Slashdot Mirror
BBC Wants Help With Dirac Codec
Number Ten Ox writes "According to The Register the BBC wants help to develop their open source video codec Dirac. '[Lead developer Dr. Thomas] Davies said the codec could live on anything from mobile phones to high-definition TVs but not before a lot of further work is completed. For one thing, Dirac doesn't currently work in real-time. Davies also reckons that the compression offered by the technology could be further optimised. The BBC is working on integrating the technology with its other systems, but the corporation would welcome more help in developing Dirac.' Sounds like something worth helping with."
Compared to many other broadcoasters the BBC has a long and excellent record of producing great programms AND embracing the web/technology.
... compared to companies like Real ...
Certainly a good 'partner' to support
What's the advantage to using Dirac over a standard?
But none supported by an entity as large or influential as the BBC.
Codecs like Theora are great, but it's unlikely they'll enter the mainstream in the same way as something like DivX has - just as Vorbis is lagging behind other closed source audio codecs.
If the BBC started using Dirac for all its streaming video feeds, for example, then suddenly millions of users will have an excellent incentive to download the codec and if people already have it on their machines then others can produce Dirac based media without having to worry that people won't want to view it because it means downloading something extra.
No the BBC is NOT funded by the UK Government.
The BBC has tax (i.e. the TV Licence Fee) raising powers of it's own - and is entirely independent of funding from government.
If the BBC *was* funded by government it wouldn't be considered trustworthy. It wouldn't be the "gold standard" of news reporting world wide that it is.
Have there been any comparisons? Do we really need two fully scalable open-source video codecs?
Dirac is a next generation codec. It is also the only one using wavelets (like JPEG2000). Is there an argument for developing new codecs which compress better than current ones? Very much I'd say, unless you want all technological progress to stop here.
Also - the BBC is funded by the British government. When did they get a mandate to spend money developing video codecs.
They are a broadcasting organisation. Video codecs are very much part of broadcasting. They also did a lot of development on digital TV, which is soon going to replace all analogue TV by law in the UK. If they use this codec to put their archives up on the internet, then they certainly do have a good reason to do this development.
I don't have a problem with government-funded "arts" but this seems a bit beyond the normal scope of things
Is it? What about all that government funded science and tech research?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Don't we already have enough codecs, including open source ones?
While I agree strongly that there are a lot of reinvented wheels in OpenSource that add nothing new or unique, audio codecs are a wide open area for innovation. There is a lot of complex mathematical theory involved and while many very smart people have more than just scratched the surface, we could see considerable improvement with more development. Each project serves as a test case for the methods it uses.
Personally, I'm dissappointed that the idea of using genetic programming (or related technology) to develop or improve CODECs has not, at least to my knowlege, taken off. Hopefully the people with the expertise in both fields will at some point come together. That would be a worthy use for the resources we have at our disposal these days, IMO.
I used to think this would only be good for lossless CODEC developement, but perhaps automated fitness tests for lossy CODECs could also be practical.
Someone had to do it.
That has to be the funniest thing I've read in a long while. I think it's even funnier because it's moderated as "Informative".
For those who don't get the joke, read the wikipedia entry for the Hutton Report.
There seems to be a cultural difference between the USA and the rest of the Western world, in that Americans are unable to conceive a government funded entity (directly funded or indirectly via 'license' fees) that is substantially free from Government influence. Possibly because there are apparantly no such entities in the USA. But in this matter, the USA is the exception rather than the rule, with respect to democratic governments.
The BBC need the codec in order to save themselves a bucketload of cash in the future
Yet ironically we're moving some DHCP servers from linux to windows, plan to move the central image server from Linux/SGI to Windows/SGI and then finally Windows/Windows, have just implemented a multi million pound project, in java, but put in windows servers for most of it, refuse to consider Open Office, refuse to have Mozilla as part of the standard desktop (and you have to jump through hoops to "legally" install it), and have half an intranet that's unavailable to the (few) Mac, Linux and Mozilla users, and the entire of Research and Development.
The BBC is a large company, some sectors are run my MCSEs living up Bill Gates' ass, others are at the forefront of technology.
TimoT