Slashdot Mirror
VP3, Open Source Video at 200kbs
Honest Man
noted that intel is hyping VP3 as the first low bitrate open source video codec. 200kbs for VHS quality video sounds good to me, especially when I can apt-get it. But is DivX already to entrenched in this niche?
warning: not a troll, just an observation: Is this just a cheap ploy to sell P4's? This seems like Intel is just tooting their own horns about this technology, and claiming it's only for P4's.
I bet this is not "First Post."
Is DivX ;) entrenched in the market? Well, how many non-technical people have heard of it? How many PCs is it bundled with? It has a reputation for being primarily used for pirated video (regardless of the truth). So, the answer is a resounding "no, it isn't entrenched".
501 Not Implemented
Right, they'll sue Intel when hell freezes over. The last thing they would try is to sue anyone with the resources to defend themselves and the 'political' stature to laugh off the lies and slurs the MPAA might attempt.
Having to fill out any registration forms will push people away, and not being able to find the codec online will obviously throw people off. The easiest way to get around this would be to encode a bunch of movies, or tv shows.. in the name of the file put the URL to download the codec, and message everyone who is trying to download it, telling them where to download the codec.
With a bit of support from its users, this could easily take over as the common standard. With mp3's, people were only used to hearing about one specific codec (mp3). With video, people already know there are multiple kinds, each with different qualities. They know of real video, mpeg, divx, quicktime, and a few other formats. Throwing another one in the mix won't be surprising to them.
Also, after someone has downloaded a 600Mb file, they are more likely to go out on a limb and install a codec, than if they just downloaded a 3Mb mp3.
it may be open source, but it sure isn't cheap...
Intel's link takes you to on2.com's website where they have this to say:
With the VP3 for Windows codec, you can encode VP3 video and play it back through the Windows Media Player! The VP3 for Windows codec allows you to encode VP3 video using any Video for Windows compatible encoding application (such as Adobe Premiere and Virtual Dub) and play it back through the Windows Media Player. This version comes with limited email support. $395 USD"
The free open source versions can be found at www.vp3.com, but it looks like Intel is promoting them the big bucks version.
Your comparison is incorrect. DivX at 800 megs for 90-100 minutes entails using a high bitrate. The only application that would require such high bitrates is high quality video. A better comparison would be to use DivX at the 200kbps and the new one at 200kbps and compare the results.
Ok, folks - since so many people seem to be having trouble with the concept, we'll go over it again. I'm no expert (feel free to flame me if I'm wrong - oh, you would have anyway...), but Open Source is not the same as free software. Open source merely means that your customer can obtain the source after purchasing the product. Free Software is (as its name implies) free. There are many great products that are open source, but not free. Similarly there are many free software packages that are not open source. It just so happens that a lot of software for Linux/BSD/whatever happens to be both.
Ok, back to my lurking.
Monday is a horrible way to spend 1/7 of your life.
Most people don't have fast enough connections to download DivX movies like they download .mp3's. Any DivX small enough for a modem user to download is probably small enough in .mpg, .mov, .avi, or any other codec you should chose. There's still room to compete. My guess is that the window of opportunity before DivX becomes entrenched is 6-12 months.
BlackGriffen
http://www.vp3.com has the real goods- Had you looked at the link on the bottom of On2's website, you'd have seen the link for the Open Source release of VP3. Open Source doesn't mean that they can't still be selling the versions of the codec that are "certified" (as in supported- they're offering limited support for the open source release...).
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
If you try out the VP4 version you'll be amazed how good it is. There is VIDEO and SOUND. I watch one of there demo movies full screen, it was almost DVD. Way better then VHS. On a cable modem ON a Celeron 600
This new video codec probably utilizes a lot of Intel specific SSE2 instructions. Maybe Intel is making this open source to encourage developers to use more Intel specific instructions. I hope the VP3 codec though doesn't require an Intel processor to work. It should at least have a back up algorithm that utilizes MMX so that those with AMD CPU's and others can use it.
Often companies say that their product produces "VHS" quality, but that is a bit subjective. For example some say that one codec sounds just as good as another (WMA at 64kbps vs. MP3 at 128kbps) but I can notice the difference immediately. And since this is a product produced by a company, not a standard, it probably won't be very popular.
The big problem with this is that perception is individualistic. Similar to how "golden ears" can perceive compression artifacts in MP3, "golden eyes" can perceive artifacts in compressed video.
For example, DVD compression drives me into a blind rage everytime I see those fat pixels in the shadows of dramatically lit masterpieces, I have to supress an urge to go on a murderous rampage across the desks of hundreds of idiots who thought that MPEG-2 would be "good enough".
Now, I am forced to rent a DVD before I'll consent to purchase it, just to see if I'm going to be irritated by compression artifacts. I'm not gonna blow some $20 on a screwed up compression job.
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
Let's see, 640*480 in 24 bpp at 25fps, plus 44KHz stereo 16bit sound takes 214Mbps in raw format.
1/10th of that is 21Mbps, not 200Kbps.
VHS has several quality modes. VHS in its purest form is mono-EP. Low sound quality, low video quality, lots of stuff fit on a tape. Now there's Hi-Fi VHS, stereo-SP. High(ish) sound quality, high(again,ish) video quality, not so much fits on a tape. So which is VP3? Probably the former.
[insert witty comment here]