Slashdot Mirror


Ogg Theora In Firefox, With Wikimedia Support

An anonymous reader writes "Ogg Theora support for the HTML5 <video> tag is in the Firefox 3.1 nightlies. Theora is the only video format allowed on Wikimedia Commons, so Wikimedia people are pushing Wikipedia readers to download a nightly and try it out. Break it, crash it, report bugs, get it into good shape and nullify Apple and Nokia's FUD the best way possible. They may have gotten the words 'Vorbis' and 'Theora' removed from the HTML5 spec, but the market will tell them when their browsers are sucking."

73 of 339 comments (clear)

  1. YouTube by linuxrocks123 · · Score: 4, Funny

    It would be nice if YouTube supported in-browser Theora once Firefox 3.1 is released. It would also be nice if Theora were a good enough codec for that to be practical for them.

    --
    vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
    1. Re:YouTube by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No way Youtube is going to let Joe Sixpack easily download whatever video he wants to his computer.

    2. Re:YouTube by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      oh jeebus, that is ALREADY EASY.

      If joe sixpack cant type "youtube downloader" into google and find a product to buy or get for free than he is a drooling moron.

      youtube has no protections for their videos, just like vimeo and the others, it's trivial to nab what you want off those services.

      Granted nobody wants the horribly pixelated and low quality files on youtube, and that is their protection.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    3. Re:YouTube by Rob+T+Firefly · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Youtube's business model (such as it is) revolves around keeping you coming back to their site to watch the videos, and view the associated ads while letting them track what you're watching. They are most certainly not eager to help you make them less money y letting you easily download. You may as well ask why your local cinema doesn't give you a copy of the DVD with your movie ticket.

    4. Re:YouTube by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No way Youtube is going to let Joe Sixpack easily download whatever video he wants to his computer.

      You checked the contents of your browser's cache folder recently?

    5. Re:YouTube by linuxrocks123 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Ogg Vorbis is an awesome music codec, producing smaller files than MP3 for the same level of quality. Ogg Theora is a rather mediocre-to-poor video codec, producing larger files than most alternatives (MPEG4, for instance) for the same level of quality. To top it off, it also taxes the CPU more than alternatives, which is still important for really high bitrate videos. Given the current level of quality of the Theora codec, it wouldn't make any sense for YouTube to switch to it for its videos, even if YouTube had the desire to do so.

      --
      vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
    6. Re:YouTube by andy9701 · · Score: 2, Informative

      It'd be great, but it's unlikely to happen any time soon. IE is still the dominant browser, and YouTube can't just avoid their major audience.

      Why couldn't YouTube support both formats? GameTrailers does something like this - I know off hand that it supports QuickTime, WMV, and Flash (and another I think, but I'm not positive on that). I believe that it auto-detects which one is best given your OS, browser, and what is available. For example, I generally visit the site on my MacBook in Firefox, so I generally get the Quicktime version. Sometimes I get the streaming one instead (I assume because either the Quicktime version isn't available, or I only get Quicktime when streaming isn't available).

      It shouldn't be that hard for YouTube to do something similar, and provide the Ogg version to FF3.1 users, and Flash to everyone else.

    7. Re:YouTube by negRo_slim · · Score: 4, Informative

      Youtube's business model (such as it is) revolves around keeping you coming back to their site to watch the videos

      And Firefox relies on the power of customization to offer add ons such as Video Download Helper which allows you to download media on a page with two clicks. I find excellent for saving hard to find music videos on YouTube, reminds me what DVDs to look for when I visit my local independently owned record shop.

      --
      On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
    8. Re:YouTube by snoyberg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Same way average "Jow Sixpack" (sic) wouldn't be able to figure out how to download a Theora file and play it.

      --
      Thank God for evolution.
    9. Re:YouTube by JohnBailey · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Because the average Jow Sixpack doesn't know about those tools.

      We better keep quiet about it then.. and not let these tools get out on the internet where anybody can get to them...Oops. People are not as stupid as you seem to think. I've seen indifferent users express a desire to do something, and not stop trying until they figure it out. If someone has an incentive to do something, they will. Or they will find someone who can tell them how to do it.

      --
      It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.
    10. Re:YouTube by Uniquitous · · Score: 2, Funny

      Damn shame (for them) about Adblock Plus, eh?

    11. Re:YouTube by Uniquitous · · Score: 2, Funny

      If joe sixpack cant type "youtube downloader" into google and find a product to buy or get for free than he is a drooling moron.

      Yes, that is generally the point of Joe Sixpack. He is a drooling moron, but he does have money to spend by dint of his minimum wage job. You want Joe's money, so you figure a way to get past his drooling moronity and make him buy your product or service.

    12. Re:YouTube by negRo_slim · · Score: 4, Interesting

      To top it off, it also taxes the CPU more than alternatives, which is still important for really high bitrate videos.

      Which most likely is lack of support for hardware acceleration in the video card drivers. Easily remedied if AMD or Nvidia can be bothered to step away from their Watt eating contests.

      --
      On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
    13. Re:YouTube by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think you are misinformed. Older Theora was pretty bad, but the current builds are great. If you use ffmpeg2theora well you can actually get better quality with smaller file size than the equivalent h.264 if the content is animated (as in cartoons, CG, etc.). Theora does still suffer with sharpness issues, and in a case where I would need to preserve sharpness I would choose h.264 over Theora. But for web video, h.264 has some definite drawbacks. As for which CODEC is more "web suitable", I'd have to question what type of video you intend to embed. I think in many cases people will want small, easy to handle video (easy to make, easy to distribute, small file size) in which case Theora is in my opinion the superior CODEC. If you want to play DVD quality video in your web browser then h.264 is probably a "good" choice.

      If we can use BOTH Theora AND h.264/MPEG4 with the video tag then I think everyone wins. Is that not the issue here?

    14. Re:YouTube by snoyberg · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think you are missing the thread of this conversation. The question is whether or not Youtube would consider offering Theora files. Someone above claimed that offering Theora files would allow people to download the videos (ie, watch them while not pointing their browser to Youtube). Someone else responded that tools exist to download Flash videos. The AC I responded to claimed that "Jow Sixpack" couldn't use those tools. I would argue that someone who can't use those tools would be equally incapable of downloading a Theora file.

      --
      Thank God for evolution.
    15. Re:YouTube by rhinokitty · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, I would like to point out that YouTube should have a business model that is flexible enough to incorporate changes in technology. I don't think that squashing innovation or other technologies is smart. It is wasted time, and if the squash fails (technical term) then they have wasted time and resources they could have allocated to developing new features, products and innovations of their own. If they provide a useful service people will go to YouTube regardless. Some may download, most will probably watch online (why download if the video is there and will always be there). People like options, and having the support of Ogg et al can only be a good thing for YouTube/Google.

    16. Re:YouTube by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, I think that is an interesting idea. I mean, when am I most likely to buy a movie that I like? I should think just after I saw it and loved it. As an example, think of the new Batman movie -- how many people streaming out of the theaters would have bought a copy before they hit the street? I imagine a lot. As long as you keep the counter inside where only people who have seen the movie can buy it, you would still be safe.

      It doesn't have to be a full-featured version -- it wouldn't have to have director's commentary, artwork, etc. Heck it might even be only widescreen format. Make them cheaply and sell them for the price of a new DVD at Blockbuster and you could have yourself a tidy profit. Or mark it down the cost of a ticket so its only $5. Or somewhere in between. And then *dawns sinister capitalist hat* you could sell them the same movie again later, with all the bells and whistles added. */hat* I think it sounds like a good and profitable idea.

    17. Re:YouTube by Cal+Paterson · · Score: 2, Informative

      Adblock cannot filter flash ads, else I wouldn't have seen the youtube advert. Is it really so hard to convince people that "Yes, there are youtube adverts" and "Yes, there really are youtube adverts"?

  2. amount of content by geniice · · Score: 3, Informative

    Wikipedia doesn't have that much Theora content yet so if this is going to become more universal more work on the content side is probably needed.

    1. Re:amount of content by interiot · · Score: 5, Funny

      Wikipedia needs your penis movies. You would think that with anonymity and with the rare opportunity to flaunt their packages in front of the world, people would be tripping all over themselves to upload their junk, but sadly it just isn't so. </sarcasm>

  3. Theora still lacks good creation software by Raul654 · · Score: 5, Informative

    I've put more Theora videos on Wikipedia commons than almost anyone else. The problem is, ffmpeg2theroa (which is the most direct way of generating theora videos, by transcoding them from other video formats) is not all that great. I've tried to get three features included in ffmpeg2theora with no success at all. The developers don't have bugzilla and don't respond to email. (For anyone interested, those three features are: [1] a command line option to use whatever resolution the target video uses rather than manually specifying it [2] the ability to rotate by 90 degrees, and [3] because many cameras (including mine) tend to set a couple of bits wrong when creating quicktime movies, ffmpeg2theora need to be less picky about following certain file specifications. Right now, it errors out without producing any output)

    So yes, this is good news. But until there's more content to actually view using this - and that necessitates better production-side software - it's not all that big of a deal.

    --


    To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
    --E.C. Stanton
    1. Re:Theora still lacks good creation software by truthsearch · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Since the purpose of ffmpeg is to convert to/from many video formats, why isn't the conversion to Theora simply added as another codec to ffmpeg? I guess I don't understand why ffmpeg2theora needs to exist at all. (I've just used ffmpeg a few times, so I don't know too much about it, just curious.)

    2. Re:Theora still lacks good creation software by a+nona+maus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Have you seen the video conversion instructions on Wikimedia commons? They appear to include instructions that cover all of your complaints, including rotation. If those instructions are lacking ... whats that Wikipedia motto? You can edit? Your Wikipedia userpage says you're a PHD in computer engineering? I suspect hat "you can edit" also applies to ffmpeg2theora. :) Good points though!

    3. Re:Theora still lacks good creation software by Raul654 · · Score: 4, Informative

      ffmpeg does support conversion to ogg theora. The problem is that (a) ffmpeg is Linux only, which means that it won't serve any more than a niche audience for the purposes of putting content on Wikimedia commons, and (b) ffmpeg is an 800 pound gorilla. Trying to read through its man page to figure out the correct options to output to theora is *painful* (on the occasions I've used it, I had much more success simply googling for the right command)

      --


      To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
      --E.C. Stanton
    4. Re:Theora still lacks good creation software by Raul654 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The instructions you cite were originally copied from the English Wikipedia guide (and its associated talk page), which I wrote :)

      My current solution is a bit more elegant than the ones on that page. I wrote a python script (which wraps around ffmpeg) to convert directories full of quicktime movies (which is what my camera creates) to ogg theora.

      --


      To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
      --E.C. Stanton
    5. Re:Theora still lacks good creation software by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      (a) ffmpeg is Linux only

      No, it isn't. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ffmpeg

    6. Re:Theora still lacks good creation software by Raul654 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's "available for Windows" in the same sense that all open source software is -- they provide the source, and (assuming you have a compiler on your windows systems) you do the job of compiling it yourself. That's so far from usable for the vast majority of windows users that I do not count it.

      --


      To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
      --E.C. Stanton
    7. Re:Theora still lacks good creation software by nmb3000 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's "available for Windows" in the same sense that all open source software is they provide the source, and [...]

      then other people compile the binaries for you. Not hard at all to find or use, and it works very well. When compiled with MinGW you don't even need to bother with Cygwin's libraries.

      http://www.google.com/search?q=ffmpeg+windows

      --
      "What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
      /)
    8. Re:Theora still lacks good creation software by Raul654 · · Score: 4, Informative

      The script is here

      --


      To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
      --E.C. Stanton
    9. Re:Theora still lacks good creation software by Requiem18th · · Score: 3, Funny

      Forks weren't invented, they were forked from Invention.

      --
      But... the future refused to change.
    10. Re:Theora still lacks good creation software by dave420 · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, it's "available for Windows" in the same sense that you download the .exe from one of the many sites that host the binaries and run it.

  4. Re:That is nice by dedazo · · Score: 2

    And the constant Flash crashes in Ubuntu...

    --
    Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
  5. Theora quality; An exciting battle by a+nona+maus · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I might claim that this event is unimportant due to Theora's quality compared to the leading-edge codecs, but it looks like that has been fixed, or soon will be. Obviously no one sane will knock Vorbis' quality.

    With the way things are going this sounds like it's going to be quite a fight between the proprietary and open worlds. I can't think of anyone better than Noikia and Apple to play the side of proprietary. ... Not even Microsoft seems to be able to pull off, well, evil as completely as those two these days. And with Mozilla and Wikipedia on the other side it's not like either side of this fight is hopelessly out-gunned.

    Of course, this is interesting to more than just Wikipedia, but few other players are both as important and have such a clear long-term vision.

    Round TWO! FIGHT!

    1. Re:Theora quality; An exciting battle by benwaggoner · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Also, MP3 is a MPEG-1 era technology (originally called MPEG-1 Layer III, in fact). Vorbis is kind of like WMA 9 in being "somewhat better than MP3" like other late 90's codecs.

      However, for an ear-opening difference, try comparing WMA 10 Pro and HE AAC v2 at 48 Kbps to Vorbis at 48 Kbps. Big, big improvement with the more recent codecs.

      The Theora decdoer is from a not very competitive late 90's codec (On2's VP3). You can tweak an encoder all you want, but all you can do is asymptotically approach what a compliant bistream is capable of. Moderen video codecs can do a lot more, on top of having much more refinement of the encoders themselves.

      Like Vorbis, Theora would only be "good enough" in environments where quality at moderate-low bitrates isn't a major concern. But for web video, other codecs will do much, much better.

    2. Re:Theora quality; An exciting battle by TheSunborn · · Score: 2, Informative

      Aac (Not acc) is covered by patents and to quote from wikipedia:
      'However, a patent license is required for all manufacturers or developers of AAC codecs [9].'

      (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding#Licensing_and_patents)

  6. Re:That is nice by bunratty · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How would Mozilla developers fix a crash in closed-source Adobe code?

    --
    What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
  7. what are the technical probs with Theora? by bzipitidoo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I keep hearing that Theora has problems. Does it really? Or are these rumors FUD?

    Some of the "problems" seem to be misunderstandings. Like, someone encoding at a too low bitrate, and then complaining that the quality is poor. Perhaps encoding isn't very fast either. I know Theora isn't the best codec ever, but it's decent.

    I've heard it's difficult to program for the Theora libraries.

    But what I've heard the most of is unethical and unwarranted efforts to stop the use of Theora and Vorbis as well. In light of that, I regard reports of "problems" with a lot of skepticism.

    --
    Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    1. Re:what are the technical probs with Theora? by GalacticCmdr · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes I can see how relevant a review from 2005 is when it is 2008. Considering that no video player has advanced since 2005 you would be foolish to use Theora. It was the truth in 2005, but that is no longer true.

      --
      Programming: Its not just a job - its an indenture.
    2. Re:what are the technical probs with Theora? by compro01 · · Score: 3, Informative

      You are aware that article is from over 2 1/2 years ago and theora's development did not stop dead at that point, right?

      More recent developments seem quite promising.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  8. Re:That is nice by jorgevillalobos · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How would Mozilla developers fix a crash in closed-source Adobe code?

    They may not be able to fix the problem, but at the very least they should be able to prevent Flash from crashing Firefox.

  9. ogg is already used in games... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    ... because it's patent-free. Quite a few games I see have vorbis.dll and therora.dll's about.

  10. Re:The tag is stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yeah, it's not like anybody used the IMG tag either, all media on the web is in OBJECT tags.

  11. Ahh.. the fairness of slashdot. by a+nona+maus · · Score: 5, Informative

    Ah, nothing like Slashdot to bring out the best in humanity. The doom9 comparison is four years old... that would be like comparing something to the MPEG reference code. The latest work on Theora shows a pretty clear doubling of quality per bitrate vs theora from a few months ago... but since this is Slashdot, I'm sure that little details like that won't slow anyone down. Good job, Nokia.

    1. Re:Ahh.. the fairness of slashdot. by Skrapion · · Score: 3, Interesting

      All these magic improvements are in the encoder; the decoder remains unchanged, so none of this affects FF.

      --
      The details are trivial and useless; The reasons, as always, purely human ones.
    2. Re:Ahh.. the fairness of slashdot. by David+Gerard · · Score: 2, Informative

      The bitstream format is fixed, so encoder and decoder can be (and are) improved independently.

      --
      http://rocknerd.co.uk
    3. Re:Ahh.. the fairness of slashdot. by John+Whitley · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, the decoders don't often admit much quality optimization. Modern lossy codec formats for both audio and video typically allow for considerable implementation leeway (and computational expense) in the encoder, while the decoder's work is fairly cut-and-dried (and designed to be efficient). Consider that the encoder's job is to pick the reduced set of bits that best represents the original signal (within the format spec), but the decoder just has to handle reconstituting exactly one narrowly defined format.

      This front-loading of the work has two benefits: one as seen here, where better encoders can come along and provide benefit to all decoders. The other is an efficiency concern: the media will be encoded just once, but decoded many times.

      For those that are new here(tm), it wasn't that long ago that just decoding audio on a desktop computer or workstation was a fairly taxing operation. This set off this deliberate encoder/decoder work imbalance, but we continue to benefit wherever power draw is a concern.

  12. Re:Wikimedia is out of touch by Rob+T+Firefly · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The level of free-content zealotry that has infected the Wikimedia Foundation has done nothing but drive contributors away and remove useful content from their projects. They're a bunch of idiots shooting themselves in the foot.

    How is "free-content zealotry" in an organization which exists solely for the purpose of developing free libraries of free content a bad thing?

  13. Opera, too -- but where is Google? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Opera has also added support for Ogg Vorbis and recently released a build that supports video, 3D and their proposed file access: http://labs.opera.com/ Hopefully, Firefox and Opera can jointly tilt the scales in the favor of open video. Google should start using Ogg Theora instead of the proprietary bits they spew out now.

  14. The truth is ... by thedbp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The truth is, Theora takes much more processing power to decode than h264. It can't match the quality of h264 when compressed to the same size. Beyond that, there are HARDWARE h264 decoder chips that require little power for use in mobile devices, not so with Theora.

    Free and open formats are awesome. But sometimes, just sometimes, being free and open isn't as important as being efficient and portable. Its about priorities and usefulness in the broader market. Theora has no traction in the mobile space. there is no indication it will surpass h264 in quality at similar file sizes.

    what good is a free and open video codec if it requires more disk space, more processing power, and has no ability to be offloaded to a specialized chip in a mobile device?

    If you want companies to adopt Theora, fix those issues. That's the benefit of open and free software. You are free and open to make it better until it meets the demands of the marketplace.

    1. Re:The truth is ... by mabhatter654 · · Score: 2, Informative

      because that VLC cannot be legally distributed in the USA and other places due to patents, not copyright. The "code" is free but the "problem" has a license that must be paid. Organizations with money at stake Wikimdeia, Mozilla, Ubuntu... can't cut corners on these things.

  15. Re:MEncoder can do all that by Raul654 · · Score: 3, Informative

    After some time spent googling and figuring out how to use Mencoder and Ffmpeg to do the rotation and theora transcoding, I wrote a Python script to do the heavy lifting. So that takes care of my problem, but that won't work for 99.9% of people who have this problem.

    --


    To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
    --E.C. Stanton
  16. Re:Words by sesshomaru · · Score: 3, Informative
    --
    "MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
  17. What about BBC Dirac Video Format? by PineHall · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There is another free codex that I heard was pretty good. BBC has the Dirac video format. Could this be an alternative?

    1. Re:What about BBC Dirac Video Format? by David+Gerard · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Not yet, not until it's way further developed. But both Wikimedia and WHATWG are watching it closely.

      --
      http://rocknerd.co.uk
  18. MPEG2 == Costly; nothing else free is sutable by a+nona+maus · · Score: 2, Insightful
    There *are* some other codecs which are unencumbered: Motion-jpeg, and H.261 for example. But at web acceptable bit-rates (say between 100 and 600kbit/sec) these codes hardly produce recognizable images for common frame sizes. They just aren't useful. You can make a good argument that Theora is behind the state of the art, but for web use the other free stuff isn't even comparable.

    And MPEG3? We should use a dead, patent encumbered, standard for HDTV that is designed for 25+mbit/sec for web use? Give me a break!

    Many of the codecs people think are "free" are really quite expensive with per unit encoder, decoder, and encoded media costs. It's easy to ignore these when they are packed up as part of the "Microsoft tax" but their burden on content creators and society in general is pretty substantial.

    When you're a Wikipedia, serving hundreds of millions of users per month on donations, this matters. Especially since a key part of their mission is making sure that everyone has the freedom to modify their works without paying tribute to middlemen like Apple and Nokia.

  19. Firefox developers lost in Canada :-) by mattMad · · Score: 5, Funny

    I am not sure whether Firefox 3.1 will ever be finished as most Firefox developers seem to be trapped without power in Canada... :-) See: http://planet.mozilla.org/

  20. Re:That is nice by funaho · · Score: 3, Informative

    Those of us on x86-64 already have this, because Adobe doesn't feel a 64-bit flash is important and we have to run 32-bit Flash via nspluginwrapper. When flash crashes for me all that happens is that any flash objects on open web pages disappear and turn into empty white squares. I just hit reload and it starts up flash again.

  21. The truth is the parent post is full of lies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    When I was evaluating codecs for an embedded platform H.264 consumed three times the MIPS of the Theora decoder, on our target CPU architecture.

    H.264 did win out on quality, but the licensing was very expensive... almost as costly as our whole CPU. The cpu load would have required us to add an expensive decoding chip. Because of those negatives H.264 was simply a non-starter.

    Fortunately our application didn't require interworking with the outside world so Theora was a good fit. At the low bitrates we needed Theora's quality was far above our other options (MPEG1, for example) and reasonable enough.

    As Theora adoption increases we can expect the pace of increase to increase. For many people the objective balance is already in favour of Theora but for most applications compatibility dwarfs all other factors. Few care about 10% differences in bitrate, and free has a huge advantage over the long term in terms of archiving ubiquity.

  22. No FUD. by a+nona+maus · · Score: 5, Informative

    The HTML5 spec originally specified that, as a baseline, conforming implementations should include a minimum of Vorbis and Theora.

    This would mean that web developers would have a reasonable baseline they could target that would work for all users, but still offer up 'higher quality' versions in more efficient alternative formats if the user had the right software.

    Sadly, some of the MPEG video patent holders have big voices in the W3C and demanded that there be no baseline. (What a shock: they don't want to have have a more level compatibility playing field because they don't want to have to compete on quality and price).

    W3C pulled the baseline due to those demands... but at least they didn't mandate useless or proprietary codecs.

    No one proprietary format can gain universal adoption because some companies are always going to push their own, which is why we have this morass of incompatibility... FLV, WMV, Real, ugh. Apple pay Microsoft for a video format? Not if they can help it!

    Companies like Apple are perfectly happy having their own walled gardens of incompatible formats since they've made quite a business out of it. The lack of a good standard suits them just fine.

    So... providing good working web video becomes a numbers game and it's all up to us users to set things straight by making good choices, which is why this is such big news. Internet standards... protocols, formats, etc. should belong to the public. Anything less will make us perpetual victims to fighting between big companies and leave us subject to constant taxes on our internet use.

    1. Re:No FUD. by a+nona+maus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I can't find any evidence of Microsoft opposing it on those grounds. Can you point it out in the list archives? It would be rather silly of them to do so since they already ship the Xiph codecs in quite a few products.

      As far as Nokia and Apple go ... Both are patent holders participating in the MPEG LA pool, both receive fees when non-patent holders use MPEG codecs. Both can avoid paying the same fees themselves by entering into confidential cross-licensing and covenants not to sue with other pool members rather than paying into the pool. (Or alternatively, since we can't actually tell if they are doing that: Both are so large that they would exceed the annual licensing fee caps by a healthy margin. ... supporting Theora/Vorbis would allow their smaller competition to save money but not them).

      Regardless of the claimed justification this is exactly the sort of result you'd expect when you include parties with clear conflicts of interest in decision making processes.

      Considering that Vorbis and Theora have been publicly available for over a decade, distributed in the millions or tens of millions by large and small groups alike, and never resulted in litigation or even public disclosure of claimed infringed patents. ... The obvious explanation here is that Apple and Nokia's position is driven not by a desire to avoid infringement but instead by a desire to preserve their vendor lock-in and multimedia-tax income.

      (I have no doubt that Nokia has some obscure patent whos 23rd independent claim purports to patent the notion of compressing audio or the like... but such clams would be quickly struck by the USPTO if they were made available for review, thus the cloak-and-daggers game)

  23. You're being a bit disingenous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's "available for Windows" in the same sense that all open source software is -- they provide the source, and (assuming you have a compiler on your windows systems) you do the job of compiling it yourself.

    OK, that's techically true - you've just ignored the fact that most windows-compatible open source software has binaries freely available. I don't have any compilers on my windows box and I run dozens of free software packages (I practically live in PuTTY, for example).

    That's so far from usable for the vast majority of windows users that I do not count it.

    It sound like you are trying to say that the vast majority of windows users are incapable of following any written instructions. I don't think that's a useful observation and I don't think you have the data available to you to be able to make such a judgment anyway - though you are welcome to prove me wrong by posting the datasets from your experiments.

    Or, to put this another way, my momma told me if I didn't have anything meaningful to say I shouldna say nothin'.

  24. Opera had it first (as always) by Miladinoski · · Score: 4, Informative

    I really don't want to sound fanboyish, but, Opera implemented the attribute (though only for Windows at the time) at 8th November 2007 and it added the Mac and Linux builds at 18th July 2008.

    But, as always, it didn't got the respectable place in /.'s front page.

    I am also dissapointed in the fact that Wikipedia didn't even say a single word about Opera supporting the same spec. as Firefox even earlier than Firefox.
    Yes, I do know they support free (as in free speech) software so they recommended Firefox, but not saying a single word about Opera makes me (and Opera's devs) cry.

    --
    [insert lame sig here]
    1. Re:Opera had it first (as always) by NotInfinitumLabs · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If opera's devs are bawwwwwing about not getting enough face time on slashdot, maybe they should just free the source and be done with it.

    2. Re:Opera had it first (as always) by David+Gerard · · Score: 3, Informative

      Those are labs builds. Opera has no release build or planned release build (like this Firefox release) with the feature in.

      --
      http://rocknerd.co.uk
    3. Re:Opera had it first (as always) by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But, as always, it didn't got[sic] the respectable place in /.'s front page.

      Did you submit it?

      I am also dissapointed in the fact that Wikipedia didn't even say a single word about Opera supporting the same spec.

      You know what works better than being disappointed? Adding it to the wikipedia article. It's Wikipedia... you can edit it.

  25. Re:Ugh by Skinkie · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It is old technology there are better alternatives that were free earlier. I would even support Ogg Tarkin more than Theora! Dirac (BBC), SNOW (Michael, FFMPEG) are by far better alternatives (wavelet) and they support lossless coding. That is what we want, especially for future generations.

    Theora has always been overrated. Now with the C implementation of Dirac and the hardware implementations that existed before there is no reason to still use Theora. Next to this anyone having directshow filters have Dirac or SNOW embedded (I think they are both enabled now), likewise for ffmpeg/avcodec users.

    --
    Support Eachother, Copy Dutch Property!
  26. Re:Words by Rhapsody+Scarlet · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Ogg and Vorbis names of characters in Terry Pratchett novels. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discworld I'm not sure where Theora originated.

    Ogg did not originate from Discworld, according to Wikipedia:

    "It is sometimes assumed that the name Ogg comes from the character of Nanny Ogg in Terry Pratchett's Discworld novels. However, it derives from ogging, jargon from the computer game Netrek which came to mean doing something forcefully, possibly without consideration of the drain on future resources. At its inception, the Ogg project was thought to be somewhat ambitious given the power of the PC hardware of the time."

  27. Re:Patience grasshopper. by Raul654 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If Wikipedia is the only (major) site using Ogg Theora - and as far as I am aware, it is - then this announcement affects only people who visit Wikipedia and and play its media content. But, Wikipedia already has support for embedded Theora and Vorbis. About a year ago, Mediawiki introduced a java player so that ogg Theora and Vorbis videos could be embedded and played within pages.

    The built-in Firefox player will effectively replace Mediawiki's java player (for people using Firefox, at least) but functionally it will not affect user experience. So like I said - this is a good step in the right direction, but it's not ground shaking.

    --


    To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
    --E.C. Stanton
  28. Browser support. by a+nona+maus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why do you need JPEG / PNG support in the browser? ... So it actually *works* for most users.

    The whole "sit back and let a plugin handle it" approach has resulted in a pretty good chunk of the web locked up behind proprietary players and authoring tools. Since it's an explicit goal of the W3C to not propritarize the web by adopting non-royality-free technology some folks argue that they ought not to propritarize the web through inaction either! ... and a browser that can't support the basic functionality that people expect while browsing without a bunch of extra plugins isn't doing its job very well.

  29. Opera video support by sgunhouse · · Score: 2, Informative

    Opera has been working on video tag support for some time, their test build (a version of Opera 9.52) was released two weeks ago.

    Article: http://labs.opera.com/news/2008/07/18/
    Download links: http://labs.opera.com/downloads/

  30. Ogg Theora acceleration with GPGPU? by HoppQ · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Well, yes, AMD and Nvidia will never write acceleration support for Ogg Theora, so it would be up to the open source community to do that, if at all possible? I had an idea (dangerous, I know, especially at night) that maybe GPGPU could be utilized for this? Maybe I'm just very, very silly...

    --
    My sig will be released in 2015 third quarter. Rating pending.
  31. Re:MEncoder can do all that by Tokerat · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...and figuring out how to use Mencoder ...

    I run Womencoder. It's nicer to look at, but verbose mode usually produces too much irrelevant nonsense. </snark>

    --
    CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
  32. Re:Full of lies? by McGiraf · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Of course the problem IS VLC and not Theora"

    Fixed it for you. A video file does not leak memory nor does a codec specification. The implementation (VLC in that case) is the problem. But I did not read the Theora specification, maybe it says "After the frame is rendered allocate some memory and never free it", who know?