead of the USA, in part because the government steps in and regulates standards. Of course USA cell phones have standards, each carrier has their own :)

  17. Cell phones by YearOfTheDragon · · Score: 1, Redundant

    As soon as the video demands increase, or as soon as the power of these devices rise, Nancy will be obsolete.
    That's true. But isn't that what happens with all technology?
    You can't blame 8086 because was powerless compared to a Cray.
    Each device has his marked and Nancy/Cell phones can get one. People is going to use cell phones video conference and then, not now, is going to need improved displays and high-quality video.
    Nancy is not just a stop-gap solution, Nancy is a good solution to cell phone video if is as good as Koichi Kato said.

    --
    -= If you fight Dragons long enough, you will become a Dragon =-
    1. Re:Cell phones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As soon as the video demands increase, or as soon as the power of these devices rise, Nancy will be obsolete.

      That's true. But isn't that what happens with all technology?

      No. Some technologies are long-lived. ASCII lives on, even under the guise of Unicode. SQL databases still exist, although they've been about for 20 years now. Unix, even longer.

      Good ideas last a long time, and stop-gap solutions usually do not (notable exceptions: leaded gasoline and VHS). CODASYL and PowerBuilder were good ideas for the moment. So may be Nancy. A good but temporary solution.

  18. Uh...why? by A_Non_Moose · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Sharp was one of the early adopters of MPEG-4, introducing an MPEG-4 video recorder and a Zaurus with an MPEG-4 player in December 2000.

    Interesting, yes, but used where? The article does not say.

    They also talk about "block noise" which you can see in DivX quite readily if you have a large piece of video recorded at too low a bitrate.
    It is like watching a movie with a 1/4inch chicken wire overlay.

    One of the problems with DivX that I have noticed is that it does not handle low light secenes very well...and it seems there are algorithms that compensate, because now some encoders complain about bright/outdoor scenes "going white"...heh.

    oh, and this caught my eye...
    The company has demonstrated video transmission to a notebook PC at 512 kbits/second, to a PDA at 256 kbits/s and to a cell phone at 28.8 to 32 kbits/s.
    ...and to charter pipeline (aka charter "sipping straw") at (drum roll please) a max of 12Kbytes a second... Road kill on the information highway.

    People are going to ask which Mpeg4 codec is best, and, well that is an issue we will have to treat "Ginger"ly...hehehee

    --
    Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
    1. Re:Uh...why? by autopr0n · · Score: 2

      One of the problems with DivX that I have noticed is that it does not handle low light secenes very well

      Well like anything it depends a lot on what encoder is used. It sounds more like a problem with the encoder, or perhaps the person encoding decided to use a quicker integer algorithem rather then using floating point.

      --
      autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    2. Re:Uh...why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      why the FUCK can't you spell THAN? are you the stupidest fucker n Earth?

    3. Re:Uh...why? by A_Non_Moose · · Score: 1

      True, very true.

      If you take an encoder such as virtual dub (quite the capable app, just wish there was a mac port) even on the highest setting 6000Kb/s(?) the dark scenes improve in quality, somewhat.

      For instance the "dropping coconuts in CastAway".
      From the DVD/Mpeg2 it is a rather dark scene, but on the highest Mpeg4 setting it is dark & "muddy" and gets rather pixellated.
      I've noticed that while you can't see the "grid", there are still "striations/gradation/banding" (one of those words).

      Ironically, the ffmpeg codec for Quicktime 5 (happy 10th, btw) kicks ass if you have the pro version...some of the tricks (cache hints, preload --if you have a Gig of memory/lotsa time-- and use the high quality and single field) yield and excellent movie/presentation in full screen even for "smaller than normal" Mpeg4 clips.

      Quite literally I am surprised that this has not taken the Anime/cartoon "world" by storm.
      I saw (and later re-did a 1 cd) version of Titan AE; Barely could tell the difference between the two even before "tweaking" the player.
      I payed special attention to the high action scenes. Very little, if any, pixellation during high action scenes, freeze frames et al.

      Maybe I did not pay attention enough, but I wonder if this means a re-encode of all the Mpeg4 movies, or would the new coded just "resample" them live?

      Thought processes shutting down...coffee needed.

      Cheers.

      Moose.

      --
      Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
  19. What about compression rates? by bogado · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I don't seem to find anywhere how well this "nancy" compares in the compression rate arena. How much does it compress with the same amount of lossiness? This is very important for this, because if yu don't care about the rate I could simply use gzip to compress my movies and have no loss at all.

    --
    []'s Victor Bogado da Silva Lins

    ^[:wq

    1. Re:What about compression rates? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gzip does almost nothing on video. The data isn't 'compressable' in that sense, but if you allow a bit of loss, you can create a simpler (choppier, noisier) version of the signal in less space. (You'll be lucky to get 5% with Gzip where MPEG-4 will get you %90)

    2. Re:What about compression rates? by Omniscient+Ferret · · Score: 1
      A Google search turned up a page with a comparison (not shown):

      "... Nancy Codec can compress with both higher quality and two times compression rate as compared with DV..."
      If you want lossless compression, (apparently) you could save 10 to 33% space.

    3. Re:What about compression rates? by bogado · · Score: 2

      It does compress, but it will get it's normal rates, witch is about 1/2, for video this is just like nothing. Just imagine a 640x480x32bbpx30fps you get in raw mode is about 36000 kb per second with gzip this will become 18000kb per second.

      Any video codec get you much higher rates.

      --
      []'s Victor Bogado da Silva Lins

      ^[:wq

  20. Nancy and Flash by SynKKnyS · · Score: 1

    I tried posting this earlier but my ISP was having some difficulties with /.

    Take a look at this:

    Macromedia Flash is a structured vector based web content player. It has the ability to display quite a few 2D alpha rendered polygons from a low bandwidth connection.

    Nancy is a codec that takes 1x1 to 32x32 polygon shapes and encodes them into polygon data. To decode this data it just renders the polygons and blends them to create the movie.

    So consider this. Wouldn't it be possible to use a Nancy encoder to embed fast 30 fps full-motion color videos into Flash that would still run on Joe Modem's 56k? Most "embedded Flash movies" today are black and white sihlouettes and color ones need connections much higher than 256 kbit/s just to view at a normal rate. This technology would not just only be good for cell phones, PDAs, and other portable devices because the desktop could use this too.

    1. Re:Nancy and Flash by October_30th · · Score: -1, Offtopic
      Flash fucking sucks.

      I won't visit sites that use it simply out of the principle that unless you can't do it with plain old text, you should not put it on the web at all.

      --
      The owls are not what they seem
    2. Re:Nancy and Flash by CmderTaco · · Score: -1

      Don't worry, it wasn't just your ISP. You can attribute your troubles with Slashdot with the fact that thier Slashcode is unstable and crashes alot. The fact that this site goes down more than a $5 hooker on Time Square doesn't bother me. It is the fact that the news on here typically sucks and is usually based on opinion and not fact.

      --
      - Marco
    3. Re:Nancy and Flash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      the news on here typically sucks and is usually based on opinion and not fact

      Thank you for proving your own point, and saving me the hassle of ridiculing you.

  21. MPEG-4 is more general-purpose by reachinmark · · Score: 1
    MPEG-4 was never meant to be a simple video compression format. It also supports a variety of extra features such as streaming 3D geometry, text-to-speech, etc. Check out MPEG-4, why use it? to see some details about the extra features it offers.

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

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

  22. Re:phone sex by alen · · Score: 3, Funny

    Just imagine the possiblities for live phone sex shows. The porn industry will love this. And why have phone sex with your wife with only words? Soon she will be able to strip for you whereever you are in the world.

  23. Competition = Good by HanzoSan · · Score: 2


    Competition = Better Codecs.

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    1. Re:Competition = Good by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      The only thing worth noticing here is that this isn't an actual competition. At least not with MPEG-4 or Ogg Tarkin.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
  24. yeh, 'partly' by autopr0n · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Debian actually sounds cool. I'd bet anything that if the distro were just called "Deborah" it wouldn't have much marketshare. Names really do affect people. Why do you think no one uses LISP even though it kicks ass?

    Actually what I think happened is that the people picked a cool sounding 'foreign' name, like if it had been developed here they might have called it "Ritsko", or "Miho", or "Daikatana", or something, which might sound cool to American ears but retarded to Japanese (at least for a video codec)

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  25. This is NOT going to replace DivX ;-) by tweakt · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Nancy is aiming to displace MPEG-4 in applications that demand limited code space and extended battery life.

    It's a low power (power=not much cpu required) designed for mobile devices.

    The codec will run "even if CPU power is not high," said Kato. "A 50-Mips CPU can compress and decompress video at 30 frames per second with QCIF [176 x 144-pixel] resolution [using Nancy].

    QCIF is a postage stamp, don't get excited... my freakin webcam can do that type of compression right now, this acheives a smaller size I'm guessing. As far as quality is concerned, I don't think thats the main focus.

    Their goal is real-time, and low power cpu, and perhaps low bitrate... not highest quality, lowest overall size (MPEG4/DivX, etc)..

    1. Re:This is NOT going to replace DivX ;-) by epeus · · Score: 2

      Ho hum. This has already been doen by genericmedia's gMovie for Palm OS.

      On2's VP3 is also very integer-focused.

  26. Even a worse idea... by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 1

    ...just imagine youngsters doing prank-calls showing you their arse. (Can't be worse than goat.cx but nevertheless)
    I imagine a bright future ;-)

  27. Nancy light? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "MPEG-4 uses discrete-cosine-transform and motion-estimation technologies. By contrast, Nancy uses only the four fundamental processes of arithmetic (addition, subtraction, multiplication and division), along with comparison and bit-shift operation. This keeps its operation light"
    Yeah, but you can implement DCT/MPEG with only NANDs. That makes DCT even lighter.
    -- if there will be no open-source version, it'll be worthless. On the other hand, Zaurus was running Linux, right?

  28. No. by autopr0n · · Score: 2

    If you want a video-> flash converter, just write one to do that, I don't see why a Nancy encoder would be able output flash. I don't see why you would want to convert a Nancy file to flash anyway, I don't think it works the way you think it does.. it splits up the image into blocks and then encodes the blocks separately (kind of like lots of little JPGs).

    And secondly Joe blow already has a bunch of options for viewing 56k video over his 56k modem... ever heard of Realmedia or mpeg4 (windows media?) You could even do a java applet to decode Nancy video in real time (remember, it doesn't take much CPU power to do)

    And finally, you seem really confused about flash. It isn't a streaming format at all, flash files ".swf" are downloaded to your computer and then viewed (sometimes in parts, so you get a nice 'loading' screen). It doesn't matter what kind of connection you have, just what kind of CPU you have.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    1. Re:No. by Archon · · Score: 1

      Actually, Flash can begin displaying objects as they come in through the stream. Your movies can check for particular frames being loaded before they advance to the next frame. Audio can be specifically set to stream.

      It's sometimes very difficult to do this properly over a variety of bandwiths so most movies opt to wait for the entire file to load before they begin playing (using a "loader" animation or equivalent), or plan specific pauses in the action of the movie for the loading of the rest of the movie to "catch up". Also, audio can be specifically set to play streamed from the file.

    2. Re:No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      autopr0n, I might have to ban you from Slashdot if you keep posting such abominable shit.

  29. several thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    mobile phone companies are moving towards *more* cpu power in their devices as they try to emulate the capabilities of a pda and deal with rendering of real (normal) internet data (i.e. flash) etc.

    The strength of MPEG-4 is in its use of video objects. Using video objects you can send only the changed data for a particular webcast. Take news for example. You could send the background for the news broadcast once, then you would send just the talking head/video portion on the next broadcast. There are a lot of companies that already have the object detection and extraction technology such as http://www.objectvideo.com . Video objects are a powerful way to deliver a video message.

    Don't forget rights management, I see no mention of DRM in the Nancy info, this is a BIG deal to the broadcasters. MPEG-4 already has the mechnisms in place for this.

    Nancy is not new technology, nor is it unique. There are at least three other companies doing this with better technology (I have seen all of them). One I can tell you about is located at http://www.vimatix.com . Their site is already slow so I am sure a good /.'ing will do them a world of good :)

    I have seen some reasonable demos of the vimatix technology, the stuff on the website is not as sophisticated as the latest technology.

  30. It's all about availability by rbeattie · · Score: 1

    My mom doesn't have video-conferencing and probably neither does yours. That's the problem... I don't need (or really want) to see Joe in Purchasing in order to get my job done, but Sunday mornings it would be nice to see Mom. A nice video phone and we can chat and she can see her grandkids, etc.

    -Russ

    --
    Me
  31. We're comparing apples with oranges... by Jugalator · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Nancy won't be "killing" MPEG-4, since the codecs are designed for two different fields. Perhaps some obscure Video Conferencing tool may use Nancy in the future (I guess those are on the border line), but I'd be very surprised if a codec aimed for PDA's gave us the video quality we're used to watching movies with.

    --
    Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
  32. i made such video codec too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    me too made such i video codec.
    it runs at 9600 baud and takes a minimum of cpu time so it is well suited for cell phones and small pda`s.

    the algorithm to encode a video frame:
    b = a

    where b is the frame and a is the buffer to be transmitted to the cell phone.

    the algorithm to decode the video frame:
    a = b

    where a is the cell phones frame buffer and b is the buffer where the cell phone received the encoded frame.

    with 4 grayscale values and a 64x64 picture it
    runs at 1.17187 fps.

    great isnt it ?

    and dear slashdot editor:
    next time when posting such news please remember that most readers are interested in stuff like picture quality, resolution, and comparsions to existing video codecs.
    without them, the claims brought up are not standing on any ground or are not worth mentioning.

    1. Re:i made such video codec too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      ak.. i screwed up encoding.

    2. Re:i made such video codec too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      the algorithm to encode a video frame:
      b = a

      where b is the frame and a is the buffer to be transmitted to the cell phone.

      the algorithm to decode the video frame:
      a = b

      where a is the cell phones frame buffer and b is the buffer where the cell phone received the encoded frame.

      ----
      Wow, that shit is deep.. Let me see...

      encode : b = a ( b=frame, a=buffer)
      decode : a = b ( a=frame, b=buffer)

      so encode(buffer) = decode(buffer)

      So really we can do

      encode(buffer) = encode(buffer)

      Hmm.. so then subtract encode(buffer) from both sides..

      encode(buffer) - encode(buffer) = encode(buffer) - encode(buffer)

      hmm 0 = 0 ?

      Shit! my phone can do video! Yippee!

  33. This codec is on a Sharp PDA here in Japan by Western+Light · · Score: 2, Informative
    The link is here.

    The machine sounds like a great gadget, but notice all the extras you need to purchase to make it fully functional -- such as the $200 recording card, another digital camera card ($200), video camera software ($40), another flash card to use the gadget as a phone, modem cards, LAN cards, PC link cables, PC link kits...
    which sounds a bit much

    The device itself goes for about $450 I believe.

    By the way, the web site (with an English section) for NOA, the creators of Nancy is here.

  34. I wouldn't worry about Ogg Tarkin by ca1v1n · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I've been waiting for the 1.0 release of Ogg Vorbis for a few years now. Yes, it's a nice CODEC, but the development timeline has been less than ideal for commercial adoption. Ogg Tarkin is still in extremely early development, without even alpha code to show for the effort. While most new audio CODECs have just been proprietary hacks of standard stuff to avoid patent royalties or optimize for streaming, video CODECs are making advances by leaps and bounds. MPEG-4 has the best compression ratio out there, though that may be at the cost of quality. I think that for handhelds and such things, processor requirements may be just as important as compression ratios, and those formats that keep this in mind will flourish.

  35. What a name by Syberghost · · Score: 2, Funny

    I can just see the advertising slogan now:

    "I'm a Nancy boy. Wouldn't you like to be a Nancy boy too?"

  36. Open Standards = Better Accessibility & Qualit by rinoid · · Score: 1

    To the person who said Competition = Better Codecs.

    Perhaps. How many of you belligerent, or simply benign Linux users have been to a site which demand you have WIMP, REAL, or QT installed??

    Quick... which one of those players are on your platform?! None!!! Yes. You got it right.

    How many players would you like? What, you only need one... well in my pedantic rant then the answer is simple: open base level MPEG4! any player picks up any stream.

    While I find Sorensen encoded movie trailers rock, and streaming encoded Sorensen from CNN to be better than the WIMP or REAL alternatives in terms of image/audio QOS I don't like the fact that it is a closed system. That one must have QT to read the media.

    Not the idea behind the web... and other media should evolve into at least some modicum of openness and universal(ish) access.

  37. Not MPEG4 killer... by dserpell · · Score: 5, Informative
    Reading the article:
    MPEG-4 uses discrete-cosine-transform and motion-estimation technologies. By contrast, Nancy uses only the four fundamental processes of arithmetic (addition, subtraction, multiplication and division), along with comparison and bit-shift operation. This keeps its operation light, said Koichi Kato, chief technology officer at Office Noa.
    This is nosense... DCT is also only addition and multiplications (no divisions, so it have to be faster...) Also:
    The codec will run "even if CPU power is not high," said Kato. "A 50-Mips CPU can compress and decompress video at 30 frames per second with QCIF [176 x 144-pixel] resolution [using Nancy]. There is no other video codec in a software form that can encode and decode." The program for real-time video compression and decompression takes 30 to 40 kbytes of memory, "and consumes about one-tenth of the power compared with MPEG-4 operation," he added
    He shoud take a look at ffmpeg's libavcodec. In 240kbytes you have coder and decoder for: Video MPEG1/2/4, MSMPEG4, MJPEG, H263, RealVideo, AC3, Audio MPEG-Layer3... And with assembler routines for x86 and arm cpu's. Getting 30fps of QCIF at 50mips isn't as difficult...
    1. Re:Not MPEG4 killer... by cryptochrome · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That's a rather glib response, and incorrect. Additions, subtractions, are fairly simple operationsm and bitshifts are blazingly fast (and equivalent to dividing or multiplying by factors of 2) - in contrast, multiplications, divisions, and others are substantially more complex. You can improve performance a LOT if you design your codecs with these guidelines in mind. Check out the research section (fast DCT approximations) of this site - Nancy isn't the only codec to keep this matter in mind.

      What I'd really like to know is - how well does nancy scale to higher resolutions? It could be competition for MPEG-4 even in the desktop arena. As someone who uses a 3-year-old laptop that can't really handle the &#($ing huge DivX files (which use pretty outdated technology across the board, whether you realize it or not), I welcome a codec that doesn't stress my system, and will save my battery life to boot.

      --

      ---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?

    2. Re:Not MPEG4 killer... by MuMart · · Score: 1

      Agreed!
      My Amiga 1200 barely managed 9 mips(not a good performance metric, I know) yet could decode MPEG1 at 25fps quarter screen, and that was to a slow planar display. The Nancy algorithm sounds strangely similar to MS-Video1 and Cinepak, so I'm not expecting quality to be anywhere near as good as even MPEG1...

  38. Re:Uh...why? [OT] by Jobe_br · · Score: 2
    ...and to charter pipeline (aka charter "sipping straw") at (drum roll please) a max of 12Kbytes a second...
    You must have an overburdened branch - my switch from @Home to Charter Pipeline went relatively smoothly (for such a major network shift) and my bandwidth is about what it was - 1.5-3Mbps.
  39. Slashdot article on Common Lisp by yerricde · · Score: 1

    Why do you think no one uses LISP even though it kicks ass?

    Lots of people use Common Lisp and Scheme.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
  40. Re:Open Standards = Better Accessibility & Qua by jandrese · · Score: 2

    Perhaps. How many of you belligerent, or simply benign Linux users have been to a site which demand you have WIMP, REAL, or QT installed??

    Quick... which one of those players are on your platform?! None!!! Yes. You got it right.

    Well, If you can't be bothered to install the Linux version of Realplayer or Mplayer I can't really feel sorry for you. Sorensen is a major sticking point though. The only Linux player is not freeware!

    I didn't really understand the rest of your comment unfortunatly. "Open base level MPEG4?" All your base are belong to Sorensen?

    --

    I read the internet for the articles.
  41. Too much CPU? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We already have way more CPU power then we know what to do with :P

    We do? Ever tried WinXP?

    Seriously, the amount of "CPU power" we're "given" by companies like AMD and Intel is more an excercise in creating expensive radiators (that appears to be designed to self-destruct in absense of cooling) than any kind of "CPU power".

    If we had "way more CPU power then we know what to do with" we wouldn't be struggling to optimize code, would we? Slow software (unless it was I/O bound) wouldn't be a problem, would it? Converting a movie to DivX ;-) would be I/O bound, wouldn't it?

  42. Simplistic compression by yabHuj · · Score: 4, Insightful
    ...if I my interpretation of the description is correct. They basically seem to break down each image into smaller bits and assemble them later - and only transmit the differences. So the textualized representation may read something like
    • first frame
    • left up (pos 0,0) is a 16x32 block, near black (rgb #111111).
    • next to it (pos 16,0) a 16x16 block, grayish (rgb #112211)
    • below that a block (pos 16,16) with 16x8 green-grayish (rgb #115511)
    • below that a block (pos 16,24) with 16x8 block, greenish (rgb #05BB05)
    • next frame (Logo background appears in the middle)
    • block change in middle (pos. 8,8), size 16x16, black (rgb #000000).
    • next frame (Logo starting with bright expanding spot)
    • block change in middle (pos. 16,16), size 1x1, white (rgb #ffffff).
    • next frame (dito)
    • block change in middle (pos. 14,14), size 4x4, white (rgb #ffffff).
    • ...etc...
    Something like a poor man's MJPG+MPEG. Maybe, if not using fix colors but linear gradients (4 values total = left-right and up-down) the quality can be a bit better.
    OTOH this compression is designed for mini-screens with waaaay sub-optimum quality anyway, so blockish compression is not an issue here? A close look at a demo and the algorithms would be interesting, agreed.
  43. To eliminate Mach banding, go to 24/32-bit by yerricde · · Score: 2, Informative

    From the DVD/Mpeg2 it is a rather dark scene, but on the highest Mpeg4 setting it is dark & "muddy" and gets rather pixellated. I've noticed that while you can't see the "grid", there are still "striations/gradation/banding" (one of those words).

    What you're seeing is Mach banding (Java demo; explanation) caused by the interaction between color quantization and the eye's high-pass edge detection filter. It kills the quality of anything played back at 15/16-bit high color. DVDs don't show this because the hardware decoder uses 24-bit or higher color, which eliminates most Mach banding.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
    1. Re:To eliminate Mach banding, go to 24/32-bit by A_Non_Moose · · Score: 1

      Ah, thanks, I was trying to think of the term...and kept faling. Mach Banding (nods head).

      Thanks, yerricide. I have that java demo saved/linked in one of my profiles on my network at work. Some people have a hard time deciphering "geek speak", heck, I have the pleasure of hanging around grfx artist...(concepts, must understand concepts...ow, my head hurts).

      The thing that "most", not all, people do is do a 16bit rip simply to keep file sizes down.
      In the bad old days, on the mac side, 24bit had to be done at 16bit simply to get smoother playback. Not the fault of the encoder/ripper, but the WMP limitation imposed on the DivX player for the mac. I forget how the programmer got around it, but he did...god bless those aussies.

      To autopr0n:
      The simpler algorithem, is that encoder or codec based? I'm curious, as I have not even played with what is out there for a few months, so I would not know.

      To Jobe_br (the OT reply):
      You might be correct, I kind of figured that chater did not want to get flooded/overly taxed with people loggin on.
      I understand the why, but am still on the "why me" phase. Semi-denial :|
      Out of the dozen or so people I've been in contact with, only one is getting "fair" throughput. (~250Kb/s, IIRC) My connect is so slow now, that connections are getting dropped and instead of taking a few hours, takes a few dozen hours. So far it has been a day of "grumble, grumble, {explicative deleted}" over and over.

      --
      Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
  44. Motion estimation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is not something you do in realtime on a 50 MIPS budget at any meaningfull resolution (there arent a lot of modern x86 or Arm platforms with such a pitifull number of MIPS).

  45. Preload images and stream audio by yerricde · · Score: 1

    It isn't a streaming format at all, flash files ".swf" are downloaded to your computer and then viewed (sometimes in parts, so you get a nice 'loading' screen).

    Archon explained this quite well. I'd like to add that many Flash movies you find on memepool (all your base, hatten är din, hyakugojyuuichi, irrational exuberance, etc) preload their images and stream their audio or have slow intros (using little bitmap data) such that 32 kbps (the effective transfer rate of a 56K modem counting line noise and PPP and TCP overhead) can cover the first few scenes quite nicely. Look at "Pokerap 2" by Neil Cicierga: It uses a simple spinning AOL CD to cover the loading of the first scene.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
  46. Idiot alert by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did you even read the header where it mentioned HANDHELDS?

  47. 'and Scheme' by autopr0n · · Score: 2

    I'll take a karma bath for this, but who cares. I'm so close to the cap now anyway...

    Scheme, you'll note does not have such an obnoxious name, I wouldn't be surprised if it's used more then LISP eventually. Why do you think so many collages and universities jumped on the Scheme bandwagon in the early 90s, when LISP was right there?

    Because 'Scheme' sounds better then 'LISP'

    Its the same principle that's keeping GNU HURD (rhymes with turd!) from ever amounting to anything. If RMS had called it GNU Concura, or GNU KernalCloud or GNU Multitude it would have been a hit. (ok, there's a little sarcasm in there.)

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  48. offtopic?! by autopr0n · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    What kind moderation is that?

    Did they miss the whole second paragraph? And I directly replied to the above poster's point!

    Normally I don't complain about moderation but...

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    1. Re:offtopic?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read the other posts. These are the same people who moderate. Now, think about it.

      Any questions?

    2. Re:offtopic?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, offtopic. Because you're pretending to participate in the conversation when in fact you're plugging your porn site.

  49. Forget Nancy... by Karellan · · Score: 1

    ...check the claims for MC-10. Is this all it is cracked up to be? If so, it is aMAZing. Are they charging an arm and two legs for it? 14 hours on a single DVD? That's two high quality movies on a CD, right? What's the catch? One thing, with the all of the emerging codec, I am wonder if DVD-R is the way to go...maybe I should put my library on DVD-RAM, DVD-RW, or DVD+RW after all.

  50. rethink the claims by tempmpi · · Score: 1

    14 hours on a single dvd ? Well, I don't think they speak about 14 hours on a DVD-5. More likely they speak about DVD-18. Then each hour of high quality movie takes 1,2 gb. MPEG-4 can reach very high quality at these data rates, too. I think MC-10 is maybe a nice codec, but it is a wonder codec. I think they just want to collect venture capital for now.

    --
    Jan
  51. Is there an open-source equivalent? by ahacop@wmuc.umd.edu · · Score: 1

    Is there an open-source equivalent? A codec/server solution intended for small screens, low bandwith, and low processing power?

    1. Re:Is there an open-source equivalent? by gagravarr · · Score: 1

      There's Ogg Tarkin as was mentioned in the main post. Its by no means finished, but there were some pretty neat ideas banded around before it left the vorbis mailinglist for its own one (and I hence stopped reading about it..)

      Its not ready now, but keep an eye on it, it could well be what you're after.

      --
      This post will enter the public domain 70 years after my death, unless Disney buys another extension.
    2. Re:Is there an open-source equivalent? by Spamuel · · Score: 1

      It's by no means started. As far as I know development work hasn't even begun on it. It could be what the original poster is after, but he'll be waiting a looooong time for it unfortunately.

    3. Re:Is there an open-source equivalent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      There is some code available in CVS, like the "w3d" encoder. You can search for it in the Tarkin mailing list archives. But I think the code is just a few people playing around with ideas right now, the serious work hasn't started yet (and probably won't start until Vorbis 1.0 is done).

      FFmpeg is an open-source codec/server solution (implementing several popular codecs, like DivX). Decoding works well, but the encoding quality can't compare with the "real" codecs yet. I haven't tried using it as a server.

  52. Re:Open Standards = Better Accessibility & Qua by Bandman · · Score: 1

    am I missing something? is there a sorenson decoder for Linux? i wouldn't even mind paying for it, if I could find one that works!

  53. Inquiring minds want to know... by Mr.+Piccolo · · Score: 1

    Can I run Intellimirror on my Intellivision?

    --
    Glückwünsche, haben Sie Slashdot ermordet, indem Sie zum korporativen Druck beugten und Subskriptionen einlei
  54. Re:Not MPEG4 killer...: perfectly right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wrote an MPEG-1 decoder in the early 90's, for Atari computers. In pure 68030, I was reaching about 15 fps on a 68030@16MHz on 160*128 files. On the Atari Falcon (68030@16Mhz + DSP56001@20 or 25MHz, I don't remember), speed was about 25/30 fps. All this using an old an slow idct algorithm. Doing 30fps on QCIF size with a 50 MIPS machine may be clever programming, but it's not a revolution at all... Also, don't forget that MPEG groups are mainly driven by hardware companies, and these groups made some choices in order to achieve easier chipset conception, instead of focusing on the best possible compression:
    - Hardcoded Huffman tables on MPEG1/2, don't know about MPEG4.
    - DCT transform, which was chosen at first on JPEG because IDCT chips were already ready from C-CUBE).
    etc ...

  55. It'll never be big by phaze3000 · · Score: 2
    No warez group is releasing anything in 'nancy' format, it'll never take off.

    The fact of the matter is that what gets used for warez wins.. MP3 for example was orignally the preserve of 'warez d00dz', as was divx ;)

    This article is nothing but marketing from Sharp..

    --
    Blaming GW Bush for the Iraq war is like blaming Ronald McDonald for the poor quality of food.
    1. Re:It'll never be big by Fjord · · Score: 2

      On desktops, I'd agree with you. But you don't have a lot of choice over the software you get on a phone, and if a phone standard emerges, then other portable devices fall in line (e.g. the numebr of WML browsers for the Palm). This may take off in the arena it was designed for. If it is reasonable quality without making machines choke, then it may have some (small) impact on the desktop too.

      --
      -no broken link
  56. Poor Naming on the Other Side by Proud+Geek · · Score: 2

    Which of Microsoft's products has failed? Why, wouldn't it be the most user friendly interface ever developed?

    Given the catchy and informative moniker, "Bob."

    --

    Even Slashdot wants to hide some things

  57. How about on the Game Boy Advance? by racerx509 · · Score: 1

    I think one of the great applications for this would be handheld gaming systems. They already have somewhat lo-resolution, and the GBA's arm based processor is up to the task. Lets hope to see a picture perfect Resident Evil port to the GBA!

    --
    13 year old white supremacists are shitty web designers.
  58. interesting quote.. by puck71 · · Score: 1

    "There is no other video codec in a software form that can encode and decode," said Koichi Kato, chief technology officer at Office Noa.

    What's the definition of codec again? I forget.

  59. Open Source authors are often poor communicators. by Futurepower(tm) · · Score: 2


    I agree with this. Open Source authors are often poor communicators. They often pick product-destructive names.

    --
    Bush's education improvements were
  60. Everyone Knew Her As Nancy by po8 · · Score: 1

    Probably a coincidence that "Nancy" is Australian slang for a "lady of the evening" (c.f. "Lil McGill" in the Beatles' Rocky Raccoon).

  61. Re:Open Standards = Better Accessibility & Qua by mini+me · · Score: 1

    I don't know if it works or not, but it seems to for them:
    http://store.yahoo.com/codeweavers-wine/crosplug.h tml

  62. flash video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://wildform.com

    Encode any supported codec (whatever you've got loaded) into flash5. Works great for tiny vids, but the flash plugin for PocketIE only supports flash4.

  63. OT: Tarkin and Vorbis? by Indomitus · · Score: 1

    I'd hazard a guess that the Tarkin in Ogg Tarkin is taken from Grand Moff Tarkin of Star Wars fame. If I'm right (and please correct me if I'm wrong), what does the Vorbis in Ogg Vorbis mean? If I'm wrong about Tarkin I'd like to know where that comes from also.

    1. Re:OT: Tarkin and Vorbis? by peter · · Score: 1
      --
      #define X(x,y) x##y
      Peter Cordes ; e-mail: X(peter@cordes , .ca)
    2. Re:OT: Tarkin and Vorbis? by Indomitus · · Score: 1

      Cool, thanks a lot. I always wondered about the Pyramid Eye thing from cdparanoia too. :)

  64. Divx rules! by attackiko · · Score: 1

    Divx will remain the standard for some time I think. It is just great that you can put a whole movie on one CD. One thing I'm missing though is some sort of error correction program. If divx movie has errors you're in trouble.

  65. I cant wait for this! by +junis_al_barek_ash_ · · Score: 2, Informative

    I am running a C64 - this would be a "god"send for watching movies from the Internet for me!!!! I am anxiously awaiting the porting kings to release this for c64!!!!Internet is great!!! junis

    --
    Internet is Great!!! junis
    1. Re:I cant wait for this! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don`t be silly my friend. Here in Afghanistan we have been using this codec on our C64`s for a few weeks now. (see recent Jon Katz article) after all, how else could I download movies off the web after I`d dug up my C64?

  66. Japanese teenagers by cpeterso · · Score: 1

    Japan's teenagers are #1 [cnn.com] as far as their math and science skills go... which may mean they've got more geeks per capita than the U.S. will ever have!

    That is not true. The CNN article clearly states that Korean teenagers scored highest on the science tests. The highest overall scores were to Finland, Canada and New Zealand.

  67. You are infringing on my software patent!!! by cpeterso · · Score: 1

    I sue yuo!!!!

  68. Great by marko123 · · Score: 1, Funny

    If we put a light on the camera, we can see inside the ears of millions of mobile phone lusers.

    "Hullo John? My ear's really bugging me, can you see if anything's stuck in there?"

    --
    http://pcblues.com - Digits and Wood
  69. Inaccuracies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I work for a company that is attempting to spearhead the move of video to cell phones (and other small bandwidth devices). Just so you know, I work in the engineering group. I'm not a PR guy, and by no means do I represent the company in any way, thus I won't be mentioning its name. We're 'the big one', though.

    Our codec is MPEG-4 based. There were some points in this article that were not exactly true, and others that were blantantly false.

    "Our first target is 2G or 2.5G phone markets. If the data rate is at less than 28.8 kbits/s, MPEG-4 cannot enter this field."

    Flat out wrong. We've demonstrated live streaming through 2G networks in trials in The States, as well as Europe and the Pacific Rim. Our original test platform was 9600 bps. While it's only a few frames per second, it's ludicrous to insinuate that MPEG-4 won't scale *down*. Other companies have done the same. There is sifficient competition in this field, and this company must be living in a vacuum if they don't know what's already out there.

    "A 50-Mips CPU can compress and decompress video at 30 frames per second with QCIF [176 x 144-pixel] resolution [using Nancy]. There is no other video codec in a software form that can encode and decode."

    There are many pieces of software out there that can do this, especially at that resolution. Our implementation is software only at this point. Most of the competition out there is software-only, too.

    "The program for real-time video compression and decompression takes 30 to 40 kbytes of memory, "and consumes about one-tenth of the power compared with MPEG-4 operation," he added."

    This would have to be highly subjective, and highly speculative. If you don't even have your stuff running on devices yet, how can you measure performance? And what rates/sizes are we going for here?

    "J-Phone plans to upgrade the service to video e-mail using Nancy technology. Cell phone models ready for video e-mailing will be introduced early next year, the company said."

    This is not an exclusive agreement, I know that for a fact. Most vendors at this early stage are trying out everything and waiting to see what floats up to the top. When it comes to a side-by-side comparison, something aside from Nancy will definitely win out.

    "For MPEG-4, a dedicated LSI chip is necessary to suppress block noises."

    Completely false. Our software does a bang-up job with this. You don't really supress them, anyway. You're going to get lost packets no matter what, it's the decoder that has to decide what to do with them. Our codec involves error correction and motion prediction algorithms to mask the lost packets. No extra hardware is necessary.

    "Texas Instruments Inc., a major vendor of DSPs for cell phones, has licensed Nancy."

    TI has licensed all kinds of codecs. They've licensed us, as well as most of our major competitors. What this really means is that they have licensed Nancy to be included in thir DSP SDK's, along with everyone else. It's not necessarily up to TI what goes into their chips, as they make them to a vendor's specs (which they choose by including whatever they want from the SDK.) This licensing is by no means an exclusive deal.

    You also have to ask yourself if you want a different codec for everything you do (movies, cel/ phone streaming, desktop streaming.) MP4 lends itself to different kinds of scaling in the same stream. At least with our codec, if your bitstream becomes congested, the video will automatically slow down to compensate. It'll pick back up when the bandwidth becomes available. The size of our video can be scaled, too, so we can accomodate different bandwidths and video sizes in one file. No more choosing your bitrate as a user, and no more multiple encodes for providers.

    Is this company a viable competitor? In this specific space, sure. But vendors are looking for diversity and flexibility, as well as value, and I don't see them going too far beyond the 2 and 2.5 G networks they're working with right now. I think it's also suspicious to be touting a single platform so heavily, especially THAT platform (Sharp). I also wonder how this company has been around since 1988, and they're just now coming to market, behind a few other major compitetors, no less.

    -mattyj

  70. Re:Open Standards = Better Accessibility & Qua by Fnord · · Score: 1

    The windows quicktime works flawlessly in wine now and Codeweavers makes a wine enabled netscape plugin for linux (basically a linux netscape plugin that's sole purpose is to run windows netscape plugins plugged into a program running under wine which is embedded by the linux netscape plugin....a pretty cool setup) who's main use right now is getting the quicktime plugin to work on linux. The codeweavers plugin is $19.95 but its well worth it (with realplayer for linux and mplayer I can see anything windows people can).

  71. CAN WE SEE A SAMPLE SOMEWHERE? by jpellino · · Score: 1

    be nice to see what it actually looks like...
    then we'd know what we're talking about.

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
  72. Hrumf by xiphmont · · Score: 3, Informative

    >I've been waiting for the 1.0 release of Ogg >Vorbis for a few years now

    Really? Development only began in 1998, and nothing was even announced to the world until 2000 (right here in slashdot, a few months before we'd have liked word to leak out). No one has even known about it 'for a few years'. :-)

    >Yes, it's a nice CODEC, but the development >timeline has been less than ideal for commercial >adoption.

    MPEG required ~10 years. Our code has been production grade since beta1, and every bitstream make since May 8th, 2000 will work forever. That's less than two years from beginning to frozen. The '1.0' label is just waiting on a paper list of features that has grown over time.

    Hrumf. We should have just called 'rc1' 1.0 and no one would have known the difference.

    > Ogg Tarkin is still in
    > extremely early development,

    very true.

    > without even alpha code to show for the effort.

    Running Tarkin code exists; we actually have three competing implementations, two in CVS, and the 'w3d' module at cvs.xiph.org is the current frontrunner (and the one we're actively developing).

    But this is not release grade code.

    Monty

  73. Will it be licensed to Real and Microsoft? by MtViewGuy · · Score: 2

    Because the Nancy compression codec is a commercially-developed product, we have to ask this question: will they license the codec technology to Real Networks and Microsoft?

    Or to be more specific, will we see the upcoming RealOne program and (current and future versions) Windows Media Player capable of playing Nancy-compressed files through a new version of the streaming media player or through an add-on? (You can forget about Apple supporting Nancy given it will cut into QuickTime support.)

    If RealOne or Windows Media Player gets Nancy support, this new format could really explode in popularity. :-)

    1. Re:Will it be licensed to Real and Microsoft? by epeus · · Score: 2

      You are talkng complete bollocks. Apple positively encourages 3rd party codecs, providing compelte smapel code to write them, and will host them on their servers and automatically download them if the content needs them.
      If the Nancy lot want to drive adoption, they just need to wrap themselev sin the QT codec API.

      Of course, this woudl amke it very easy to compare them directly with MPEG, Sorenson H263, On2 et al, so if they don't so this they are likely to be the next Pixeleon.

      The gMedia player from generic media already has the low CPU/low colour/low res idea shipping on the Sony Clie - genreicmedia.com

  74. Mea Culpa by ca1v1n · · Score: 1

    I heard Vorbis being breathed of early in development, I thought before 2000, so I got all excited really early. You're right about rc1. I love your work, but I haven't seen anything that really does anything with it besides plugins for lame, winamp, xmms and the like. I think the hardware folks are waiting for an official 1.0.

    I couldn't find the running Tarkin code. It would seem I didn't look very hard.

    Good luck in your efforts. I hope my previous dire predictions are false.

  75. erm, not exactly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actualy, you can't moderate if you've posted to a thread. And if you've moderated and then post you undo all your mods.