Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Dirac: BBC Open Source Video Codec

Posted by michael on from the knowing-is-half-the-battle dept.

NickFitz writes "Need To Know this week has a piece about Dirac, a BBC R&D project to produce a video codec, which has been released as an Open Source project. From BBCi: 'Dirac is a general-purpose video codec aimed at resolutions from QCIF (180x144) to HDTV (1920x1080) progressive or interlaced... Our algorithm seems to give a two-fold reduction in bit rate over MPEG-2 for high definition video (e.g. 1920x1080 pixels), its original target application. It has been further developed to optimise it for internet streaming resolutions.'"

5 of 523 comments (clear)

  1. it's open source! by g00bd0g · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because it's open source and being developed/supported by one of the bigger distibuters of video content on the web!

  2. A bit wary by bsd4me · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I would be a bit wary of a codec that claims to be all things to all people, ie supporting broadcast-quality HDTV and internet-quality video

    Video codecs typically have ``sweet-spots'' for resolution and bitrate. The MPEG specs work well for higher bitrate video, and we have several codecs that work well for lower bitrate video.

    Also, MPEG video quality can vary from encoder to encoder. The specs only define the bitstream, and the encoder can do what it wants. This is why there is a huge difference between the quality that Media Cleaner produces versus a multi-chip hardware encoder found in a cable plant.

    --

    (S(SKK)(SKK))(S(SKK)(SKK))

  3. MPEG4? by cybermace5 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why would they compare it to MPEG2? In order to impress me, you'll have to compare quality and bitrates with MPEG4.

    --
    ...
  4. Re:Duplicating work? by dubiousdave · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I have a feeling the codec will not have a practical use for everyday computer users

    I don't know about that. I'd be rather pleased if MythTV could record twice the HD content on the same hard drive space on my computer, or, for that matter, if TiVo were to use it for the same purpose.

    --
    Thank you. Drive through.
  5. Duplicating work? Not really. by Ride-My-Rocket · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seems like a bit of a waste of license payers money when there already a several open source video codecs (eg. Ogg Theora, 3ivx). What does this offer that those don't?

    Does the current work being done on Linux seem like a waste of time and money, when there are already several other operating systems (Windows, Macintosh, Unix) available? And don't try and use the argument "but those are closed source; open source is better!" argument -- in the end, it's just software people use, regardless of the licensing / development model.

    Getting back on-topic: apparently it offers the BBC something that warrants the time, effort and money required to fund such an undertaking. At the very least, it's yet another example of big companies using open-source to reduce costs and/or fulfill their own specific needs, and can only encourage other companies to fund future OSS development efforts.