Slashdot Mirror


Multi-Platform Video Codec Seeks New Home

Eric Smith asks: "I own a next-generation video codec development company, idea65 (covered on Slashdot as our previous incarnations Opencodex, and Flashingyellow). We have a finished product, but don't quite know what to do with it, and we're looking for someone (or some company) interested in taking it over." Here's the chance for some of you out there looking for a good cause, to contribute something. Loads of people (me, included) would love a good cross-platform video codec.

We started our journey as an open-source project contest in response to DivX, before DivX networks came into being. Due to a variety of issues (not the least of which was our main investor pulling out and funding having to come out of my own pocket), we mutated into a closed-source project that we intended to distribute ourselves through the help of a third party. We finished product development almost a year ago and have a really great portable video codec that runs on Linux, Mac OS, and Windows.

The problem we've run into is that with the economy being as it is, our candidates for distribution assistance have also all dried up. We've considered just GPL'ing it and seeing what the open-source community could do with it, but don't have anyone to oversee changes and official versions, not to mention from the looks of the DivX 4.0 project, there don't seem to be a lot of people interested in (or with the knowledge to) work on video codecs.

More or less, we've got a bunch of very well written CodeWarrior projects that need to find a new home as we don't really have the expertise or financing to sell it or even give it away. So, I'm interested in knowing if anyone has any suggestions for what to do with the project, or interest in taking it over (those with experience with this kind of thing)."

If seriously interested, you can contact Eric using the mailto link at the beginning of this article.

26 of 125 comments (clear)

  1. Don't be so quick to GPL! by IIOIOOIOO · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'll be getting in touch with you. Don't GPL it, that would be silly. If you guys made the darn thing with the intention of earning money, you should darn well get some money for it!

    1. Re:Don't be so quick to GPL! by mr3038 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Don't GPL it, that would be silly. If you guys made the darn thing with the intention of earning money, you should darn well get some money for it!

      Well, if you intent to get some money with it GPLing shouldn't ruin the plan. If somebody wants to use this codec commercially they probably sell closed source program with it and cannot therefore use codec without purchasing different license. GPL doesn't restrict from releasing product under another product simultaneously. One could even claim that GPL version would be a full-featured demo to sell codec.

      If the codec does something revolutional like not using DCT and interpolation between keyframes then not to GPL it may be a good idea because ideas aren't restricted by copyright. Without money you cannot patent it and that would be only yet another hated software patent anyway.

      Whether or not the use of GPLed codec would be legal in Windows or MacOS is another question. Most programs in these platforms are closed and cannot therefore link with GPLed code. Strictly interpreted this means that you cannot use GPLed codec in say for example WMP. On the other hand WMP may be claimed to be part of OS and GPL allows linking with OS libraries...

      --
      _________________________
      Spelling and grammar mistakes left as an exercise for the reader.
  2. Give it to academia by eMilkshake · · Score: 3, Interesting
    The best way is to do a little research to find out if there are any movers & shakers in research and give it to them. Otherwise, find a reputable school, contact their CompSci guys, and ask if their interested (or at least ask their computing group if they'll distribute it).

    Isn't that where our favoriate things like fetch came from?

  3. Ogg Tarkin by Shrubbman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If you're codec is patent free, the people over at the ogg multimedia project would be bigtime interested. They've got the audio portion (vorbis) well along but they're still aways away from having their video portion (tarkin) completed. Head over here for more info

  4. OK, OK, OK.... by tswinzig · · Score: 3, Funny

    You can email it to me, dude.

    --

    "And like that ... he's gone."
  5. The problem is... by easter1916 · · Score: 5, Funny
    We have a finished product, but don't quite know what to do with it
    Prior to developing the product and forming a company, did anyone mention the words "business plan" to you?
    1. Re:The problem is... by _defiant_ · · Score: 3, Funny


      Step 1) Steal Underpants

      Step 2) ...

      Step 3) Profit!

  6. Give it to gstreamer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There are tons of open multimedia projects such as Gstreamer which could benefit from such a codec, assuming it's entirely patent free and unencumbered by copyright liabilities... Depending on how good it is, this could be great for OS...

  7. Re:What I'd like to know is... by Ardax · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Ogg-Tarkin is still in the very earliest stages of development. It'll probably stay there for a while until the guys over at Xiph get Ogg Vorbis 1.0 out the door.

    And if Vorbis is any indication of the quality level that Monty, et al want to achieve with Tarkin, it's going to kick some serious ass. :-)

    To be on topic, if you guys aren't getting anywhere with investing, it may be worthwhile to see if the Tarkin guys are interested. I mean, if you're really thinking about giving it away anyway, maybe you can give some another project some serious help.

    --
    Pax, Ardax
  8. So basically... by glowingspleen · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So basically you just used Ask Slashdot to market a product or further your career.

    Just kidding, everyone does that.

  9. quality? by crayz · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Would it be possible to show us the quality of this codec somehow? Maybe start with uncompressed video, and have the DivX, VP3, etc. people all compress it down to a specific bitrate, and you do the same. Then once it's compressed down to that bitrate you could decompress it(since we don't have a decoder...), thus letting the general public see the quality of your codec.

    Would that work? Because there are a lot of codecs, and unless you can show that this one is better than the others, I really don't see why people would be interested.

  10. It all depends... by Junta · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You mention that now that DivX 4.0 is out, no one cares anymore. Does your codec outperform DivX4.0 in terms of bitrate, quality, and/or performance? If the answer to all the questions is no, then perhaps it would be best to let it die. If the answer is "not now, but with work it could be..." and you want to stop working, you may want to first fish around for interested companies, and as a last resort give it to the Ogg group as something they could hammer into being Tarkin. I guess if you really don't care about the code anymore but really don't want to let it die, you could pass it on to the Ogg people anyway and they can decide for themselves whether the code is worthwhile or at least salvagable. If it isn't, then they can kill it instead of you :)

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  11. Waht do you want from it? by SpinyNorman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Are you asking how to make money from it, or how to donate it to the open source community?

    How competetive is it? DivX/MPEG-4 even if patent encumbered is now available in an open source version from the ffmpeg project, and there are other open source CODECs available that are competetive to or even better than DivX such as VP3 or the amazing CU30.

    If your CODEC can compete with the alternatives then it would probably be instantly adapted by the Ogg Tarkin paroject which is looking to deliver an open source CODEC but so far is really only at the research stage.

    If your CODEC csn't compete head-in with the state of the art, then maybe you're better off looking to embed it in an application (e.g. a cross platform ICQ video conference helper) where the utility outweighs anything else.

  12. Au Contraire... by Christopher+B.+Brown · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Releasing it under the GPL would mean that there would be a set of "hacker types" interested in deploying it amongst a group that is technically knowledgeable.

    That's helpful in getting it known, which is worth rather a lot.

    The codec would not in that form be usable outside of the context of freely-redistributable software. Someone who wants to integrate it into their cool, but proprietary viewer would find that they can't, at least not with the GPL-licensed version.

    That can't represents the place where they can look for their revenues.

    It's not obvious that there can possibly be interest in it without there being some sort of release; the company hasn't money to spend on renting Times Square to show the world they've got a K001 Product.

    Releasing under something like the GPL may be the only way to get it into use, and to get any return from it.

    --
    If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
    1. Re:Au Contraire... by radja · · Score: 3, Insightful

      hmm, since you are the copyright owner you could also dual-licence it. First release as GPL, and allow companies wanting to include it in a proprietary product to licence it from you directly. Basically, you get the best of both worlds..

      //rdj

      --

      No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
      --Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
  13. An idea... by Fnkmaster · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Since really the only way as I understand it that such a product could make money is embedding in successful closed source projects, I think this would be an ideal candidate for the TrollTech business model. Release a GPL version that is embeddable only into GPL and GPL compatible Free Software products. This will gain you recognition and acclaim if your product is good. Now you've stirred up interest. You should release, simultaneous with the GPL release, a press release indicating your intention to issue commercial licenses for embedding in closed source products. Hell, you can even claim your commercial licensees will get access to the "Plus" form of your codec.


    Now pimp the hell out of the GPL version and everyone that whines about how they can't use it in their closed source products, point them to your web page explaining how to contact you/your company for commercial licensing terms. Also perhaps consider a joint distribution agreement up front with some commercial video tool providers whereby you will develop plug ins, etc. I gather your point is this might be hard in this climate. Also consider getting pr0n distributors to use it. No, I'm not kidding. Honestly, people download pr0n from usenet, etc. If there is pr0n out there in your video format, people will get players for it. This will eventually convince commercial users that your format is worthwhile. There are plenty of Linux/Mac pr0n viewing folks out there, so you definitely will find some rapid fans if you take this tactic.


    Anyway, this is my advice for a bootstrapped marketing technique that you might find effective. I make no promises, but it sounds like you don't have much to lose if you are posting to Ask Slashdot for marketing advice (hint: lots of /. readers can tell you about GPL violations, some can tell you about how the Linux kernel is put together, and very few can tell you how to successfully market a product).

  14. Screenshots? by MagerValp · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Lovely placeholders, but wouldn't it make more sense to have actual screenshots of the codec in action? The web page is totally devoid of any useful information.

    Yet another video codec. Does anyone really care?

    --

    READY.
    #
  15. Making money from a codec by chriswaco · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If you don't truly outperform other codecs, you probably won't make money with it. Codec performance is very tricky to measure, with everyone using the codec wanting something slightly different (compression speed, decompression CPU load, image quality, motion quality, etc).

    One option is to provide the compressor/decompressor for free and then offer a higher quality version of the compressor for sale. It's a tough market, though. If it's truly revolutionary, you could try selling it to Apple, Microsoft, or Real. You'll need some really good side-by-side comparisons with their current codecs and MPEG4 to get their attention, though.

    Personally, I would love to see it open sourced.

    Can we download a decompressor and see some demos?

  16. If it were you... by darkov · · Score: 3, Informative

    If I were you (which I am patently not) I would not bother trying to sell a codec. I think there are many out there today and without some sort of corporate backing or a really compelling difference, you probably will not have much impact in a crowded marketplace. What would make more sense is developing a product that uses your codec, but provides a different sort of product or service. Maybe build a video confrencing system, or a monitoring and logging system. These ideas are off the top of my head, but you get my drift - add some sort of additional value, some application that makes your codec shine while solving a problem. Then you'll have a market and getting inverstors and customers will be a whole lots easier.

  17. You're posting to the the wrong site... by YouAreFatMan · · Score: 3, Funny

    I believe the site you want is here

    --
    Robotiq.com is heavily tested on animals
  18. And overhead by TheSHAD0W · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It'd also be helpful if you'd benchmark your codec's playback CPU load versus DivX and the other popular formats. While nowadays PCs can handle some heavy demands, lightweight decoders would still be desirable, especially for embedded applications, etc.

  19. Re:Wow - what a business plan by misterye · · Score: 4, Informative
    Actually, we did have a very detailed business plan, that we thought was actually going to make money and contribute something to the open-source community. But, as with many things, and as someone said earlier, don't depend on third parties. We didn't have much choice but to rely on third parties for distribution and funding. In the end, all the funding came out of my pocket, and the distributor went under. We have a good product, we actually beat DivX to being done by about 3 months, but we got stuck there. The codec is very light and highly portable, the original version was less than 16k compiled and out-performed DivX and was patent and copyright free.


    Though I guess that is something that people will want to see for themselves, and that's where we are stuck, we don't even have the funding for the legal help to get it into testers hands. After working on this as hard as I have, I would hate to see the project just die w/out it seeing the light of day. That's why I asked for possible answers from Slashdot. Maybe someone can think of something we haven't. Its happened before.

  20. The only think that makes your CODEC worthwhile... by oddityfds · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Possibly, the only thing that makes your CODEC worthwhile is if it is patent free. The only CODEC to date that I know of that is free of software patents is the H.261.

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

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

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

  21. I think these guys are the Underwear Gnomes. by ryanvm · · Score: 3, Funny

    Was this the business plan?

    Phase 1 - Develop new video codec
    Phase 2 - Do some, uh, business stuff
    Phase 3 - Make LOTS of money!

  22. I'm sure we can fit you in somewhere... by mcelrath · · Score: 4, Offtopic
    I'm sure there's room around here...maybe under the couch? Maybe between 3ivx and DivX? Or between MPEG-4 and Sorensen? If not then surely there's room between MJPEG and Indeo? Oh, I feel like breaking into song over the wonderful video codec situation!

    Oh! 3iv1 3iv2, aasc abyr and aemi too! afli, aflc boy those are old! AMPG, ANIM, AP41 and you! Think of how your home videos will look, in ASV1, ASV2 or ASVX!! Mine look great, and I'm sure yours will too, with AUR2 or AURA!

    And out of the A's and into the B's la da da do do do deeee! Bink, bt20, btcv bw10, boy those b's are short! Those B codec makers better get a move on! But onto the c's like the birds and the bees, cc12, cdvc, cfcc, cgdi, cham, cjpg, cpla, cram, cvid cwlt, cyuv, cyuy! Boy these things multiply fast! Makes me wonder, why the're called video codecs, and not WABBITS!

    But D's come along, DIV2 and DIV4 and DIV5, with venerable DIVX short behind. DMB1, DMB2, DSVD, DUCK, DVAN, DVSD, DVE2, DVX1, DVX2, DVX3, DXTN, DXTC, and no more D's do we have! And the E's are short, because normal people don't start video codecs with vowels, ETV1, ETV2, ETVC are all that survive.

    Only 3 F's, because F stands for Flunk, FLJP, FRWA, FRWD are fun! Oh my! GLZW, GPEG, GWLT from Microsoft? But videoconferencing still lives H260 goes plop, followed by H261, and H262, H263, H264, H265, H266, H267, H268, But finally everyone knows H269! HFYU, HMCR, and HMRR round out the H's!

    (Egad, am I done yet!)

    Not hardly buddy! There's I263, IAN, ICLB, IGOR, IJPG, ILVC, ILVR, IPDV, IR21, IV30, IV31, IV32, IV33, IV34, IV35, IV36, IV37, IV38, IV39, IV40, IV41, IV42, IV43, IV44, IV45, IV46, IV47, IV48, IV49, and IV50 rounds out Intel's evil contribution! But wait! There's more! Call now and you'll receive this free JBYR, JPGL, KMVC, and LEAD, LJPG.

    Not to worry, M is here! Here are all the ways Micro$oft can fuck a standard! M263, M261, MP42, MP43, MP4S, MPG4, MRLE, MSVC Oh my! I like MJPG, cause my marvel uses it, but Matrox also has MTX1, MTX2, MTX3, MTX4, MTX5, MTX6, MTX7, MTX8, MTX9! More M's! mJPG is not the same as MJPG? MCAM, MC12, MPEG, MRCA, MWV1, nAVI, NTN1, NVS0, NVS1, NVS2, NVS3, NVS4, NVS5, NVT0, NVT1, NVT2, NVT3, NTT4, NVT5, PDVC, PGVV, PIM1, PIM2, PIMJ, PVEZ, PVMM, PVW2, qpeg, QPEG, RGBT, RLE, RT21, rv20, rv30, RVX, s422, SDCC, SFMC, SMSC, SMSD, smsv, SPIG, SQZ2, SV10, STVA, STVB, STVC...oh god I'm getting bored...STVX, STVY, SVQ1, TLMS, TLST, TM20, TM2X, TMIC, TMOT, TR20 TSCC, TV10, TY2C, TY2N, TY0N, UCOD, ULTI, V261, VCR1, VCR2, VDOM, VDOW, VDTZ, VGPX, VIFP, VIDS, VIVO, VIXL, VLV1, VP30, VP31, VX1k, VX2K, VXSP, WBVC, WHAM, WINX, WJPG, WNV1, x263, XLV0, XMPG, XXAN, Y41P....almost there! Y8, YC12, YUV8, YUV2, YUYV, ZLIB, ZPEG!

    And that ends my really bad song. But wait! Thre's more! Those are only the ones with FOURCC definitions! That doesn't include file types! There's MPEG-PS, AVI, Quicktime, and the venerable Microsoft format heist asf.

    I think the statement "I developed a new video codec!" should be punishable by death.

    --Bob

    --
    1^2=1; (-1)^2=1; 1^2=(-1)^2; 1=-1; 1=0.
  23. Did I just read that right? by Dr.Dubious+DDQ · · Score: 3, Insightful
    we don't even have the funding for the legal help to get it into testers hands.

    Okay, earlier you were talking about 'thinking about GPL'ing it' and having trouble 'giving it away'.....

    ...but you can't give it away because you can't pay lawyers to help you give it away?

    Something fundamentally wrong with that....

    At any rate, if you're sincere and not just fishing for investors, I'll add my metaphorical voice to those suggesting contacting the Ogg people over at xiph.org, who I'm sure would LOVE to have a " very light and highly portable [...] patent and copyright free" set of code to use with the Ogg Tarkin project...if you REALLY want to see it get out into the world...