Slashdot Mirror


Xiph Releases Ogg Theora Alpha-3

ArcRiley writes "For more than a year Xiph hackers have been working on Ogg Theora, an improved version of On2's VP3 video codec. Alpha-3 includes several bitstream changes, VP3 to Theora "upgrade" utilities, and is now supported by Xine, MPlayer, and Real's Helix Player. We're nearing Beta-1 where the format will be frozen, fully documented, and it'll be ready for everyday use."

196 comments

  1. Another standard that probably won't get embraced? by ChaoticChaos · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The #1 thing about open source compression standards is how unwilling most of the brand name players are to support them.

    I've got a Creative Labs Nomad Jukebox 3 and Ogg Vorbis is still not supported and I'm beginning to wonder if it ever will be.

    If OV supported on the iPod?

    The unwillingness by the major brands to support all standards really leaves the consumer in the bind. I've got OV encoded music tracks and just can't listen to them on my Jukebox 3. :-(

  2. Getting Old... by MalaclypseTheYounger · · Score: 4, Funny
    Developers: Xiph Releases Ogg Theora Alpha-3

    OK, Developers got my attention, because I am one.

    I understood the word "Releases".

    And that's about it, from that title.

    All I can think of is Gary Larson's comic strip where it has the "what you say" vs. "what they hear" when you speak to a dog...

    Blah blah blah GINGER blah blah blah blah GINGER...

    --
    Check out the best P2P sharing website: MEDIACHEST.COM
    1. Re:Getting Old... by basic70 · · Score: 2, Funny

      You're a developer, and you understood the word "releases"? Liar, liar.

    2. Re:Getting Old... by 0x0d0a · · Score: 4, Informative

      Xiph is a group (I believe European or something to get the odd-to-my-USian-ear names) that puts out codecs.

      Ogg is a wrapper format that they put out. It serves much the same purpose as QuickTime, AVI, or ASF does. One wraps it around an encoded stream of audio or data. Currently, Ogg is mostly commonly used to contain audio data encoded with the Vorbis codec, which is notable for tending to sound better than MP3, being patent-free and having a completely free implementation for anyone to use.

      Theora is a video codec also put out by Xiph. It is based on an older, originally proprietary video codec that was donated to the Xiph project. I'm not sure how it measures up to existing video codecs.

      Alpha-3 is, I think, pretty self-explanatory to a developer. It's an alpha release, so the developers are leaving open the possibility that they will make large changes (unlike beta software, where the software should be considered ready, and only lacks feedback from a broad base of people). It is the third alpha release.

      Oh, yes. I love the Far Side strip about Ginger. Remember, though, that saying "awk", "sed", or "grep", which sound quite reasonable to people on Slashdot, sounds absolutely bizarre to most folks.

    3. Re:Getting Old... by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      you read the post fully?! Gosh - I mean, surely you should have simply scanned, saw 'ogg' and started posting about how all those commercial mp3 players don't support the wonderfully clean, efficient, Ogg Vorbis format and how that's a conspiracy by Micro$oft to take over the world with its totlaly rubbish and broken WMV format. That spies on you and reports you to the RIAA if you don't pay the DRM fees.

    4. Re:Getting Old... by sveinhal · · Score: 1

      Xiph is a group (I believe European or something to get the odd-to-my-USian-ear names) that puts out codecs.

      Xiph.org Foundation
      c/o Jack Moffitt, Treasurer
      1408 Adams St. NE
      Albuquerque, NM 87110

      Sounds American to me.

    5. Re:Getting Old... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Xiph, Alpha, Beta, Theora, Vorbis all sound very greeky to me :-)

      http://www.xiph.org/mgm/

    6. Re:Getting Old... by pla · · Score: 1
      Xiph is a group (I believe European or something to get the odd-to-my-USian-ear names) that puts out codecs.
      Sounds American to me.

      From Xiph.org, "Xiphophorus helleri is a small aquarium fish (the common Swordtail)". They chose it mecause no one else had used it (unlike, say, "phoenix"), and it had an X in it (as all good project names should).

      And it comes from the Greek, xipho=sword, phorus=bearer, and some guy named Heller named the thing (the fish, not the organization).
    7. Re:Getting Old... by Sloppy · · Score: 1
      All I can think of is
      ... that you're proud of your ignorance.
      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    8. Re:Getting Old... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's see: _____ releases _____ alpha-3. WTF is hard to understand about any of that? Company/group/person releases product with version number.

    9. Re:Getting Old... by forkazoo · · Score: 1

      >Oh, yes. I love the Far Side strip about Ginger. Remember, though, that saying "awk", "sed", or
      >"grep", which sound quite reasonable to people on Slashdot, sounds absolutely bizarre to most folks.

      If those zarking users would just say that they don't grok me, we'd be fine!

    10. Re:Getting Old... by Lord+Kano · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Ogg is a wrapper format that they put out. It serves much the same purpose as QuickTime, AVI, or ASF does. One wraps it around an encoded stream of audio or data. Currently, Ogg is mostly commonly used to contain audio data encoded with the Vorbis codec, which is notable for tending to sound better than MP3, being patent-free and having a completely free implementation for anyone to use.

      I hadn't payed much atten to Off Vorbis, I knew that it was a "free" (Speech and Beer) audio compression scheme, but I didn't know too much more than that.

      How long do you think it will be before some zealoutous asshats start demanding that we call it Ogg/Vorbis?

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    11. Re:Getting Old... by babbage · · Score: 1

      Wanting to stick with the English language is ignorant?

      Granted, not everyone uses English as a primary or even secondary language, but come on, as languages go, English is extremely flexible and willing to adopt foreign terminology. Words like "sushi" and "glasnost" and "bjork" don't sound all that weird to the ears of many English speakers.

      But Xiph? Theora? Ogg? These sound like nasty things the Giant would have said to threaten our hero in Jack & The Beanstalk. These words are like something that a cave man would say to threaten, or maybe proposition, some cave-wench.

      These names -- and I'm being very charitable here -- are extremely effing stupid.

      A lot of the time, new English terminology is borrowed from existing terms in another language: often Greek & Latin, but sometimes more current languages like French, German, Yiddish, Arabic, Japanese, etc. As a general rule, science fiction is not usually seen as a rich source of new names, and the Ogg fiasco is a perfect demonstration of why that would be the case.

      I can't say "ogg" without feeling dirty. I already have a hard time typing it and will probably be giving my keyboard a nice bath to purge if of my sins. If you'll excuse me...

  3. Release Notes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'm happy to announce at long last the release of theora alpha 3. This incorporates all the bitstream changes we wanted to make both for future encoder improvements and to permit lossless transcode of VP3 content. This is an important milestone for us on the road to a stable release.

    As this is an alpha release we are again providing sources only. See the files section of downloads. This version requires libogg 1.1 or later and libvorbis 1.0.1 or later.

    Also new in this release are a set of experimental tools in the win32 directory contributed by Mauricio Piacentini. This includes a transcoding tool for avi-encapsulated vp3 video which also works on linux.

    We hope to not make any further incompatible bitstream changes, but this is still alpha code. Don't use this for content you're not ready to re-encode!

    Thanks to everyone who contributed!

  4. I've never really understood... by Stopmotioncleaverman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Why leading companies (eg. Creative, Apple, etc.) consistently fail to support, or even downright ignore the Ogg format - it's a good, clean, relatively non-lossy, and compact compression system. Why isn't it supported by the mainstream audio hardware manufacturers? With further enhancements, Ogg could be set to draw level with MP3 on a usability and listenability basis (is that a word? it is now!), only sadly not on a compatibility basis. We can only hope that Ogg will grow in popularity and so become a more prominent feature in the audio market.

    1. Re:I've never really understood... by alex_tibbles · · Score: 1, Informative

      Well in eg a portable music player, each codec takes more silicon and silicon development costs lots of money. Either that or do it in software and then the batteries won't last 5 mins.
      Unless u could do it in firmware - perhaps FPGA?

    2. Re:I've never really understood... by AndroidCat · · Score: 4, Informative

      I notice that the CBC's Quirks and Quarks radio show supports Ogg. Figures that a science program would be clued-in on latest developments. Hopefully the rest of the CBC will catch up--they still only offer the Big Ugly Three (and sometimes only Real).

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    3. Re:I've never really understood... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I've never understood why you go on about audio formats, when the article is about video codecs.

    4. Re:I've never really understood... by LordPhantom · · Score: 1

      How hard is it really to understand? _Marketing_ Noone wants to re-educate the masses on the good points of a new compression utility when _everybody_ still associates MP3s with pretty good quality sound. The consumer market is comfortable with it, the uneducated identify it with "new technology", and so-on and so forth.

    5. Re:I've never really understood... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, iTunes has OGG icons, so perhaps it's planned.

    6. Re:I've never really understood... by drjimmy42 · · Score: 1
      Why leading companies (eg. Creative, Apple, etc.) consistently fail to support, or even downright ignore the Ogg format
      As much as I would love to see Apple, Creative et al support ogg, I'm afraid its never going to happen exactly because its a free format. These companies probably _hate_ the fact that they have to support mp3 at all because they can't control what people do with it. Ironically enough, it was/is the popularity of mp3 that created this market to begin with. However, in the end, there is little or no motivation to support another uncontrollable format.
      --
      If you're not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate
    7. Re:I've never really understood... by ratamacue · · Score: 1
      relatively non-lossy

      Relatively? That doesn't make sense. Compression is either lossy or lossless. There's no ambiguity.

      Zip is lossless. JPEG is lossy. PNG is lossless. MP3 is lossy. Ogg Vorbis is lossy. This isn't something to debate about -- lossy compression is neither "good" nor "bad". It's a compression technique which simply trades data integrity for space. If lossy audio compression doesn't suit your needs, there are lossless formats available too (FLAC for example) which don't compromise data integrity.

    8. Re:I've never really understood... by gitarman · · Score: 1

      I understand it all too well... It's numbers pure and simple. MP3 will remain top dog because people are used to it and look for it and they know that their computers will run it. When they see ogg, like as not they will pass it by. IMHO the way to change this is to get active, put up plenty of shoutcast style radio stations using OGG and make sure everyone knows about it. This is nothing new if ogg is to survive, it will take a little work. If it is to thrive, it will take a lot of work, and guess who has to do it?

    9. Re:I've never really understood... by elgaard · · Score: 1

      You can do it in firmware.
      IRiver does that:
      http://www.millerpc.co.uk/shop/news/october /iRiver _OGG.asp

      As for wasting silicon:

      ===
      The iFP-300 series would be same as the iMP-250 and 350 that require a selection between Ogg firmware and MP3 &WMA firmware. The iFP-500 series is capable of supporting both types of codec simultaneously.
      ===

      I am not sure how to parse that. Do you give up WMA or both WMA and MP3 for OGG?

      But it shows that you can get Ogg on at least some hardware without extra silicon development cost.

      Also the Rio Karma play Ogg and has Java software that runs fine on any OS.

    10. Re:I've never really understood... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Clearly, some lossy compression schemes will loose more data (They will be "more lossy") than others. For example here is my super-duper-mega-Tokyo lossy compression algorithm, which is lossless in the sense that, well, it discards every other byte:
      int compress(char *in,char **out,int len)
      {
      int n,m;

      if(!in)
      return EINVAL;

      *out=(char*)malloc(len/2);
      for(n=m=0;n<len;n++,m+=2)
      *out[n]=in[m];

      return 0;
      }
      Clearly it is "more lossy" than E.g. JPEG or MPEG-2 Layer III, therefore those compression schemes are, relativly, "non lossy" compared to this one.

      Fancy using C to highlight a naunce of the English language, eh?
    11. Re:I've never really understood... by Hast · · Score: 1

      The benefit of this release (from what I've gathered from previous posts) is that it allows bit-shaving. This means that you can take an existing Ogg file and downcode it simply by remove data. You do not have to re-encode the file (and thus make it lower quality due to re-encoding issues).

      For me this could be a real dealbreaker as far as use is concerned. I can keep copies on my PC which are extremely high quality (basically lossless) and bit-shave them on-the-fly as I copy to my Ogg player.

      Now that all fails since I don't have an Ogg player. But it would be nicer than my current setup (FLAC originals and transcode to mp3).

    12. Re:I've never really understood... by ratamacue · · Score: 1
      Clearly it is "more lossy" than E.g. JPEG or MPEG-2 Layer III, therefore those compression schemes are, relativly, "non lossy" compared to this one.

      Wrong. JPEG and MPEG-2 are lossy. The fact that some compression schemes are "more lossy" does not change the design paradigm of JPEG and MPEG-2. You can say that JPEG and MPEG-2 are "less lossy" than your compression algorithm, but they are still lossy. You cannot, however, say they are "relatively non-lossy" (lossless). There is no such thing as "relatively lossless"! It's one or the other.

      Compression is either lossy or lossless. It doesn't make sense to compare the two -- they are different design paradigms with different goals, different purposes. Use the right tool for the job.

      If there was a lossy version of zip (this would be absurd of course), which throws away only "a little" data during the compression process, would you say that this version of zip is "relatively lossless"? Of course not! If you lose data during compression, you lose data during compression. If you don't, you don't. There's no ambiguity.

    13. Re:I've never really understood... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It may be great and all but it really doesn't offer much more than the de facto standards that everyone uses and everything supports.

      Try playing your Ogg Theora video in a DVD player. Try playing your Ogg Vorbis music in an iPod.

      There is just too much momentum behind the current popular "standards". Of course that may change in the future, but right now it's what we got and companies are not going to waste money supporting every wierd and bizarre format out there.

    14. Re:I've never really understood... by ratamacue · · Score: 1
      basically lossless

      There's no "basically" or "relatively" or "almost" lossless! If it's not lossless, it's lossy.

      I'm not saying that lossy compression can't sound great, even indistinguishable from the lossless master -- what I'm saying is that lossy compression is not lossless compression, by technical definition. They are apples and oranges. They are not on the same scale. Lossless doesn't have a "quality scale" like lossy -- it's simply lossless. Does zip have a quality scale? Of course not.

    15. Re:I've never really understood... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look you flaming idiot. He did not say they were "non lossy" he said "relatively non-lossy", which has an entirely different meaning. Two lossy compression schemes, relative to one another, can be "lossy" and "non lossy" because they are relative terms being applied to two items. If you really don't understand this then I'd suggest you study the English language a little.

      Wailing and gnashing your teeth about compression being either "lossless" or "lossy" is just a waste of time. Of course the compression is lossy. But in relation to another compression scheme it is, get this, "relatively non-lossy" It loses less data compared to the other . Do you get it yet?

    16. Re:I've never really understood... by cbiffle · · Score: 1

      Why leading companies (eg. Creative, Apple, etc.) consistently fail to support, or even downright ignore the Ogg format

      Is Rio no longer a leading company?

      Apologies, I've been out of the game for a while, but I've been really happy with my little Karma.

    17. Re:I've never really understood... by ratamacue · · Score: 1

      Yes, I get it. And no, there is still no such thing as "relatively lossless" compression. "Less lossy", sure. "More lossy", sure. "Relatively lossless"? Impossible, by the technical definition of lossless compression.

      I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing. I'm arguing because I want you to understand the technical difference between lossy and lossless compression. There is simply no "quality scale" for lossless compression, because there's only one value: lossless!

      If you compress with lossless, then uncompress, the resulting file is bit-for-bit identical with the original. That is the definition of lossless compression. If you compress with lossy, then uncompress, the resulting file is NOT bit-for-bit identical. As you can see, there's no logical way to achieve lossy and lossless compression at the same time, so the term "relatively lossless" is just silly.

    18. Re:I've never really understood... by molafson · · Score: 1

      Why leading companies (eg. Creative, Apple, etc.) consistently fail to support, or even downright ignore the Ogg format

      Do you think it might have something to do with money?

    19. Re:I've never really understood... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DEAR IDIOT, I UNDERSTAND THE TECHNICAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LOSSLESS AND LOSSY

      Now we have that out the way can you please engage your brain and try to grasp this simple point: The original poster was using the term "relatively lossless" because he was comparing two lossless compression schemes, hence one is relative to the other. This is not a technical discussion, this is about the English language. While it was phrased badly, what the poster was trying to say is that "Compared to lossy encoding scheme A, lossy encoding scheme B loses less data. Hence, encoding scheme B is less lossy than A. In fact when comparing A and B as relative to each other, B is almost lossless." You're so wrapped up in the idea that no one understand lossless v's lossy compression that you've totally missed the point.

    20. Re:I've never really understood... by cubic6 · · Score: 1

      I have a iFP-340, and you can choose between supporting MP3 and Vorbis or MP3 and WMA.

      --
      Karma: Contrapositive
    21. Re:I've never really understood... by acramon1 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps your parent poster meant "practically lossless" or "lossless for all intents and purposes." I agree that the technical definitions for lossless/lossy force codecs to be either lossless or lossy. Nevertheless, to one's ears (as you've mentioned), the loss may be completely insignificant; in these cases, to say that the codec is "practically" lossless--or lossless in practical (listening) use--wouldn't be incorrect.

      I know, it's just a matter of semantics, but you've made 2 posts about it already, so I felt obligated to jump in. =)

    22. Re:I've never really understood... by ratamacue · · Score: 1

      I haven't missed anything, buddy. Regardless of what the orignal poster was "trying to say", he said something that was misleading. I corrected him. What was your problem again?

    23. Re:I've never really understood... by ratamacue · · Score: 1
      to say that the codec is "practically" lossless--or lossless in practical (listening) use--wouldn't be incorrect.

      Not entirely incorrect, but still misleading. (A slightly corrupted zip archive is also "practically lossless".) The better terminology would be "super high-quality lossy compression", not "near-lossless compression".

    24. Re:I've never really understood... by platypus · · Score: 1
      There's no "basically" or "relatively" or "almost" lossless! If it's not lossless, it's lossy.

      Well, in that special case, it "lossless" might even be correct, for a special quality of lossless.
      It might mean that concatenation of encoding transformations is a transitive operation, i.e.
      downcode_to_a(downcode_to_b(original)) = downcode_to_a(original) for quality parameters a < b
      .

      In that sense, downcoding to b would have been "lossless", since normally concatenated downcoding would lead to worse quality.

  5. DivX popularity by PingKing · · Score: 4, Interesting

    While I'm sure this is a great codec, hasn't DivX pretty much sewn up the market on video codecs?

    It's established, popular and gives tight compression. Can new codecs such as Theora break into this market to any significant degree?

    --

    Patriotism - the last resort of scoundrels.
    1. Re:DivX popularity by alex_tibbles · · Score: 3, Informative

      VP3 was meant to be a Real-killer, rather than a movie format - streaming. How does DivX work at very low bitrates? Is it acceptable at modem speed? Does it stream well?

    2. Re:DivX popularity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      One word - games.

      Need an animated intro or cutscene in a PC game? The options are kind of limited. You can license DivX or Bink, or rely on whatever codecs come as standard with Windows, but the options are either expensive, low-quality or problematic.

      I was commenting on Ogg Vorbis in games a few minutes ago, and was wondering how the Xiph people were getting on with Ogg Theora. I clicked to go to the Slashdot front page, and behold!

      I reckon I can sense the future, and I don't even have a Slashdot subscription. ;-]

    3. Re:DivX popularity by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1

      DivX doesn't stream, and has a bit of a dicey reputation. I haven't seen much corporate use -- QuickTime, RealMedia, and WMV seem to be what companies go for.

      Frankly, I'd just as soon that everyone uses DivX for everything, but they just don't today.

    4. Re:DivX popularity by Zenki · · Score: 1

      Sure. Theora just needs to be supported everywhere. Meaning Macs, PCs, niche OS's. DivX is only really well supported on Windows (and maybe Mac, never really tried) and requires a kludge to get working on Linux. (Don't know about the state of DivX on the *BSDs.)

      If Theora is ported to as many operating systems as possible, there is no way for DivX to compete because it would be insanely easy for a media provider to encode to Ogg Theora and reach the widest possible audience. Decent encoding tools, maybe on par with the one provided by Microsoft for Windows Media could help. (Integration with other free tools such as VirtualDub could help.)

    5. Re:DivX popularity by dabadab · · Score: 1

      The video codec "market" (unlike the audio) is already pretty diverse as it is - there are 3 generations of DivX, there is XviD, all the other variations on MPEG-4, MPEG-2, etc.
      So there is really no problem with adding yet another codec to the mix.
      BTW, the newer "DivX-playing" chipset started to support Ogg Vorbis, so I'm sure that eventually we will se HW support for Theora as well.

      --
      Real life is overrated.
    6. Re:DivX popularity by SlightOverdose · · Score: 1

      I hardly think a game with a few million dollars of budget is going to think twice about shelling out for a DivX or Bink license.

    7. Re:DivX popularity by The+Original+Yama · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I've seen an increasing number of video files on the Internet being distributed in Vorbis/Xvid format (i.e. Ogg Vorbis audio and Xvid video). Which raises the question: why is Ogg Theora always looked upon as the champion open source video format? Xvid is GPL, and from my experience it delivers the best quality/compression performance of all the codecs out there. Most importantly, it works -- now.

    8. Re:DivX popularity by NotAnotherReboot · · Score: 1

      Some major game companies are already using Ogg Vorbis for sound. Others have used MP3, but why pay the royalties if the end-user can't tell the difference (and indeed, you would be paying more for less).

      Of course, PC game cut-scenes are going less and less from video files to actually in-game scenes.

    9. Re:DivX popularity by MS_is_the_best · · Score: 4, Informative

      Although the code of Xvid of xvid is GPL, XviD is still an ISO MPEG-4 compliant video codec. That means that the patent holders of MPEG-4 can still demand a fee for its use.

      Theora doesn't have such limitations.

    10. Re:DivX popularity by Lussarn · · Score: 1

      UT2003/2004 uses OGG Vorbis for music. If it has (according to you) nothing to do with licensing fee maybe it is because OGG is just plain better then the competition.

      Maybe theora can be that good too.

    11. Re:DivX popularity by cozziewozzie · · Score: 1

      Don't know about DivX (tm), but XviD is a Free Software implementation of MPEG4, compatible with DivX and works like a charm on Linux. There are also the FFMpeg implementations (used by mplayer and xine) which play all DivX movies without problems and encode to a compatible format. Who cares how well DivX works under Linux? There are better substitutes.

    12. Re:DivX popularity by cozziewozzie · · Score: 4, Informative

      Xvid is Free Software, but it's an implementation of MPEG4, which is patent-encumbered. It's the same reason that Ogg Vorbis is seen as the champion of free music, although there are GPL MP3 encoders.

    13. Re:DivX popularity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After the first three words of your comment the accuracy of your post went quickly downhill. (hint: no one wants to deal with patents and legal contracts if they don't have to.)

    14. Re:DivX popularity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just discovered over the weekend that a program that has been around for a while (irfanview) now supports the xxx.ogg(audio) format.......

    15. Re:DivX popularity by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Last I heard, and things could have easily changed since then, the patent holders for MPEG-4 had decided to charge a fee for each file encoded in MPEG-4 but no fee for encoders/decoders. This decision has been blamed for the slow uptake of MPEG-4 in the commercial world (unlike the online bootleg video world where it is uber-popular) and perhaps making it easier for microsoft to get a foot in the door with VC9 for HD-DVD.

      How this fee structure affects the GPL status of XviD and FFDshow, I don't know, but it is a bit different from the standard Fraunhoffer style, "we own the patents, you must pay a licensing fee even if your code is a 100% clean-room implementation."

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    16. Re:DivX popularity by UpnAtom · · Score: 1

      Most people don't know what DivX is, so unlike MP3, its current lead over XviD isn't a big barrier and XviD is what most of the Doom9 guys are now using.

      I suspect Theora would have to be better than both to stand a chance.

      Software support by Gordian Knot and similar all-in-one packages would be necessary too.

    17. Re:DivX popularity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's established, popular and gives tight compression. Can new codecs such as Theora break into this market to any significant degree?

      When you install DivX Pro (the encoder), it writes data to your boot sector without asking, just like that scandalous TurboTax. This data cannot be removed without reformatting (says DivX tech support). In my case, I bought the computer used, used it for about six months. When I went to install my purchased copy of DivX Pro, all of my videos stopped playing, and I couldn't encode anything. After wrestling with DivX tech support for 3 weeks, I was finally told that my DivX activation was corrupted and that I wouldn't be able to use it without reformatting.

      In other words, I hate them and now use XviD.

    18. Re:DivX popularity by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1
      Xvid is GPL

      ...which is, by itself, enough of a problem to hinder uptake. Proprietary manufacturers can use the Vorbis codecs (under a BSD license) in their products without having to open their code. They can't legally do that with the GPL'ed Xvid (remember, GPL != LGPL).

      I use a Free Software-only workstation, but I have zero expectation of buying a hardware media player and getting access to the source code.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    19. Re:DivX popularity by Sloppy · · Score: 1
      No, MPEG2 is the big market winner, due to its use in consumer DVDs. The proprietary codecs from Apple, Microsoft, and Real, also have significant market share on the Internet.

      Divx is mainly used by end users who transcode to it from MPEG2. It has some quite significant share within that realm, but it's hardly "sewn up." (In some ways, it's just a "hobbyist format" kinda like Vorbis is with audio, except without some of the freedom advantages.) Divx is doing well mainly due to technical merit. In terms of ideology and (probably more important to most people) market tie-in (i.e. content being released in that format), it's invisible. If someone comes out with a technically better codec, then Divx is toast. (Whether Theora is that codec, I'm not so sure...)

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    20. Re:DivX popularity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... and they can change the rules at any time, and will, if it's profitable

    21. Re:DivX popularity by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 2, Informative

      Nope, there is a royalty due on every encoder and decoder as well as every minute of content. Get the facts here.

    22. Re:DivX popularity by benwaggoner · · Score: 2, Informative

      DivX has the largest market share for pirated content distributed via P2P networks. But it isn't a meaningful player in commercial markets.

      Among other things, since DivX is based on the AVI file format, it doesn't have native support for streaming. It's really a CD-ROM format at its heart.

      Also, DivX uses the MPEG-4 part 2 video codec, which is being superseded.

      For commercial codecs, MPEG-2 is probably 95% of the market today. And the battle is now raging between Microsoft's VC-9 and MPEG-4 AVC (aka Part 10 aka H.264) as to which will replace MPEG-2 over this decade.

    23. Re:DivX popularity by Inuchance · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but then DivX threw spyware into their program at the last second. Take a look for yourself.

      Of course, there's always 3ivx, etc.

  6. DivX problems by ArcRiley · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Patents. DivX is just a series of alpha-releases for MPEG-4 and is covered by the same set of patents (from dozens of different companies). They're only being nice about DivX until MPEG-4 comes out, then they're going to "crack down".

    Remember when MP3 was gaining popularity, Frauhofer just let everyone do whatever they wanted with players, encoders, etc... but once they realised they had something worth charging for they cracked down and their lawyers started sending everyone ceise and desist orders.

    Ogg Theora is not encumbered by patents. It is, and will always be, royalty-free. To my knowledge it is the first video codec that can be implemented in truly Free Software.

    1. Re:DivX problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ogg Theora is not encumbered by patents. It is, and will always be, royalty-free. To my knowledge it is the first video codec that can be implemented in truly Free Software.

      Actually, I read that its parent, VP3, does have a patent on it, but that it's been comprehensively de-fanged by the company which donated the codec, On2.

      I've no idea whether this is better or worse than being completely unpatented, but it's still way, way better than anything like MPEG-2 or MPEG-4. :-]

    2. Re:DivX problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember when MP3 was gaining popularity, Frauhofer just let everyone do whatever they wanted with players, encoders, etc... but once they realised they had something worth charging for they cracked down and their lawyers started sending everyone ceise and desist orders.

      yeah, and you never see anything MP3 any more...

    3. Re:DivX problems by jsebrech · · Score: 1

      MP3 and DIVX are mostly used to commit crimes with. People who are using them legally tend to have bought legal software.

      I see the motivation behind patent-free codecs, and I like it, but I doubt that by itself is sufficient motivation to switch. Ogg vorbis has been out for a long time now, and it's still a niche player, despite being a superior codec to mp3 in all ways possible.

  7. Re:Ug. Me get new moving picture thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the subject is so domain-specific, perhaps this particular story doesn't merit posting on the front page of Slashdot.

  8. Re:Another standard that probably won't get embrac by Moonpie+Madness · · Score: 3, Informative

    Great, sad, point. But remember that as these devices get more complex, the time when some smart fella or lady throws linux on it get more near. Eventually, it won't matter that The Man doesn't support OV. As technology improves, the open source community has more places to innovate and use the best compression music among other things. It's only because of open sourcers creating such things as OV that arent the most useful now that we will ever have hope of such things being useful ever. I'm just glad they are ironing out wrinkles before I need their stuff to work.

  9. Re:Ug. Me get new moving picture thing. by MalaclypseTheYounger · · Score: 2, Funny

    On Monday morning, before 3 mountain dews? Very dumbed down.

    "Company releases beta stuff" would suffice. :)

    --
    Check out the best P2P sharing website: MEDIACHEST.COM
  10. Re:Ug. Me get new moving picture thing. by AllUsernamesAreGone · · Score: 2, Funny

    "People wo write files containing instuctions telling a computer what to do: the Xiph.Org Foundation releases (that is, allows the world to see) the 3rd alpha ("this will crash") of their strange named video ("moving pictures") encoding and decoding format Ogg Theora"

    That dumbed down enough do you think? I'm worried about "encoding and decoding"....

  11. Theora's File Size by TrekkieGod · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I'm really interested in Theora, so I've done some looking around trying to get some more information. Theora, from the faq, is a superset of the VP3 codec. I couldn't find much more information on what it is specifically that they improved on.

    The VP3 codec has one major drawback in my opinion. It's designed to keep a constant quality without paying attention to the file size. You can do constant bitrate on it, but you can't use multiple pass encoding with variable bitrates to get that balance of quality while having strict file size control (as with xvid). Is this something that is being added to Theora, does anyone know?

    --

    Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.

    1. Re:Theora's File Size by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      afaik 2-pass is in or near completion in some developers tree.

      the major drawback i see is that the format is too old.

      from the methods used to compress the video, that is block mc, dct and a huffman coder,
      two of them, dct and huffman, are made obsolete by wavelets and arithmetic coders.
      these are common since the early nineties.

      but mpeg seems stuck too so there might be a chance for codecs like
      dirac or vc5 to set at least prior art.

    2. Re:Theora's File Size by mzs · · Score: 2, Informative

      You might try these options to the sample encoder: --audio-rate-target --video-rate-target --audio-quality --video-quality This is not two-pass but it may be close enough. I always seem to need to some fudge with XVID using mencoder so this might end-up being as close as you need in practice for now.

    3. Re:Theora's File Size by benwaggoner · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, once they've locked down the bitstream, folks can start innovating on building better encoders compatible with the bitstream format. 2-pass encoding would be an obvious initial step.

      Codecs can get a LOT better due to encoder innovation. MPEG-2 has roughly tripled its compression efficiency since standardization.

  12. Curios definition of "beta"... by Kjella · · Score: 3, Funny

    We're nearing Beta-1 where the format will be frozen, fully documented, and it'll be ready for everyday use.

    Not only beta... but beta-1. And I assume that means there'll be a beta-2 and maybe a few more, before we get to RC1, and perhaps a few of those too. So, what decade is Release 1.0 planned for? And what exactly will happen with the "frozen, fully documented" codec between beta-1 and release?

    Kjella

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    1. Re:Curios definition of "beta"... by TiggsPanther · · Score: 1

      Not totally "with" the whole development scene myself, but I think what it means is that they're about to freeze any feature development for this version of Theora. So it'll be into a few rounds of testing and bugfixing, without any new stuff to muddy up the waters.

      Tiggs
      --
      Tiggs
      "120 chars should be enough for everyone..."
    2. Re:Curios definition of "beta"... by Neil · · Score: 2, Informative

      At beta-1, the format of the Theora bitstream will be "frozen and fully documented". The reference software that implements the format will continue to be bugfixed/improved/tweaked, but they will not make any incompatible changes to the data format. Ogg files encoded using the beta software will be compatible with v1.x decoders - this isn't necessarily true of the alpha releases.

      ('twas the same with Vorbis audio, as it was developed, if I recall correctly).

  13. Re:Another standard that probably won't get embrac by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    My Rio Karma works just fine with Ogg. In fact, all I have on the thing is Ogg.

    It works incredibly well, and with 20gigs for $250 shipped, and a Java-based interface program (which runs on FreeBSD and Linux), I'm very happy with it.

  14. Theora for streaming by ArcRiley · · Score: 5, Interesting
    It's ironic to think of Theora as a "Real-killer", while it does compete on the same field as Real's proprietary video streaming codecs, Real is adopting Theora for the video format in their Helix suite (and throwing money at Xiph to help get Theora out faster).

    I've seen Theora be streamed with Icecast (check out the last Ogg Traffic), I've seen decent quality Theora video at 80kbps (320x240@30 even), and I've seen how well it works in an Ogg container, vs Quicktime/AVI which (unlike Ogg) were not designed for streaming.

    But don't take my word for it, try it out for yourself! That's one of the reasons the Alpha releases are available to the general public. See what it can do, and prehaps, drop us a donation through Paypal or Affero to help the Theora hackers spend more time hacking.

    1. Re:Theora for streaming by benwaggoner · · Score: 1

      Well, Real is ADDING Theora support, but it's like like it threatens their own proprietary codecs. The new RealVideo 10 is excellent. Backwards compatible with RV9, but with a much enhanced new codec. Better motion searching, and an innovative preprocessing engine coupled to the codec where it basically smoothes out areas in the video that would result in artifacts. The resulting video can look abnormally "clean" but almost never has blocking or ringing artifacts at reasonable data rates.

  15. Whatever happened to Tarkin? by cozziewozzie · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Slashdot used to report on Ogg Tarkin (next-generation, wavelet-based video codec) a lot in the past, but since Theora showed up as a stop-gap solution, nobody's mentioning Tarkin. Is this project still alive?

    1. Re:Whatever happened to Tarkin? by hsoom · · Score: 5, Informative
      From the Theora FAQ:
      Q: What about Tarkin?

      A: Tarkin is essentially a proof-of-concept wavelet-based codec. Its experimental nature means it will not be ready for general use for some time. VP3 is a high-quality codec that can meet today's video needs now, so Xiph.org will be focusing its efforts on Theora for the near future.
    2. Re:Whatever happened to Tarkin? by zoeblade · · Score: 1

      I'd imagine Tarkin's been put on hold until Theora's finalised. Seeing as Theora's meant to be a stop-gap solution before Tarkin, that'd certainly make sense. Get something good out as soon as possible, and something great out when it's ready.

    3. Re:Whatever happened to Tarkin? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you want a free wavelet based codec the BBC have just released one under the GPL. Its called Dirac and its on sourceforge. Its still alpha code but...

      http://sourceforge.net/projects/dirac/

    4. Re:Whatever happened to Tarkin? by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Join the society against raping the word "rape."

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
  16. Re:Ug. Me get new moving picture thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Company releases beta stuff" would suffice. :)

    Hmmm a tough one, I guess there's a trade off going on here between "simple" and "true". Xiph is not a company, and this is an alpha release not a beta release. On the plus side, the word you liked before "release" is still valid.

  17. Re:Another standard that probably won't get embrac by Singletoned · · Score: 4, Informative
    The Neuros Audio Player supports Ogg, has a 20Gb hard disk, Linux version of its software and is only $200. You couldn't really ask for more, but if you did want to ask for more they also have a very active community forum and listen to your suggestions and stuff.

    You are right that the 'brand names' don't support these formats very well. This is why you should probably look past the brand names and check out the little guys...

  18. Re:Another standard that probably won't get embrac by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 1

    You forget that the idea of these devices, are to do one thing, and do it well. To keep things efficient and cheap, they design the device to be built from well engineered specifications.

    You CAN (And they do) make more general hardware devices, driven by software, but ultimately the need for that extra juice is all cost that will be passed to you, the consumer.

    I, for one, dont wants a "do everything" device that is overcost and underpowered. I just want an mp3 player that is affordable, that plays Mp3's really good.

    --

    "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
  19. Xine? Mplayer? by dnoyeb · · Score: 0, Troll

    There was nothing more frustrating over the last year than trying to get either Xine or MPlayer working on my Linux box. That was an utter headache.

    Linux has many well put together packages, Multimedia is not one of them.

    Ultimately I gave up on those players and just play movies on my windows box with Media Player, Quicktime, and a host of installed codecs. I suppose the college kids need a few more years to work with MM on Linux before it matures.

    1. Re:Xine? Mplayer? by gid13 · · Score: 1

      That's ironic, I find that Multimedia is the one area Linux has been kicking ass on.

      Using Arch Linux (although it's a bitch to install in the first place), it took "pacman -Sy mplayer" to set up mplayer with all codecs. Simply beautiful, and it's played everything I've thrown at it, from .rmvb to .mov to .ogm.

      More than for any other reason, I find myself booting Linux to watch a movie.

    2. Re:Xine? Mplayer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      holy shit, apt-get install xine. this CAN'T get easier than now.

    3. Re:Xine? Mplayer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Linux has many well put together packages, Multimedia is not one of them.

      You're obviously using a distro that's not so well put together.

    4. Re:Xine? Mplayer? by Nimrangul · · Score: 1
      What Linux based operating system were you using? Did you try a binary or to compile it yourself?

      I realise that OpenBSD isn't something most Linux heavy people like to talk about in any positive light, but the pkg/ports system allows for an excellent and easy install of mplayer and the codecs I want. Perhaps trying a system with a ports tree would be better for you.

      --
      I'm sick of following my dreams - I'm just going to ask them where they're going and hook up with them later.
    5. Re:Xine? Mplayer? by 13Echo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wow. Media on Linux has never been better. With minimal effort, in most cases, MPlayer and the codecs can be installed with a simple RPM package. Same goes for XINE and all of the players based upon it.

      MPlayer and XINE work so well, that even Windows-native formats play back with just a fraction of the CPU load. I have yet to come across a typical, modern audio or video file on the web that doesn't play better on Linux than it does on Windows. MPlayer is just too kickass.

      Audio on Linux is fantastic as well. The ALSA subsystem is professional-grade, allows for plugins and has nearly no latency in routing.

      Multimedia is becoming one of Linux's high points. It's no longer limited like it was a few years ago. The problem is that there are so many patented and closed-source codecs out there that don't have legitimate Linux versions. That's where it gets questionable, when you are required to install a hacked Windows DLL to get a format to play on Linux. Things like Ogg Theora will help to end that ridiculous concept, as Vorbis is slowly doing.

    6. Re:Xine? Mplayer? by samhalliday · · Score: 1, Informative
      well, you should be using debian then!
      cat "deb ftp://ftp.nerim.net/debian-marillat/ testing main" >> /etc/apt/sources.list
      apt-get update
      apt-get install w32codecs xine-ui mplayer
      or use aptitude to handle all the dependencies.
    7. Re:Xine? Mplayer? by cubic6 · · Score: 1

      Linux is making progress, but it's got a ways to go.

      KDE and Gnome and whoever else have to get over their egos and decide on a single sound server too. Right now, I have arts routed to esd routed to ALSA routed to hardware, just so I can play sound in more than one application. Movies look like thy're dubbed over in some other language, because the audio is always out of sync.

      If I want to play a game that isn't esd or arts aware, I have to "killall artsd; /etc/init.d/esound stop" as root. There is absolutely no reason why this should be necessary.

      Of course, sound servers are just a kludge around something else that's wrong: ALSA needs decent mixing support! It claims to support software mixing, but you need to setup a config file with plugins, and even then it doesn't work with anything besides the simplest applications.

      Sorry if this came off a bit rantish, but I've been fighting with this stuff for nearly a week, and it's really frustrating. That said, the upper-level software support on Linux really is good, and there are lots of good media players and free codecs coming out.

      --
      Karma: Contrapositive
    8. Re:Xine? Mplayer? by 13Echo · · Score: 1

      ALSA *DOES* have excellent mixing support. The problem is that people have crappy sound chips that don't do hardware mixing. Take the sound servers and throw them out the door. All of my soundcards do mixing in hardware, so I don't need the sound servers. That's because I don't have crappy sound hardware.

      If you have a good soundcard, then your movies will be in sync. A common myth is that Linux cannot do proper mixing. The real issue is that people have junk sound chips that rely on DirectX-type systems to do the mixing. Death to Artsd and ESD. They are junk, and shouldn't be needed if people do their homework and buy the right hardware.

      Buy a decent Soundblaster Live/Audigy, Crystal (Santa Cruz, Hercules Gametheater), Yamaha, Aureal Vortex, or any other card that can do hardware mixing. But don't blame Linux for your hardware's deficiencies.

      The alternative is DMIX for ALSA or 4-Front's Virtual Mixer PRO. These are better than the Artsd/ESD software, but are far from perfect.

    9. Re:Xine? Mplayer? by 13Echo · · Score: 1

      By the way...

      Browse through the ALSA soundcard matrix to get a good idea of a decent card that will do hardware mixing for you.

      http://www.alsa-project.org/alsa-doc/

      You can buy SB Live, Yamaha, and Aureal Vortex cards on ebay for $5.00, new and used. A newer Crystal Soundfusion or Audigy card will be more expensive, and may give you more features though. Santa Cruz runs about $40. Soundblasters are $20+ for a new one.

      $5.00 is a small price to pay for proper sound support in Linux. It will make your headaches go away.

      http://www.compgeeks.com/details.asp?invtid=AU88 10 &cat=SND

    10. Re:Xine? Mplayer? by runderwo · · Score: 1
      Take the sound servers and throw them out the door.
      Better yet, persuade the developers of these sound servers to make their servers output sound via JACK instead of opening /dev/dsp directly. Sound servers are convenient, but they are completely unusable when they claim the sound device for themselves. Making the sound servers into JACK clients would allow them to all get along while allowing other JACK applications to run at the same time.

      For stupid applications that insist on using ALSA PCM interface or /dev/dsp directly for trivial sound outputs, use a wrapper in similar design to aoss to redirect the output to JACK.

    11. Re:Xine? Mplayer? by cubic6 · · Score: 1

      I have a laptop. I'm pretty much stuck with my Intel AC97. How's the support for those silly external USB "sound cards"?

      --
      Karma: Contrapositive
    12. Re:Xine? Mplayer? by cubic6 · · Score: 1

      As I said in my other reply, I can't really get a new sound card... that said, I do take exception to one of your statements. If Linux can't do proper mixing, why do I need a better sound card to do it? Windows (or my Intel drivers, not sure which) did software mixing just fine on this box.

      I've tried DMIX. It's a mess. It took quite a bit of work to set up, and when I was done I could play in as many Alsaplayers as I wanted, but my KDE and Gnome apps still weren't supported. I'd love to get rid of both sound servers, but damn near every decent media player only supports one or the other, not ALSA or, as another poster mentioned, JACK. The only one that has a decent system for output plugins is XMMS, and that doesn't suit my needs.

      --
      Karma: Contrapositive
    13. Re:Xine? Mplayer? by cubic6 · · Score: 1

      How hard would it be to convert my whole system to JACK? If the interface isn't too hard, I'd try my hand at writing an Arts plugin to connect to it.

      --
      Karma: Contrapositive
    14. Re:Xine? Mplayer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      ...Or similarly if you use Gentoo...

      emerge sync
      emerge xine-ui mplayer -v

      Xine has been running better than anything I ran in Windows. Multimedia has been much more pleasurable in Linux.

    15. Re:Xine? Mplayer? by 13Echo · · Score: 2, Informative
      that said, I do take exception to one of your statements. If Linux can't do proper mixing, why do I need a better sound card to do it?


      Once again, I'll restate that *it can* do proper mixing. You are dealing with is a limitation of your hardware, not Linux. It just goes with the territory. It's almost like the people that say: "Linux doesn't do 3D because my obscure video chip isn't supported. X sucks!"

      DMIX is a mess. Unfortunately, that's the price you pay. It's not that Linux can't do the mixing that you ask. Maybe, given time, DMIX will improve. It's a relatively new component for ALSA though. You may want to consider paying for 4-Front's drivers that do it if DMIX doesn't float your boat.

      http://opensound.com/

      These drivers support softmixing reasonably well, but aren't free. They are not a proper alternative to hardware mixing, but they will work. They apparently have an ALSA emulation system, but it's just a "play project." I don't know if I would want an ALSA wrapper sitting on top of a sofware mixer though (their Virtual Mixer).

      Your sound chip is essentially like a Winmodem, built specifically for Windows. Even some chips that do hardware mixing on Windows don't mix on Linux because of lack of proper programming documentation. What can the programmers do about that? Again, Linux's multimedia capabilities are not to blame for a driver issue. A good amount of other users don't have the same problem that you do because they have well-supported hardware.

      It's not something that will change unless hardware developers take a different design approach, and a different approach to releasing their programming docs.

      I must tell you that I understand how you feel though. Really - I am sympathetic to the problems you are having. It's a very frustrating situation to have to deal with this sound issue. I've been through it before, as well. This was before the CS46xx drivers were as mature as they are today. I used the 4-Front drivers to hold me over until my hardware got better ALSA support, and it paid off. If the sound issue is giving you that much of a headache, the $20 may be money well spent. That isn't to say that the 4-Front drivers are without problems though, but it is worth testing them before you fork out $20 for a version that doesn't expire after a period of time.
    16. Re:Xine? Mplayer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and the codecs? ;-)

    17. Re:Xine? Mplayer? by 13Echo · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately. I do not believe that the USB sound devices do hardware mixing, but then again - I do not own one.

    18. Re:Xine? Mplayer? by Salsaman · · Score: 1

      If you want to do more than just watching, try this...

    19. Re:Xine? Mplayer? by runderwo · · Score: 1
      Here is a good start.JACK clients are amazingly simple considering the power of the system. JACK is essentially a sound multiplexer server with extremely low latency (depending on the hardware). It doesn't do any of the nifty sample rate conversion or file loading that the sound servers do, which is why it makes sense to have the sound servers around. But if the sound servers were written against JACK, they would co-operate not only with each other, but with any other JACK clients on the system as well.

    20. Re:Xine? Mplayer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BTW: The most likely cause of sound being out of sync is because you're using a sound server.

    21. Re:Xine? Mplayer? by dnoyeb · · Score: 1

      Yea, I should have mentions that it was RedHat Linux 8 and 9 that was such a headache with multimedia. Im used to windows where I just run an exe and everything works. On linux I had to build the darn thing because no RPMs really existed, or were very hard to find.

  20. Re:Another standard that probably won't get embrac by Malc · · Score: 2, Informative

    That's Creative Labs for you. I'm still waiting for them to make release quality (i.e. not beta ones a year after the fact) Windows 2000 drivers for my DXR3. It works great under NT4, but I haven't used that for years. This issue and their crappy drivers for the Soundblaster Live on SMP systems has convinced me never to buy their products again. They don't fix known problems with their existing products - your only hope is that splashing out more money for the next generation will resolve the problem. They're a very poor company.

  21. Impressive! by Maljin+Jolt · · Score: 3, Informative

    I have a positive feeling about Ogg Theora. Three days ago I installed binary only DivX for linux (closed source), and I am not very happy about it. I want video codec at top performance, optimized for CPU and maybe even 64bit platform later this year, not a 32bit binary pentium-only crap with possible vulnerabilities.

    --
    There you are, staring at me again.
    1. Re:Impressive! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps I'm missing something, but what about xvid?
      I do not do that much encoding, but everytime I'm watching video and I get puzzled by its quality it turns out to be xvid.

    2. Re:Impressive! by 42forty-two42 · · Score: 1

      MPlayer uses ffmpeg, which has an open-source DiVX implementation.

  22. Re:Another standard that probably won't get embrac by asv108 · · Score: 4, Interesting
    OGG Vorbis is acutally making up ground in terms of hardware support:
    • Rio Karma is probably the most popular OGG portable.
    • Roku Soundbridge is a great home player that supports both OGG and Itunes DRMed AAC.
    There are a bunch of other devices that support OGG, but those two are my favorites.
  23. Re:Another standard that probably won't get embrac by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you can always download redchair's software. that translates Oggs to MP3 on the fly, saving hassle. Not ideal, but until someone releases an open source version of the firmware....

  24. Re:Another standard that probably won't get embrac by Long-EZ · · Score: 1
    I held out for an MP3 player that supported Ogg. I bought the Rio Karma 20. I think Ogg is working its way into the newer players. The turning point will be when the iPod supports Ogg.

    Media is too important to use proprietary standards. All the formats should be open. They probably will be. Why use a proprietary standard when an open standard is as good or better?

    Unfortunately, we are currently in a position where we have WAY TOO MANY media standards. You can load a ton of CODECs for Xine, and some site is going to use a bastard format or a "new and improved" version that doesn't work. What a hassle.

    --
    >> My ultraviolent Linux switch video.
  25. At least my nick was taken by an oss group by Xiph · · Score: 1, Funny

    instead of earlier when it was Xiphias, and they went and made a bloody movie using it.
    back then it was impossible to avoid fakenickers.

    --
    Blah blah sig blah blah blah irony blah blah
  26. "Beta" definition vs Alpha/1.0 release by ArcRiley · · Score: 4, Informative
    What they're doing now is adding fields to the various headers for flexibility down the road. One example of this is that, unlike VP3, each frame can have more than one quality setting (so that large sections of black/etc won't use the same bandwidth as the hero waving the light sabre).

    These things are not implemented yet, and will probobally not be useable on earlier Beta releases either, but as of Beta-1 the bitstream will not change in future-compatable ways. That is, while some optimisation fields won't be supported yet, no new fields will be added. Future players will always be able to play media encoded by the Beta releases. The same is not true for movies encoded with the Alpha libraries, so Beta-1 is really the first point where it should be used for distributed movies.

    The 1.0 release will include support for atleast decoding these optional fields, it'll likely use them all too for encoding, and should be considerably higher quality than the VP3.2 codec from which it started with. It'll always, however, be able to upgrade VP3.2 media to Theora and, again, always be able to play media encoded with the Beta releases.

  27. Ogg Solution for portable players... by RegalBegal · · Score: 0

    If you get Anapod Explorer (Red Chair Software), well Anapod is for the ipod but they make a creative version too..

    It can convert your ogg files to mp3 on just your player on the fly during a transfer...keeping your OV files on the pc and the mp3 on the player..

    It's a pretty decent feature, I think it's called audiomorph..

    --
    "It'll destroy you if you try to make it mean anything to anyone but yourself." - Henry Rollins
  28. DivX for Linux??!??! by rzei · · Score: 1

    Do you have a reason to use the commericial DivX for Linux? I bet I'm not the only one wanting to know it..

    Or you just haven't heard about lavc mpeg4 of ffmpeg? Or XViD? Those two are both much better options, not only because of their opensourceness but better quality IMHO -- especially lavc, although it's pretty unknown. lavc is used in xine and mplayer at least as main decoder, also ffdshow for windows is based on lavc [video] codecs. At least mencoder supports encoding with lavc, with some neat advanced options. AFAIK lavc is used as the main decoder (for mpeg4 atleast) because it's the fastest there is.

  29. mod down parent (false information) by imsabbel · · Score: 1

    What you are descriping is the old divx3.1 codec that noone uses anymore.
    The modern 4.0 and 5.x codecs are perfectly legal mpeg4 implementation, and divx-nextworks pays the licensing fees.

    --
    HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
  30. Re:Ug. Me get new moving picture thing. by Joe+U · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    WOW! This TV has words on it!

  31. Re:Another standard that probably won't get embrac by gantrep · · Score: 1
  32. Re:Another standard that probably won't get embrac by FuzzieNorn · · Score: 3, Informative

    The Soundbridge does not support Apple's DRM, only unencumbered AAC files.

  33. Re:Another standard that probably won't get embrac by 10Ghz · · Score: 3, Informative
    The Neuros Audio Player supports Ogg, has a 20Gb hard disk, Linux version of its software and is only $200. You couldn't really ask for more, but if you did want to ask for more they also have a very active community forum and listen to your suggestions and stuff.


    That thing looks pretty huge, so no thanks. And besides, if I wanted something with geek-appeal, I would buy Rio Karma

    - Supports Ogg Vorbis
    - Supports FLAC
    - Has _Ethernet_ plug
    - Has 20GB HDD

    Neuros might have a Linux-version of it's software, but if the player appears as a regural HD to the OS, why would you need dedicated software?
    --
    Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
  34. What it takes to support a codec by 4r0g · · Score: 1
    Some reasons for supporting a codec/format X:

    1) Amount of legacy content for it, i.e. size of the addressed market to be weighed against 3)
    2) One wants to establish a codec/format in the marketplace by injecting lots of devices out there (chicken and egg; no devices vs. no content)
    3) Licensing and implementation cost (in licensing fees, silicon, man moths, etc.)
    4) IPR risk

    While on the surface, Ogg Vorbis sounds like a lucrative choice due to 3), there are other 3 points. Since no company or individual is taking responsibility over 4), it still remains as a risk to manufacture a device that includes OV. When licensing a codec from a company, the licensee gets an insurance that in case there are IPr issues, they will not get dragged down with it, but the IP licensor is.

    So if OV gets widespread in terms of the sheer volume of content floating around, it solves only a part of the puzzle. It's much more likely that an unknown manufacturer takes 4) lightly than somebody like Apple or Creative, especially since Apple considers also 2) for their chioces.

    --
    - 4r0g
  35. Re:Another standard that probably won't get embrac by ShavenYak · · Score: 2, Informative

    I was about to post the same thing, except I was going to add that this limitation can be easily overcome by a quick Google search for m4p2mp4.exe. Apart from that, the only formats I'd want supported that this doesn't handle are .ape (could just convert all my .apes to .flacs though) and .ac3 (for rips from music DVDs, I don't like to transcode them if I don't have to). I think I may have just found the digital-music-in-the-den solution for me, thank you (to the grandparent post)!

    --

    Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
  36. false information? by ArcRiley · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The fact remains that DivX is MPEG-4, because it's patent encumbered it cannot be implemented with Free Software. Many people don't realise this. They think that because there's GPL'ed software available to encode/decode DivX/XviD that the format is free.

    In reality, the royalty requirements of these formats makes GPL'ed software undistributable by anyone but the copyright holder (since it's the copyright holder's responsibility to enforce the copyright they're not going to sue themselves).

    For both commercial and non-commercial uses, royalty-free codecs (such as VP3/Theora) will always top proprietary formats such as DivX.

  37. Re: dirty popularity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    windows (bad popularity) vs the best freebsd (good devil)

    .zip (bad popularity) vs the best .tar.bz2 (good devil)

    MPEG4 or DivX (bad popularity) vs the best XviD (good devil)

    MP3 (bad popularity) vs the best Ogg Vorbis (good devil)


    open4free
  38. Re: dirty popularity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .bmp or .gif (bad popularity) vs the best .png (good devil)

  39. ogg vorbis internet radio by eatmadust · · Score: 3, Informative

    Virgin Radio has been broadcasting in 96k ogg vorbis for quite a while now
    http://www.virginradio.co.uk/thestation/liste n/ogg .html

    The advantages for them are quite clear: no patent costs and more listeners who just want to support ogg (ok, maybe not many, but still ;))

  40. Hmm, wait , how about WHO THE FUCK CARES? by Ayanami+Rei · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Ogg Vorbis supports arbitrarily many channels, as does AAC. Oh, and then thre's AC3, which natively understands how to optimally store 5.1 channels.
    Too little, too late, and completely irrelevant.

    --
    THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
    1. Re:Hmm, wait , how about WHO THE FUCK CARES? by BigBuckHunter · · Score: 1

      Which one of the codecs is "too little, too late"?

      The way I see it, in a year, we're going to need a non-encumbered codec. Vorbis and Theora give us that. Creating wide-spread use of codecs doesn't take much. All you have to do is get tool vendors to make them the default codec in their drop-down boxes (GRIP, mencoder, EAC, etc...). Sooner or later, the world will catch on without even knowing it.

      Thank you for your time,

      BBH

  41. I completely agree with your sentiment. by Ayanami+Rei · · Score: 1

    But you have to admit, the FFMPEG project guys are pretty fucking hardcore.

    I give them all my love, despite the shaky legality of their work. And I will hoard their releases for various ISO MPEG standards as I have DeCSS for years to come so I can play with my oh-so-blasphemously encoded and decoded media.

    --
    THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
  42. Notes... by Ayanami+Rei · · Score: 3, Interesting

    1) Some enterprising math/CS graduate student could probably try a drop-in replacement for some simple wavelet transformations instead of DCT. They might even create a block-level estimater that picks the correct wavelet/DCT kernel to use. I suspect you wouldn't have to touch too many other parts of it.

    2) Arithmetic encoding is patented by Samsung. (gak!) And it's not like it's hard or anything. Huffman coding was shown to approach arithmetic encoding efficiency as the number of symbols increases, which usually means that distinction is not something to cry about. So we can deal with huffman vs. arithmetic coding for now until the patents expire, at which point everyone (info-zip, IJG, bz2, xiph.org) will switch to it to gain that extra 1-2%.

    --
    THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
    1. Re:Notes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Arithmetic encoding is patented by Samsung.

      i find it hard to belive that something introduced in 1979 is still patented today.

    2. Re:Notes... by Gumshoe · · Score: 1
      2) Arithmetic encoding is patented by Samsung. (gak!) And it's not like it's hard or anything. Huffman coding was shown to approach arithmetic encoding efficiency as the number of symbols increases, which usually means that distinction is not something to cry about. So we can deal with huffman vs. arithmetic coding for now until the patents expire, at which point everyone (info-zip, IJG, bz2, xiph.org) will switch to it to gain that extra 1-2%.


      Range encoders are patent free, tend to be faster than full arithmetic encoders (if implemented correctly that is) and are more efficient than huffman encoders. Worth looking up if you're interested in this sort of thing.
    3. Re:Notes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      shh.. dont tell anyone but a range coder is the same as a arithmetic coder, it just flushes a byte a time instead of a bit.

    4. Re:Notes... by Gumshoe · · Score: 1
      shh.. dont tell anyone but a range coder is the same as a arithmetic coder, it just flushes a byte a time instead of a bit.


      sssh... keep this to yourself, but range encoders aren't patented... What's that? That was the point of my original post? Surely not.
    5. Re:Notes... by Forkenhoppen · · Score: 1

      I believe the responder's point was that, since a range coder is a simple improvement on the arithmetic encoder, you'd still have to pay for use of the arithmetic encoder patent.

    6. Re:Notes... by Gumshoe · · Score: 1
      I believe the responder's point was that, since a range coder is a simple improvement on the arithmetic encoder, you'd still have to pay for use of the arithmetic encoder patent.


      I guessed that, but I he is wrong. The arithmetic codec patents detail specific implementations and not the general case and none of them renormalise to base-n, only to base-2. Note however, that I know nothing about the patent situation, I'm just taking other people's word for it -- the less I think about software patents, the better.
  43. Tsk tsk! Come back into the fold. by Ayanami+Rei · · Score: 1

    FreshRPMS/a. is your BEST friend.

    I'm 100% serious. And if you're lazy, install yum, point it at FreshRPMs, and "yum mplayer", "yum xine", "yum ogle" away.

    That looks vaguely sexual. Sigh.

    --
    THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
  44. Getting Xiph's FLAC to work with Theora? by Wills · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Has anyone managed to configure and compile any version of FLAC (Free Lossless Audio Codec) after having installed all the prerequisites like ogg* and theora*? I get the errors below despite having the recommended version of ogg devel installed and despite having tried various versions of FLAC from 2001 tarball thru to current CVS FLAC.

    cd flac ./configure
    checking for a BSD-compatible install... /usr/bin6/ginstall -c checking whether build environment is sane... yes
    checking for gawk... gawk checking whether make sets $(MAKE)... yes
    checking whether to enable maintainer-specific portions of Makefiles... no
    checking build system type... i686-pc-linux-gnu
    checking host system type... i686-pc-linux-gnu
    checking for style of include used by make... GNU checking for gcc... gcc
    checking for C compiler default output... a.out
    checking whether the C compiler works... yes
    checking whether we are cross compiling... no
    checking for suffix of executables...
    checking for suffix of object files... o
    checking whether we are using the GNU C compiler... yes
    checking whether gcc accepts -g... yes
    checking for gcc option to accept ANSI C... none needed
    checking dependency style of gcc... gcc3
    checking for ld used by GCC... /usr/i486-slackware-linux/bin/ld
    checking if the linker (/usr/i486-slackware-linux/bin/ld) is GNU ld... yes
    checking for /usr/i486-slackware-linux/bin/ld option to reload object files... -r
    checking for BSD-compatible nm... /usr/bin6/nm -B
    checking for a sed that does not truncate output... /usr/bin6/sed checking whether ln -s works... yes
    checking how to recognise dependent libraries... pass_all
    checking command to parse /usr/bin6/nm -B output... ok
    checking how to run the C preprocessor... gcc -E
    checking for egrep... grep -E
    checking for ANSI C header files... yes
    checking for sys/types.h... yes
    checking for sys/stat.h... yes
    checking for stdlib.h... yes
    checking for string.h... yes
    checking for memory.h... yes
    checking for strings.h... yes
    checking for inttypes.h... yes
    checking for stdint.h... yes
    checking for unistd.h... yes
    checking dlfcn.h usability... yes
    checking dlfcn.h presence... yes
    checking for dlfcn.h... yes
    checking for ranlib... ranlib
    checking for strip... strip
    checking for objdir... .libs
    checking for gcc option to produce PIC... -fPIC
    checking if gcc PIC flag -fPIC works... yes
    checking if gcc static flag -static works... yes
    checking if gcc supports -c -o file.o... yes
    checking if gcc supports -c -o file.lo... yes
    checking if gcc supports -fno-rtti -fno-exceptions... yes
    checking whether the linker (/usr/i486-slackware-linux/bin/ld) supports shared libraries... yes
    checking how to hardcode library paths into programs... immediate
    checking whether stripping libraries is possible... yes
    checking dynamic linker characteristics... GNU/Linux ld.so
    checking if libtool supports shared libraries... yes
    checking whether to build shared libraries... yes
    checking whether to build static libraries... yes
    checking whether -lc should be explicitly linked in... no
    creating libtool checking for g++... g++
    checking whether we are using the GNU C++ compiler... yes
    checking whether g++ accepts -g... yes
    checking dependency style of g++... gcc3
    checking whether make sets $(MAKE)... (cached) yes
    checking for getopt_long... yes ./configure: line 8616: syntax error near unexpected token `have_ogg=yes,' ./configure: line 8616: `XIPH_PATH_OGG(have_ogg=yes, { echo "$as_me:$LINENO: WAR
    NING: *** Ogg development enviroment not installed - Ogg support will not be bui
    lt" >&5'

    yes, it is

    dnl check for ogg library
    XIPH_PATH_OGG(have_ogg=yes, AC_MSG_WARN([*** Ogg development enviroment not inst
    alled - Ogg support will not be built]))
    AM_CONDITIONAL(FLaC__HAS_OGG, [test x$have_ogg = xyes])
    if test x$have_ogg = xyes ; then
    AC_DEFINE(FLAC__HAS_OGG)
    fi

  45. Rio Karma 20 GB supports Ogg and Flac by abe+ferlman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Subject pretty much says it all. It also works with linux via the rio music manager lite java program, and I've seen some free software ports but haven't tried them yet. The base has an ethernet port and the device is smaller than an ipod, 3x3. It's pretty nice.

    --
    microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
  46. Plugins for RealPlayer 10 available by robla · · Score: 4, Informative
    In addition to support in the Helix Player as mentioned, we've posted plugins for RealPlayer 10 for Windows as well.

    Rob Lanphier
    Developer Support Manager
    RealNetworks

    1. Re:Plugins for RealPlayer 10 available by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Realplayer sucks!
      Heres a feature... dont put 30 megs of memory resident crap in the system tray. I cant tell you how many older computers I work on, kill real player and some other bloated app that made it way to boot time.... all better.

    2. Re:Plugins for RealPlayer 10 available by kforeman · · Score: 1

      We have done just that with our latest free RealPlayer 10 for Windows. I urge you to check it out. http://www.real.com/freeplayer/?rppr=hc.org BTW, if you don't like it, there's a one click uninstall. Kevin Foreman GM, Helix RealNetworks

      --
      Kevin Foreman
    3. Re:Plugins for RealPlayer 10 available by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is HTTPS used on helixcommunity.org? What's wrong with good 'ol HTTP?

    4. Re:Plugins for RealPlayer 10 available by robla · · Score: 1

      The short answer is that it's the only way to ensure password security.

      The ideal situation would be that we use http for anonymous access, and https for password authenticated access. We may set things up that way at some point, but given the amount of other features we'd like to implement on the site, it's pretty low on our list.

      Rob

  47. Re:Another standard that probably won't get embrac by kidgenius · · Score: 1

    I have an iRiver 20gb HD player (ihp-120) and it supports the OGG format. Awesome player too. Think iPod. It costs the same, holds the same, does everything the same, except supports OGG whereas Apple does not.

  48. I replied to a -1 parent... by Ayanami+Rei · · Score: 1

    who was commenting on how MP3 is now in surround sound.
    THAT'S what I consider too little too late.

    God, the mods around here go off at the flip of a switch, without checking context.

    --
    THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
  49. Re:Another standard that probably won't get embrac by Enry · · Score: 1

    Neuros might have a Linux-version of it's software, but if the player appears as a regural HD to the OS, why would you need dedicated software?

    Because the Neuros as an on-board database of what songs are installed. Startup times are on the order of just a few seconds while that database is read instead of minutes while it does a search of the entire HDD.

    You can drop non-music files on the Neuros as well and it will act as a portable drive.

  50. Re:Another standard that probably won't get embrac by V.+Mole · · Score: 2, Informative

    Neuros might have a Linux-version of it's software, but if the player appears as a regural HD to the OS, why would you need dedicated software?

    You can put the files on the harddrive or ramdisk, but if you want them to show up in the UI, you have to build the appropriate databases. The DB schemas are documented and there are a few different implementations:

    • The windows-only one included with the Neuros
    • Positron, a command line utility in Python.
    • A Multi-platform GUI in Java, whose name escapes me.
    As for size, it's larger than an I-Pod, and probably too big for most people's shirt pockets, but it's not all that big, and is fine in a beltcase, purse, or in the car, etc. Depends on how you want use it, I suppose. I chose the Neuros over the Karma mostly because of apparent company support: Digital Innovations actually seems to care if it works with Linux or the Mac, while Rio's support is pretty haphazard.
  51. FLAC is not "Off-topic", please re-moderate by Wills · · Score: 1

    I'm sorry but FLAC is not "off-topic" in an article about Theora. Theora is meant to be able to work with FLAC. FLAC is actually an important part of the Xiph.org project. If you haven't heard much about them, have a look at Ogg and FLAC

  52. Regarding Theora and FLAC by FeatureBug · · Score: 1

    The Xiph.org project is producing some amazing software including Theora. One of the components of the Xiph.org multimedia architecture is FLAC - aka the Free Lossless Audio Coder. Could someone kindly moderate up the interesting question about how to configure FLAC? I'm not the only person who'd like to be able to start using Theora with FLAC but being prevented by configuration difficulties but right now the poster's question is languishing at -1 Off-topic when it's really totally on-topic.

  53. IP Law? by Vagary · · Score: 1

    I thought the deal with IP was supposed to be that if you didn't defend it, you lost it. (Isn't that the excuse given for companies c&ding fan sites?) Shouldn't that prevent companies from pulling the trick Frauhofer did? I realise US courts are corrupt, but why didn't the European courts tell them to screw off?

    1. Re:IP Law? by larkost · · Score: 1

      I believe that only is true for trademarks. You can defend or not the rest of IP law as you see fit (although there have been some interesting cases alleging entrapment).

    2. Re:IP Law? by Sri+Lumpa · · Score: 1


      There is no such thing as an Intellectual Property law.

      IP is a political term used to refer transparently to copyrights, patents, trademarks and trade secrets (and spread the meme of them being property rights as opposed to temporary monopolies granted by the people (at least in the US constitution)) so that you have copyright law or patent law but no intellectual property law.

      The form of "IP" that you are thinking of is trademark which can be lost if you do not monitor their use by sending C&D letters to people using your trademark for their own product (e.g. if I started selling shoes called "adadas" or "reebok").

      The problem with MP3 is that it is patented.

      They let people use the patented algorithms for years without raising a stink and once everybody was using it they started asking for license fees.

      If MP3 was only a trademark the wide use of the name without anybody objecting to it for years would have diluted the trademark and the could would deem that it is generic (anybody can use it).

      --
      "The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
    3. Re:IP Law? by rillian · · Score: 4, Informative

      What you describe is Trademark law, which is probably the sanest branch of north american IP at this point. You cannot trademark common words or phrases (modulo certain exceptions) so an effort is generally made to prevent brand names from becoming same by prosecuting uses of the trademark that don't refer specifically to the actual product.

      Copyrights belong to the author (or sponsor) automatically and can only be given up voluntarily or lost when the rights period expires, which is now some significant time after the author dies.

      Patents are granted on a first come, first served basis to whoever applies for one and provides a monopoly on the implementation of a particular method for a fixed term.

      Neither copyright nor patent rights are contingent on enforcement the way trademarks are. Holders of these two rights can and do choose which infringements to pursue.

      This is the problem with MPEG-4. We can avoid the copyright issue by writing an open source version from scratch, since the standard is at least published. We don't have to call it MPEG-4 so there are no trademark issues, although while the MPEG logo is trademarked in the US, one can refer to the specification because that itself is not a trademark and because there is no attempt at confusion.

      But there is no way around patents because they grant a monopoly on implementation rights. Just because you wrote your own doesn't mean you don't have to buy a license, or that you won't be forced to buy one sometime in the next 20 years. If you live in a jurisdiction that doesn't enforce patents, you're fine for now. If you just want to trade movies underground, you're probably fine because there's safety in numbers. But if you're like me, and want digital media to be as easy and ubiquitous as webpages; something anyone can do, something you don't need permission for, you need a something that's Free as in Freedom and Free as in Beer. Something like Theora.

  54. Go look it up if you don't believe me. by Ayanami+Rei · · Score: 1
    --
    THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
  55. Crap, sorry, I blew the HTML. by Ayanami+Rei · · Score: 2, Informative

    Samsung's patent

    Each stakeholder has patented a method or slight spin on the basic technique, and so certain claims in each patent could possibly be applied to your arithmetic coder if they wanted to go after you.

    You may need to wait 5-10 years before bundling an implementation in a package with high-visibility that isn't designed for educational or experimental use.

    --
    THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
  56. Moderation abuse in this article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please would a moderator kindly up-moderate this comment about FLAC configuration problems which has been wrongly moderated to -1:Off-Topic. FLAC is on-topic in an article about Theora because Theora is meant be able to work with FLAC . FLAC is actually an important part of the Xiph.org project. If you haven't heard much about them, have a look at Ogg and FLAC and please re-moderate the -1 comment so it might get some replies.

  57. Can't Theora use any non-patented XVID-code? by motown · · Score: 1

    It is impressive to see an MPEG4-compliant codec being developed under the GPL-license that is of such a high quality that it rivals most commercial MPEG4-implementations.

    The people working on XVID must be really talented and motivated to deliver such high quality code. In my opinion, it's a shame that these developers don't put their efforts in the Theora-project instead, because of the patent-related restrictions involved with the MPEG4-standard.

    Couldn't it be possible to merge all NON-PATENTED technology from the XVID-project into the Theora-project?

    That way, the Theora could benefit from XVID as much as possible, while remaining free from patent-restrictions.

    --
    "Oooh, does that mean we get to kick some puffy white mad zionist butt?"
    1. Re:Can't Theora use any non-patented XVID-code? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, for one thing, the Xiph folks are using a BSD-style license and probably don't want to add the restrictions of the GPL.

      Another issue is how much of the code would be directly useful. Most likely, the parts that would be directly applicable are the easiest parts.

  58. a plurality of said current pixels by sakyamuni · · Score: 2, Funny

    My brain refused to continue parsing the patent text approximately here:

    identifying reference pixels corresponding to a first of said current pixels, said reference pixels being a first pixel adjacent to said first current pixel and a second pixel preceding said first current pixel by a number of pixels equal to a horizontal size of said dither matrix;
  59. Re:Another standard that probably won't get embrac by entrigant · · Score: 1

    Hmm the link to http://www.riokarma.com/parishiltonsexvideotapedow nload.htm at the bottom of that page isn't at all suspicious.. who runs that site exactly? I hope not rio..

  60. Re:Another standard that probably won't get embrac by gidds · · Score: 1
    this limitation can be easily overcome by a quick Google search for m4p2mp4.exe

    ...and, presumably, buying an x86 box and/or installing Windows? 'S a high price to pay.

    --

    Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.

  61. Theora / VP3 probably better than you think by bigberk · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I've got a bit of a surprise for y'all... have you tried the incredible 'Internet TV' (real-time video streaming) available in the Media Library feature in winamp? The quality is really good; the streams are relatively low bitrate, and they stream beautifully. Well, Nullsoft's NSV format is really just MP3 + VP3. So that's what VP3 looks like, and I think it's pretty damn good -- this is by far the best streaming video I have ever experienced. If Theora is an improvement on this, looks like they're heading in the right direction for streaming video.

  62. Re:Another standard that probably won't get embrac by Hatta · · Score: 1

    They already have your money. What incentive is there?

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  63. Re:Ug. Me get new moving picture thing. by jelle · · Score: 1

    Or CNN/HNN, NBC/CNBC, FoxNews, and ABCNews TV blurp compatible: "New Open Source DVD format released! More after these messages" and ten minutes later "Open Source DVD ready to strike down Microsoft! More after these messages", then minutes later "Open Source DVDs in shops soon? More after these messages", and later "Would you buy Open Source DVDs? Go to our website to participate in our on-line poll. We have the results after these messages", and "Motion picture industry unsure about open source DVDs. We have an interview with a representative of the MPAA after these messages", and "Will open source DVDs reduce the amount of junk email on your computer? More after these message", etc., etc., never actually getting to the details and facts...

    (btw, MPAA, is that like the AAA but then for movie breakdowns, or is it the motion picture division of AA?)

    --
    --- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.
  64. What about VP5? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Since VP3 is a thrown away codec which was donated to open source community, how does VP3 compare to VP5 which On2 licensed to Chinese for their own DVD replacement EVD not long ago?

    VP3 seems to be a very old technology. How does it compare to VP5 quality vice?

  65. Any (Open Source) Unix VP3.2 Encoders? by evilviper · · Score: 1

    Hey, I've been waiting forever for Theora to pan-out like many others here, but I'm looking for stop-gap measures now...

    Does anyone know of a program that will run on Unix machines, that will allow for encoding of video into VP3.2 format? Sure, the Dlls for Window, and the plugins for Quicktime work on the two big platforms, but what about the rest of us? I'd like to make some nice royalty-free videos right now, and perhaps convert them into Theora in a few years. Then again, based on the pace of development, maybe I won't get that chance.

    Anyhow, many players can handle VP3.2 video playback (that includes MPlayer), but not encoding. Why haven't there been any simple encoders?

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  66. Re:Another standard that probably won't get embrac by raphae · · Score: 1

    The list of players that support Vorbis is fairly extensive and growing all the time. The iRiver iHP series all support .ogg off the shelf and IMHO are better (and cheaper) than iPods.

    The Neursos of course supports it too. It is only slightly bulkier than the iRivers and iPods but has one awesome feature: it can transmit to any FM radio. It also has software to identify a song being played.

    Here is a constantly updated list of supported players.

  67. Re:Another standard that probably won't get embrac by ShavenYak · · Score: 1

    Oops, yeah, I forgot that that goody is Windows-only. But it might run under Wine. You could also authorize a friend's Windows box, copy your files over, convert, then deauthorize his box when you're done. Probably more trouble than it's worth.

    Alternately, if you don't mind the possibility of a few compression artifacts, you could burn your iTunes to CD and then rip to unprotected AAC (or MP3, or whatever) on any platform (of the two which run iTunes, of course).

    --

    Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
  68. Re:Hmm, wait , how about WHO CARES? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's all calm down, apparently this was just a misunderstanding and the parent post was put in the wrong topic. ;)

  69. Great at low bitrates by sploo22 · · Score: 1

    I've just been doing a quick comparison of XviD and Theora at really, really low bitrates - like 40kbps - and Theora is far superior. It doesn't get very blocky, just fuzzy. And with XviD, even when parts of the image are static for several seconds they don't get any clearer like they do with Theora.

    --
    Karma: Segmentation fault (tried to dereference a null post)