Slashdot Mirror


On2 Releases VP6 video codec

A reader writes:"On2 Technologies, the folks who brought you the open-source VP3 video codec (now managed by Theora.org), have released our latest codec, VP6. Highlights include hi-def support with no encoder restrictions, real-time encoding at full D1 resolution, and substantial performance & quality improvements over VP5. Best of all: no "patent pooling" restrictions or external licensing fees, a la MPEG-4."

37 of 111 comments (clear)

  1. This ad paid for by On2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    On2 Technologies, the folks who brought you the open-source VP3 video codec (now managed by Theora.org), have released our latest codec, VP6.

    Glad to see people can just submit press releases.

    1. Re:This ad paid for by On2 by fobbman · · Score: 4, Funny

      On a positive note, PR folks tend to send their releases through spell-checkers before they publish them.

  2. Hmm by afree87 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This will be a rather hard codec to propagate, given that many people don't even know or want to know how to install XviD.

    1. Re:Hmm by PhiberOptix · · Score: 3, Informative
      if theres demand for the codec, then interest will grow. Many subbed animes are already being released in Xvid format. Also, installing xvid is just as easy as installing divx or any other app in windows, given that you d/l a binary package

      http://www.divx-digest.com/software/xvid.html

    2. Re:Hmm by TrekkieGod · · Score: 5, Interesting
      many people don't even know or want to know how to install XviD

      Right up to the point where they download their first XviD video file. Then, like anyone else, they'll pay the price and install the darn codec (after posting on countless message boards asking why the heck their video won't play).

      It's a necessity thing. Nobody wants to install what they don't need. However, the people who *make* videos experiment all the time to get the best quality they can...and once that happens, the others are forced to follow. Heck, if I can be made to install RealOne on my computer, anybody can be made to install anything. It was the hardest compromise of my principles I've ever made.

      --

      Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.

    3. Re:Hmm by NanoGator · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Right up to the point where they download their first XviD video file. Then, like anyone else, they'll pay the price and install the darn codec (after posting on countless message boards asking why the heck their video won't play)."

      I'm tellin you guys, porn's a great motivator!

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    4. Re:Hmm by Bulln-Bulln · · Score: 4, Informative

      Right up to the point where they download their first XviD video file.

      There are no XviD video files. Currently most video files are:
      AVI Container
      MPEG-4 Video Track
      MP3 Audio Track

      The difference between DivX files and XviD files is the FourCC ("Four Character Code" or something).
      DivX and XviD are just differernt encoders, not different formats. Just like LAME and FhG MP3Enc are differend encoders, but produce the same format.
      If you change the FourCC from ''XVID'' to ''DIVX'' the normal DivX codec should be able to play it (I've never heard of any problems).
      That's why I think, the people who encoded the video file should change the FourCC to DIVX, try to decode the file using DivX, and (if it works without problems) release the file with the DIVX FourCC.
      This way you can reach a wider audiance.

    5. Re:Hmm by TrekkieGod · · Score: 2, Interesting
      The difference between DivX files and XviD files is the FourCC ("Four Character Code" or something). DivX and XviD are just differernt encoders, not different formats.

      True enough, although certain features of mpeg4 encoding can be, at any one time, implemented in one, and not the other. I haven't been keeping up with the progress of either xvid or divx lately, but I know that at one point xvid was ahead in B-frames support, which caused some compatibility problems between it and divx.

      Of course, all that aside, even if they are completely compatible with each other, if you're talking about a person who doesn't know how to install XviD, do you really want to recommend to that person that he should try changing the FourCC code? I assume not, since you later said:

      That's why I think, the people who encoded the video file should change the FourCC to DIVX, try to decode the file using DivX, and (if it works without problems) release the file with the DIVX FourCC.

      Which, I guess if you test before-hand, would work just fine. Still, I don't know if I agree with your manner of thinking, and many encoders might disagree also. Why wouldn't you ask instead that divx encoders change the FourCC to XVID? Because divx is more popular? Well, that's a great disservice to the xvid developers, who could use the extra help in making *their* codec more popular by causing more people to download it. After all, I personally prefer the open source xvid to divx...The divx 5 team actually tries to charge you for the "pro" version of their codec which has enhanced features for encoding.

      --

      Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.

  3. Cheaper productions by nother_nix_hacker · · Score: 3, Funny

    Best of all: no "patent pooling" restrictions or external licensing fees, a la MPEG-4."

    Will that mean my educational *ahem* videos will now be free? :)

  4. Licensing by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Sure, VP6 has simpler licensing because it is completely proprietary, but H.264 is supposedly patent-free and it has the advantage of being a published standard with mulitple competing implementations.

  5. NOT Free by Dot.Com.CEO · · Score: 5, Informative
    People, this codec is not free, it is not open source and I'm not even sure that it will be a free download. Even though VP3 was indeed open-sourced and is as free as can be, VP6 is not. It does not have MPEG4's licencing limitations but it is not open-source. It is, for all intents and purposes, as free as WMV and Real.

    --
    Mother is the best bet and don't let Satan draw you too fast.
    1. Re:NOT Free by Cyno · · Score: 2, Insightful

      nevertheless I still enjoy being reminded that On2 brought us VP3. I will keep an eye on that company and its products in the future and if I happen to need a commercial solution at some time they will be at the top of my list. :)

  6. Doom9 codec tests by fluor2 · · Score: 4, Informative

    I would really recommend reading this codec comparision by doom9:

    http://www.doom9.org/index.html?/codecs-103-1.ht m

    Doom9 shows us very nice screenshots from non-keyframes. The conclusion is still: XViD is the best codec around. I hope people understand that whatever other companies claim (e.g. "50% better compression") you should never underestimate what doom9 says: all codecs out there now are VERY similar. None of them is really outstanding.

    1. Re:Doom9 codec tests by Ishin · · Score: 5, Informative

      Doom9 is a good site to get news on about what codecs and applications are new, or releasing new versions. It's also a good place for discussion with the developers of many open source applications and codecs/video containers. However, I'd recommend that if you read their video codec reviews, you keep several things in mind. Firstly, the review is very subjective, and though I agree with the conclusion (xvid does the best job in my experience) the reviewer isn't exactly doing a normal comparison. Secondly, they're not very open to criticism, constructive or otherwise, and seem to have the attitude that they are THE EXPERTS on video encoding and codecs, and are thus beyond reproach, although, from what I can tell, the site owners aren't actually actively involved in the development of any codecs or applications. The main two flaws of the review are: A. they use post processing in all of their comparison screenshots and the reviewer used post processed shots to determine which he thought looked best. That in itself pretty much invalidates the results, as the actual output of the codecs isn't the only thing being tested, but also the perceptual quality of their respective post-filtering schemes. B. he was using a special version of xvid that's not available to the public, and that many of the people involved in xvid didn't even realize existed, which, once again completely invalidates his results for the rest of us. So, like I said, good site, great news, even greater discussion, questionable codec review.

    2. Re:Doom9 codec tests by real_smiff · · Score: 4, Informative

      don't be silly.. neither of those things "completely invalidate the results". postprocessing - it's a real world test of how these codecs are going to be used by most people. "special version" - there are thousands of "special versions" of Xvid, every build by every person who releases builds is a special version... it's in development, that's what CVS is for. You can pick up a build of Xvid now and get results like he got there, there's no fraud like you seem to imply. Having said all that, i think Doom9 is probably biased towards Xvid, but for good reasons. It's forum is really the 2nd home of Xvid.

      --

      This is my Sig, this is my Gun. One is for Slashdot and one is for Fun.

    3. Re:Doom9 codec tests by Ishin · · Score: 3, Informative
      Sorry to misinterpret you, then.

      I'm sorry to say that I've yet to find a really satisfactory and impartial comparison, much less, one that is up to date. I've had to do all of my own testing to figure out what settings do, and how codecs compare. Mainly xvid, divx4/5, sbc, and ffvfw. As I stated earlier, I've found xvid in it's latest incarnations(Koepi and Umaniac's versions are easy to find, and work great, in my experience) are the best, and the doom9 xvid forum is a great place to give feedback to, and get information from, the creators of this robust and customizeable codec.

      This is probably the closest thing I could find to an impartial comparison, displaying unpostprocessed, and postprocessed images from many different codecs. Unfortunately, when I tried the link, it didn't respond, hopefully it will be back up.

      Hope it helps.

  7. "no external licensing fees" but .... by binaryDigit · · Score: 2, Insightful

    OK, the summary says no external licensing fees (though I don't see anywhere on the site itself that makes that claim), but then you do see this statement:

    "VP6 is available for commercial licensing. Note that custom engineering services may be required to integrate VP6 into your application."

    So I wonder if it's going to be one of those things where almost anything will require "custom engineering services" and they'll just get you there. Maybe they just won't publish an api doc, thereby requiring their services no matter what ;)

  8. and what of H.264 by moogla · · Score: 2, Informative

    The On guys compared VP6 to something called H.264, which I come to find out later is an official standard (newly released) for MPEG-4 encoding. It looked really damn good, almost as good as VP6 on the frames they chose.

    I understand XviD's implementation of MPEG-4 is based on H.263.

    So is anybody (including XviD) considering implementing it? I understand it isn't patent-encumbered. I could be wrong...

    --
    Black holes are where the Matrix raised SIGFPE
    1. Re:and what of H.264 by pla · · Score: 4, Informative

      I understand XviD's implementation of MPEG-4 is based on H.263.

      XviD follows the MPEG-4 ASP (advanced simple profile) spec. Virtually all of the current major video codecs out there use some minor variant of this.

      H.264 usually refers to the MPEG-4 AVC (advanced video coding) profile. This promises a 2-4x size improvement at similar quality to the ASP. However, it has one major problem...


      So is anybody (including XviD) considering implementing it? I understand it isn't patent-encumbered. I could be wrong...

      Yes, an AVC implementation exists, but it provides its own demonstration of why no one uses it yet despite the improved size and/or quality... Namely, 30-45 seconds per frame at encode time. For a full-length movie, that comes out to two or three days for a single-pass encode.

      Additionally, even if you feel inclined to wait that long for the sake of quality (personally, I would), the link I gave above points to more of a proof of concept than a "real" viable codec. It needs quite a lot of tweaking just to make it compare to existing ASP codecs such as XviD.

    2. Re:and what of H.264 by benwaggoner · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, those encode times aren't that bad at all for a development codec. Back when I started doing professional encoding (1994), we targeted 80 minutes of render time per minute of source files, so a feature film would be more like a week of computer time. Still had a very viable business based around that.

      Of course, that was with 80 MHz computers...

      LOTS of companies are working on AVC implementations, and they'll certainly compete on speed. There's lots of areas in the standard where speed/quality tradeoffs can be used.

    3. Re:and what of H.264 by benwaggoner · · Score: 2, Informative

      Xvid uses the Simple and Advanced Simple profiles of MPEG-4. These were extensions of baseline H.263 (aka MPEG-4 short header), but with LOTS of enhancements.

      FWIW, H.263 is the standard video codec used in videoconferencing system. Most of the IRAQ video was using it.

      All MPEG-4 codecs are patent-encumbered, and will require license fees in some circumstances. However, these tend not to be too onerous. For example, today's MPEG-4 video codecs are free for the first 50,000 units distributed per year.

    4. Re:and what of H.264 by Jordy · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, an AVC implementation exists [hydrogenaudio.org], but it provides its own demonstration of why no one uses it yet despite the improved size and/or quality... Namely, 30-45 seconds per frame at encode time. For a full-length movie, that comes out to two or three days for a single-pass encode.

      I hardly think this matters for professional encoding. There are real-time H.264 hardware encoders in development by VideoLocus and Sand Video.

      Besides, it took quite a while for the old MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 reference encoders to be anything but dog slow, so I have no doubt that in a years time we'll see at least a 4x speed up with software optimization. Add that to the 2x hardware speed up and you have something that starts to look viable for quite a few applications.

      --
      The world is neither black nor white nor good nor evil, only many shades of CowboyNeal.
  9. Does anyone really care? by Datasage · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I dont, i'll continue to use Divx or Xvid. Being that both are either free or really cheap (for the pro ver of divx).

    I dont buy thier claims that its any better than divx. To start with, thier samples are biased and most likely have been changed to show an advantage in thier product.

    If they do in fact have a better quality then the comperable codecs, is it worth the cost of licening this codec for just a slight improvement in quality?

    --
    In America we are imprisoned by our fear of them.
  10. Install ffdshow and other video tools mentioned by McQuaid · · Score: 4, Informative

    Ffdshow is a filter for most mpeg4 codecs. Works with divx 4,5, xvid and other mpeg4 implementations. If all you do is playback, no codec required. Also if use alpha xvid codecs and it doesn't playback properly with ffdshow, you know that your vid isn't mpeg4 compliant. Btw, I capture/encode shows all the time in windows and would like to do this in linux, but it seems really lacking. First off, avisynth is an indispensable tool for dealing with video. What first attracted me to it was the best ivtc plugin by Donald Graft. This processes telecined sources back to their original film frame rate which I use on toons/film sources.

    But the versatility goes way beyond that. Here's an animated menu I made for batman tas for a vcd I was working on, which btw I authored with videopack 5 to include animated menus, galleries with audio and chapter selection (I love pimpin that :) ).

    Also worth mentioning is Tmpgenc, probably the best mpeg 1 encoder, which is free. And not to shabby mpeg2 encoding. Also of course is virtualdub, which has come in handy on many occasions.

    So where are the comparable linux equivalents? I couldn't find them. I'd love to see a write up on video encoding on linux, maybe I'll do one myself.

  11. Linux download? OS X download? by Sebby · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This thing only runs on Winblows.

    I guess they don't realize that to some content people, cross-platform availability is more important to smaller file size.

    --

    AC comments get piped to /dev/null
    1. Re:Linux download? OS X download? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yep! Was very excited by their claims, immediately tried to download the player, which to my horror turns out to be only available for windows. Do we really need another windows only codec? Or is the idea that say, Apple will intedgrate this codec into quicktime?

      At the moment though, if you wanna use this codec then you have to dance the dirty with Micro$oft, which is most certainally not free, or without restrictions. We use heaps of video on our sites, streaming, downloadable etc. and our primary concern is cross-compatibility.

      So, nil point for ON2.

  12. What about FFMPEG's MPEG4 Codec? by engine+matrix · · Score: 2, Informative

    I did not see that listed in Doom9's comparison. It seems the MPlayer developers prefer it over Xvid. I've always used FFMPEG MPEG4 with fantastic results.

  13. And xine does ogg theora now ... by timothy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    related note; the older On2 codec which has become the basis of Ogg Theora isn't dead: Ogg Theora is listed as supported in the newest version of Xine, as mentioned yesterday.

    timothy

    --
    jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
  14. Didn't find a Mac vers... by azav · · Score: 2

    Is there one?

    Or is this win only?

    --
    - Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
  15. 3D ideas in movie codecs? by TeknoHog · · Score: 2, Interesting
    AFAIK, many video codecs use some kind of FFT/DCT/wavelet compression for individual frames, and then some rather different techniques to account for the similarities/changes between subsequent frames. As a physicist I find this rather too complicated; it would be more natural to treat time as a third dimension, and just use FFT/DCT/wavelets or whatever for the whole 3D package (probably split into NxNxN cubes).

    Quick googling shows that such codecs have in fact been investigated. But are these ideas used in any current codecs?

    Of course every lossy codec has its problems, but there's at least one reason why I'm intrigued by these 3D style codecs: it could be easier to balance resources between single-frame precision vs. motion. With fast action we're less sensitive to details, so the codec could use more information for motion and less for the image details. And vice versa for slow scenes. This would happen automatically if the codec always preserved the strongest percentage of frequency/wavelet components (which is a standard way of signal de-noising).

    --
    Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    1. Re:3D ideas in movie codecs? by plastik55 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, such a scheme might produce somewhat better compression (especially since the impulse responses of visual neurons resemble 3d wavelets, naturally suggesting a 3d scheme for efficient representation.) I once implemented a scheme using 3d wavelets for optic flow detection, with some pretty good results on canned data.

      The drawback is that it requires more complicated encoders and decoders, which use more memory and more memory bandwidth due to the need to decode several frames at once. Today's hardware isn't quite up to the task, especially for encoding in realtime or decoding on a set-top box.

      IMO, 3d transforms might help boost efficiency but they probably won't lead to a more mathematically "elegant" codec. After all, the task is to produce an image that fools the human visual system into percieving the image as real thing, using the smallest number of bits in the encoding. Since the problem definition is based on something as big and complicated and poorly understood as the human visual system, the problem solution is going to reflect that complexity. The more advanced video codecs get, the more they will reflect the complexities of the visual system. Look at mp3--it's basically a pretty simple quantized DCT scheme for audio, but getting good performance out of it requires the encoder to know about and exploit all sorts of psychoacoustic masking effects, basically embedding a model of the auditory system into the encoder.

      --

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

  16. Re:Patents? by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No doubt On2 has filed patents on VP6. Their pitch is that all the patents are (supposedly) owned by them instead of 20 different companies, so it's easier to negotiate a license. Of course, if you aren't willing to pay licensing fees at all then it doesn't make any difference.

  17. codec overload by LordMyren · · Score: 2, Insightful

    does anyone else get the idea that all these new better more innovative codecs are seriously damaging the overall encoding scene? sure, all the computer users can just go download the latest nemo codec pack, but stand alone players trying to support all these new different formats are being over run by a army of different codecs. ultimately we doom ourselves.

  18. This is likely to be VASTLY expensive. by almaw · · Score: 4, Informative

    Another poster pointed out that this codec isn't free, and is just as commercial and proprietry as Real and WMV. They're wrong - it's actually much worse than those in terms of cost and lock-in.

    Now, I don't know what the terms are for VP6, but our company investigated implementing VP5 a while back. To encode in realtime, you needed dedicated hardware ($15,000 per license). To encode offline, you need software at $10,000 per license. This is licensed on a rolling annual basis - i.e. $10,000 a year. You then additionally need to license the TrueCast on-demand server to distribute content, which is similarly priced.

    I'd expect VP6 to be similarly priced to VP5. You'd better be encoding an awful lot of video and saving an awful lot of bandwidth to make it worth your while.

    OTOH, the quality of VP5 was extremely good for a given bandwidth (much better than xvid).

  19. Re:Install ffdshow and other video tools mentioned by Joe+Tie. · · Score: 4, Informative

    Ffdshow is an easy replacement, as it's based on a Linux project, ffmpeg.

    The extent of my encoding comes from recording TV or VHS tapes and throwing a few filters at them for cleanup and encoding. So I've never had a chance to become familiar with what features avisynth has. Some people over at Doom9's Linux forum have mentioned getting Avisynth running in wine.

    Tmpgenc should be a pretty easy replacement. Transcode seems to be a favorite for mpeg2 encoding. There was a problem when I first started using Linux, which slowed mpeg encoding to a snails pace for a while, and I've never found a chance to get back to see how it works when fully functional. A lot of peoplel swear by it though, and it's feature list is pretty impressive. Avidemux, as well as quite a few other programs also provide mpeg1 encoding, I think through ffmpeg.

    Everything in VirtualDub/VirtualDubMod except video capture should work fine under wine and that's what I used for quite a while before Avidemux appeared. The design and functionality are very similar to virtualdub, and it also includes encoding to mpeg1.

    One of the two best media players for Linux, Mplayer, should be noted to have better support for matroska, in cvs, than is available for the format under windows. And these tools can be used for creation and editing of matroska files.

    For capture from a tv card, I use nuppelvideo, and then use avidemux to edit and convert to a smaller format.

    --
    Everything will be taken away from you.
  20. H.264 not patent free by benwaggoner · · Score: 3, Informative

    Actually, H.264 is manifestly NOT patent free. There may be a license-fee free baseline profile for it, but it's certain that the higher profiles will have some kind of license fee ala the current MPEG-4 codec.

    Still, that certainly doesn't kill a format in every case. Every DVD player pays $2.50 to MPEG-LA.

  21. Re:Install ffdshow and other video tools mentioned by Joe+Tie. · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'd love to see a write up on video encoding on linux, maybe I'll do one myself.

    I forgot to mention, that if you do take this on, Doom9's Linux forum is probaly the single best source of information out there to start with.

    I think there's a real need for a site centered on video editing, capturing and encoding under Linux. It was probaly the single biggest challenge for me moving to Linux, simply because all the information out there is so scattered. Compiling some information is something I keep meaning to do, but never seem to be able to find the time and energy for.

    --
    Everything will be taken away from you.