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
If they want to make an open source video codec, why don't they just support and help further develop the ogg video codec? Would the two codecs be so different that they are both needed?
What's the advantage to using Dirac over a standard?
AKAIK, it's the only high compression video codec to not be encumbered by patents. (Although I've heard whispers from the OGG/Vorbis team.) That right there makes it worth development. Once the codec reaches a stable version, it can be integrated into free player solutions like HelixPlayer and VLC.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
The BBC is funded by government, but thats where the relationship ends. The UK government has absolutely no say whatsoever in what the BBC spends its money on. If the BBC wants to develop video codecs then theres nothing the UK government can do about it. Thats one of the reasons the BBC news is able to remain impartial, and often reports on the UK government making a mess off things. See the Hutton report for details. :)
http://twitter.com/onion2k
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.
The BBC is not funded by the government. It's funded by the public through the licence fee. The government never gets to see it.
Sourceforge project
BBC's Dirac homepage
Because OGM is only a package format (like avi) and XVid is everything but legal (thus those "only for learning uses" disclaimers) because they simply decided to ignore the patents ( and divx is adware because divx-networks pays the royalities)
HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
Check the sourceforge project
I am NaN
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.
Anyone wondering why we need more Open Source Codecs should read the excellent companion article on today's register, a long OP Ed piece on Steve Ballmer entitled Love DRM or my family starves: why Steve Ballmer doesn't Get It.
In it Steve explains why the Digital Home has to come from Microsoft and specifically Microsoft's committment to DRM everywhere. A facinating, if biased piece.
The BBC, just like any other rational business, is out to make money off of this while the rest of the world could benifit greatly from it.
Nope. The BBC need the codec in order to save themselves a bucketload of cash in the future when they make their digital program archive available over the internet (something they have to do according to their Charter). They're not intending to make pots of money from the codec, they just want it to exist so they can use it themselves.
http://twitter.com/onion2k
The only truly open video codec worth mentioning is Theora. XviD's source may be open, but the codec itself is a patent minefield. Theora is patent free, as is Dirac. Even if the BBC did take out some patents, the license Dirac uses means these patents would be harmless.
So yes, we do need this codec and others like it. Theora is nice but it dosen't hold up against any of the new generation of commercial codecs that are coming out now.
> Also - the BBC is funded by the British
> government. When did they get a mandate to spend
> money developing video codecs. I don't have a
> problem with government-funded "arts" but this
> seems a bit beyond the normal scope of things
Really? The BBC needs to stay up to date with technology in order to do the best job possible under its mandate. So that means that they are going to start out doing radio, spend money making television work the way they like it, then start promoting teletext (in the form of Ceefax), brand their own computer, and now they want to do the Internet their way (through an open codec).
It's worth reading their own history
for a perspective on just how much technical work the BBC has done since 1920. See also here.
John.
Dirac is a wavelet codec. The technology is far more advanced than Theora's. In fact, until On2 came along, Ogg were working on a video wavelet codec called Ogg Tarkin. They want with open sourcing VP3 because it would be quicker and easier, nothing more. As the BBC are demonstrating, putting together a competent wavelet-based video codec is non-trivial to say the least.
Put simply, Ogg Theora is already outdated. The source material (On2's VP3 codec) does not match any decent MPEG-4 codec. The BBC would be wasting their time by messing around with dated tech.
That said, Theora is usable and just about the only decent patent unencumbered video codec in existance. Until Dirac is finished, Theora will remain the sane choice for those who want to stay legal without paying through the teeth.
If and when Dirac is ready, it will blow everything else away. It will be worth the wait.
I will trade codec engineering time for TARDIS technology. In fact, that's where I got my TARDIS from!
--
make install -not war
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.
I'm wary of the fact that this "call for help" comes just days after over 1400 BBC technology staff were out sourced to Siemens
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.
Er no, becuase the government _can't_ stop the BBC from doing anything. They obviously have limitations like what frequency they can broadcast on.
.gov.uk can't censor, change or stop the BBC from doing anything directly. They do not go to the government to approve TV shows, nor do they go to the gov to approve technology research.
Every 9 years (IIRC) the government reviews the BBC's progress and what funding method it should have.
Basically what I'm saying is the
This is in direct contradiction to social security in the US where the government controls it and could (probably) stop paying out tomorrow.
IntechHosting - Free domain, 2GB, PHP, £4.95/$8.95
I saw them at the Linux expo at Olympia yesterday, it looked pretty decent and its still alpha, they said they sometimes get people helping and pointing out bugs, its pretty rockin that they're getting funding considering the direction the BBC is going, definately better than suns java desktop, but damnit they wernt giving away any penguins or anything >:(
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
I don't normally feed trolls... but what the hell.
a) the BBC isn't just a "company" - it's the highest quality broadcaster in the world. They always have done research and been at the forefront of new technology throughout their history. This is a project that anybody can help contribute to - as it'll benefit the community as a whole when it's complete.
b) they have put effort into it already - they've put out quite a few releases already (SF page) and have been working on it for a couple of years
c) although they want it to improve their online streaming services (currently done using Real technology), an open standard, no encumbrance from patents, with technology that other codecs at present don't use, is a very important project for not only the BBC, but for all of the computing community
That's like saying that Medicare/Social Security aren't paid for by the government, but by US citizens. True in one sense, but pedantic and moronic, especially since the relationship is understood.
But not by you, evidently. Medicare and social security are paid for (and run by) the the US government. The BBC is paid for by a license fee which comes directly from TV owners.
If it was a government funded body then it might have thought twice about attacking the government over their made-up WMD/Iraq claims, so I reckon the distinction is quite significant. Does that make me a pedantic moron too?
Well hang about. The BBC said something about the government. The government got very upset about one specific allegation ("The 45 minute claim was inserted by govt spin doctors against the advice of the JIC") which Gilligan inserted off the cuff and which no-one believes to be true (even Gilligan admitted that was wrong).
... Hutton says: "The BBC's processes in checking Gilligan's story were woeful" (undeniably true; they asked Gilligan, then based their defense on the assumption he hadn't lied to them, which he had).
The government then said "Will you retract that, as it isn't true". The BBC asked Gilligan, he stood by it. The BBC said we won't retract that.
Flash forward
People think Hutton was a whitewash, because almost no-one's read it, and every newspaper in the country felt the need to stand up for their journalistic brother and pretend that the kerfuffle had been caused by something other than one specific lie in Gilligan's story.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
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.
It is _trivial_ to develop a system that attempts to eveolve various mechanisms to encode data, but to iterate each generation you need some sort of way to determine the winners and the losers.
:-)
I am not so naive as to be suggesting human evaluation here, give me some credit willya?
First off, as a side point, for lossless encoding evaluation is trivial.
Secondly, there has indeed been much work towards automated performance evaluation of lossy codecs. Not too much on video yet, but a lot on audio, right down to the level of modeling the resulting neural impulses generated by a waveform in the human ear. By using existing research which involved human viewing and listening surveys (Other people's PHd's), developing fitness tests is not as hard as you make it out to be.
Finally, while evolving a whole CODEC is probably not practical with today's CPU power, there are a lot of subsystems which could be optimized through GA/GP to improve their efficiency. Many times in an algorithm you have a subsystem who's functionality is well defined, but who's optimal implementation or parameters are not known.
For example, many algorithms use lookup tables, and I'm sure a clever mathemetician could come up with a family of symmetrical transform functions that vary across a set of coefficients. Those are probably the cases which GA should tackle first, because the search space is much smaller and represents a constant, a "coefficient" to use the term very loosly, of an algorithm rather than a whole algorithm.
The general idea here is not to magically create the best looking/sounding CODEC ever out of thin air. It is to take the goals which we suspect will result in good CODECs and find new algorithms to acheive them. Once we find optimal solutions to those, we either dissect them for insight, which improves our base of theory, or at that point we submit them for side-by-side human comparison with existing CODECs.
Someone had to do it.
TimoT
Sort of, but its complicated. The BBC is an organ of the state, but it is not run by the executive arm.
First the BBC *is* actually responsible for collecting the licence fee. They farm the operation out to another entity, but its a statutory responsibility written in to their charter.
Second the BBC's grant-in-aid funding is paid from the the pot of licence fees but its level is set when the the BBC's charter is renewed every decade or so (of course the govt of the day has a large influence over that process when it occurs). So yes, the grant often diverges from what is in the common fund but the license fee which fills that fund is explicitly tied to this payment stream. And yes, the GotD has a big stick it can wave at the BBC - but a decade is a long time in politics and whilst theoretically, vide the Crown in parliament, the GotD can abolish the BBC (ie fail to renew its charter) if it gets uppity, the cost in goodwill would be horrendous. Even in her most eye-swivellingly megalomaniac stages, Thatcher never seriously considered doing that.
Addressing the way upthread post that started this off, the BBC is explicitly charged as part of its charter with conducting R&D into things like broadcast and storage technologies so this is exactly what they should be doing with the money they've been given. If they weren't, they'd be failing to fulfill their mandate. There's a lot of stuff out there that has come from the BBC Technology Divisions. Our gift to the rest of the world.
Regards
Luke
#include witty_one_liner.h