Slashdot Mirror
Theora 1.0 Released, Supported By Firefox
YA_Python_dev writes "The Xiph.Org Foundation announced Monday the release of Theora 1.0.
Theora is a free/open source video codec with a small CPU footprint that offers easy portability and requires no patent royalties.
Upcoming versions of Firefox and Opera will play natively Ogg/Theora videos with the new HTML5 element <video src="file.ogv"></video>, and ffmpeg2theora offers an easy way to create content.
Theora developers are already working on a 1.1 encoder that offers better quality/bitrate ratio, while producing streams backward-compatible with the current decoder." Adds reader logfish: "Since its bit-stream freeze in June of 2004 there have been numerous speed-ups and bug-fixes. Although Nokia claimed it to be proprietary almost a year ago, nothing has been proven. So now it's time to help it take over the internet, and finally push for video sites filled with Theora encoded vlogs, blurts and idle nonsense."
How does ogv compare to say, mkv?
I really want to like Theora, but it's really, really hard to get around the quality issues. VP3, which Theora is based on, just isn't competitive these days. It was subpar back in 2001 when it was donated to Xiph, and the contrast has only gotten worse over time. H.264, VC-1/WMV9, MPEG-4 ASP, even Adobe Flash 8 (which added VP6) are clearly capable of outperforming it.
If nothing else, free is good (both in terms of speech and beer) and a royalty free standard for video would be great, but it's too hard to ignore just how inferior this standard is. I'm a pragmatic person, I can't think of any reason why I'd want to use this over a better codec; free isn't all that enticing if the video quality sucks.
Sounds like feature creep and bloat to me.
I metamoderate, therefore I am
Hopefully, it will encode in slices so that content can be played/decoded using all cores of a multi-core cpu instead of using only one core, requiring a higher clocked cpu like the encoder in the HDPVR, an issue brought up in the mythtv-user mailing list. Hope I was clear enough, see the list for a better explanation.
ogg/theora porn?
A software project that was at code freeze in 2004 is just now being released? Was it in some legal issue, did they not have any any automated test tools...
no comment
object data="file.ogv" type="video/ogg"
I'll also be needing videoblock for firefox now.
Compared to avi it adds usefulness, though that's not saying much. I think it adds over wmv, but that again wouldn't be saying much.
I do agree that mkv currently has richer featureset implemented.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
... if you release the torpedo before the target leaves the shipyard?
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Congratulations for Theora 1.0.
Most news providers like BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/) offer videos in closed-sourced proprietary flash format where flash is not available for all operating systems. It is time now to switch or offer videos in Theora format for benefit of the public.
Sagara
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Dirac (see http://diracvideo.org/) probably has much more potential to become the next generation open video codec. From what I understand it is more cutting edge and than Theora due to e.g. the use of wavelets.
Sounds like feature creep and bloat to me.
Why? Ins't going to affect you if you don't visit pages with videos and, unlike Flash there's a browser preference to start all videos in paused state. The Theora binary library is only 250 kB on AMD64, even smaller on x86. The Flash plugin, is much, much bigger.
Video on the internet (think youtube, movie trailers, pr0n, etc.) isn't going away any time soon.
The current state of the art is to have a proprietary Flash plugin installed in almost every browser. Switching to native support for an open format directly in the browsers seems like an improvement to me. In the good ol' days, people considered image support in browsers as bloat too..
And Firefox isn't alone here: Opera and Safari will support it too (altough Safari will not support Theora out-of-the-box).
vlogs, blurts and idle nonsense
What the hell is a "blurt"?
Please help metamoderate.
Does anyone know the rationale of not using <object> for including video? It would have been perfect for that usage, and completely standard...
Great, we can finally throw away all those flash-based player junks which don't work on all OSes and thus fails at the very purpose of the Web!
We can finally go back to what worked. The EMBED and OBJECT tag like way, so each OS can use their native player, with the user's prefs and their native features, instead of imposing a non interoperable, DRM-crippled, often ugly player.
I wish...
Now I just need to port it to Haiku :)
I'm clueless on the topic... so I will just ask the question. What royalties are their for file formats? Does this basically mean that Microsoft pays for the different codecs that are included in Windows Media Player and that Adobe pays for the different formats that it can export to?
Support the 30 Hour Work Week!!!
"Although Nokia claimed it to be proprietary almost a year ago, nothing has been proven. So now it's time to help it take over the internet"
I admit I don't know what the situation with Theora's licensing history is but this comment strikes me as rather worrying. We're being told to use it because no one's proven it's not likely to end you up with licensing troubles later on. Personally I'd rather before something "takes over the internet" that the burden of proof was on it to demonstrate that it is completely open. This should be as easy as showing use of a relevant open license no?
From what I can see it's under a BSD license and so should really be open. Is this the case? The way the article summary is written just really doesn't instil confidence in their intentions.
Giving this codec the benefit of the doubt I think the summary is just a case of carried away fanboyism having an adverse effect towards the neutral observers view of the situation much as seeing a forum war between a PS3 and a 360 fanboy might put someone off the idea of online console gaming.
Can someone a bit more grounded give us a better view of the concerns and realities of Theora licensing and it's suitability as a codec to "take over the internet"?
It's the only video format allowed on world #8 site Wikipedia.
http://rocknerd.co.uk
See:
http://web.mit.edu/xiphmont/Public/theora/demo5.html
http://v2v.cc/~j/ffmpeg2theora/ffmpeg2theora-0.22-thusnelda.exe
And this is only the start. Just look at what the Lame encoder was able to do with the MP3 format in quality.
"smaller random nerd sites and one big nerd site"
there, fixed.
factor 966971: 966971
Use Gstreamer as-installed on your existing system. Put this in a simple bash script and have-at:
gst-launch-0.10 filesrc location="$1" ! decodebin name=decoder { oggmux name=muxer ! filesink location="$2" } { decoder. ! ffmpegcolorspace ! theoraenc ! queue ! muxer. } { decoder. ! queue ! audioconvert ! queue ! muxer. }
Add the Fluendo codecs, and you have a properly patent-licensed, legal way to transcode most popular media to no-patent-royalties media types.
Now, if there are decent (freeware?) applications that can encode the format that would be great. You have to pay for Flash video encoding, and even if you can pay, asking about a Flash video encoder for Linux.. who cares about Linux. If you use MPEG4, some players are picky on the type of MPEG4 codecs you used to encode a video when you play it back. . Microsoft video format is just a pain in the backside.
A video format without the security problems of Flash, bring it on.
Take Nobody's Word For It.
Check it out. http://theorasea.org/ Right now they don't host video.
Flash doesn't just work. It [...] is not 64-bit.
The original PlayStation wasn't 64-bit either, but it beat the Nintendo 64. The point is that 64-bit isn't everything.
The MPEG-LA point had nothing to do with the MKV container format, but what Theora adds compared to other video codecs.
That is hardly an endorsement, except to say that it fulfils their strict open source/GNU criteria.
Thank you ;-p
http://rocknerd.co.uk
[citation needed]
rewriting history since 2109
What API? Tags do not have APIs, and the <object> can be extended with "params"s
If you think about it, you answered your own question. The API to a plug-in that renders an <object> element is the interpretation of its <param> elements. But each video playback plug-in needs a different set of <param> elements to define a particular behavior. The <video> element specifies the behavior more strongly than <object> and <param> ever did.
This "video" tag looks a lot like an old Netscape HTML "extension" to me.
If it's in the HTML 5 draft, can it really be called an extension?
So, before Theora we had
...
<object width="x" height="y">
<param name="movie" value="somefilename.swf">
<embed src="somefilename.swf" width="550" height="400">
</embed>
</object>
and now we have
<!--[if IE]>
<object width="x" height="y">
<param name="movie" value="somefilename.swf">
<embed src="somefilename.swf" width="550" height="400">
</embed>
</object>
<![endif]-->
<!--[if !IE]>
<video src="somefilename.ogv"></video>
<![endif]-->
unless off course you're going for javascript, which means supporting non-javascript visitors.
The other way would be
<video src="somefilename.ogv">
<object width="x" height="y">
<param name="movie" value="somefilename.swf">
<embed src="somefilename.swf" width="550" height="400">
</embed>
</object>
</video>
Yes, I see, much better and less redundant.
"Violence is the last refuge of the competent, and, generally, the first refuge of the incompetent" - Thing_1
Only for certain definitions of easy. Let me know when you have a point and click version that my non technical friends can use.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
You still don't answer. They could just have specified some standard parameters. And of course it's part of HTML5, I knew that. So what? Can't someone make comments about proposed standards now?
I for one welcome our Amanda Pays based overlords.
Look, you can't patent something that would be obvious to an expert in the field. Given an the bitstream definition, an expert in the field could easily create a DECODER. The magic is in the ENCODER. So there shouldn't be any patent restrictions on decoders, should there? Why are people who sell decoders only be forced to pay MPEG-LA?
its #4 now.
I've been following the development of Theora since Monty started posting the results of his Thusnelda branch. After two release candidates, more than four years after the bitstream freeze, we're finally here. (Much like cdparanoia, development of which lay idle for about four years, which has recently put out a new release as well.) The work is gladly received, with an eye toward further improvements in the future.
Now, according to Monty, work begins on merging the experimental Thusnelda branch onto the mainline, to make it stable and usable. In addition to being freedomlicious, the new branch apparently provides reasonably competitive quality.
I'm quite pleased by all this; maybe I'll drop a few bucks to Xiph.org by way of congratulations.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
For bloating my web browser with support for a shitty video format that nobody uses. Thank you for perpetuating a format that doesn't even match up to MPEG-2 in quality. Thank you for retarding the progress of Good Technology like MPEG-4 H.264/AVC and MPEG-4 AAC. With idiots evangelizing crap formats like Vorbis and Theora, it's no wonder that nobody takes w3c seriously.
Everything that Xiph has created is shit.
OGG - hacked up container with high overhead, incompatibility with non-Xiph formats, and no new features over AVI or MKV.
Vorbis - hacked up audio codec that doesn't do anything MP3 does and is glaringly inferior to AAC. No multi-channel support? No Spectral Bandwidth Replication? No wonder nobody uses it.
Theora - the newest in Xiph's line of crap. Except, this one doesn't even pretend to be useful. 1995 called. They want their MPEG-2 back.
Commons:File types - this is what is permitted by the WMF MediaWiki installation.
http://rocknerd.co.uk
Sure, you can consider it to be free, but boy is that ever not what free means.
And a publically available spec means little or nothing. Patents are publically available, but try implementing those and see if you manage to escape the long arm of the litigator.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Did you even read what he said? Go back to kindergarden.
Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
...but, according to the constitution, mathematical algorithms are not supposed to be patentable. I say that everyone needs to completely ignore these patents and force suits en masse to be brought to the supreme court. If a court orders you pay, refuse on the grounds that it is unconstitutional. If everyone did this, they couldn't put everyone in jail.
Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
I'd really like to give you an "Insightful" on this one, but I prefer to reward logged-in users with those few mod points I have. Please stop being an AC unless it's necessary.
Still not getting it.
Adobe Flash Player is not supported for playback in a 64-bit browser.
You're right: I don't get it. Why would a web browser need to see more than 2 GB of RAM in a single process? Can't a 32-bit process (containing the SWF plug-in) and a 64-bit process (containing all other browser code) draw to the same window? Or what benefits do you see from a 64-bit compile other than a larger address space?
when you have a product/technology that's used on a site that gets over a million visitors each day then you can say that it's "hardly an endorsement."
why should choosing a technology because it's open source mean any less than choosing a technology that is easy to deploy, or is scalable, or for any other reason? and there are plenty of other open source video codecs that Wikipedia could have chosen.
besides, their open source criteria can hardly be considered "strict" when they still use GIF and JPEG images on the site.
EBML and XML are not exactly equivalent. EBML lacks an equivalent of namespacing, and an EBML-document is self-explanatory, since tag-names are integer-encoded.
IMHO, EBML with an extension to the standard to describe id:s used in sub-formats would kick so much ass. As soon as you make it possible to devise general editors for the format, all kinds of possibilities opens up.
I even took the effort a couple of years ago to jot up a SourceForge project for it, but as with most sourceforge-project I ran out of time soon after. :S http://runestone.sourceforge.net/
Really? Why doesn't Wikipedia allow Dirac too?
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
It's sad that in the interim between when OGM arrived, and then MKV bubbled up from the depths of hell, people forgot that OGM had literally everything they needed. And yet for some reason people decided to go with MKV, despite the abortive specification.
Xiph, I wish you had finished this crap years ago.
I have apparently managed to get the nomenclature of the various containers all confused in the past four years. That having been said, I still have a low opinion of MKV.
that's used on a site that gets over a million visitors each day
WP isn't a video server, a very small amount of their pages contain moving images. They can have as many visitors a day as you want, they all go there for text & images. Youtube is the #3, is 100% video and not a bit of theora there.
"Violence is the last refuge of the competent, and, generally, the first refuge of the incompetent" - Thing_1
No demand so far. The 1.0 Dirac codec is a bit rubbish (it's very conservative in its compression). The current development codec is much better but, of course, not finished. If you had video that was a good case for enabling Dirac upload, that'd be a reason to ask the devs to switch it on.
http://rocknerd.co.uk
who said anything about Word Press?
Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia of sorts. it's not an image repository like flickr, either--people don't go to Wikipedia to search for images specifically. but that doesn't mean multimedia isn't a vital part of the site. part of the advantage of having an encyclopedic reference on the web is that you can integrate digital media like video/audio/images/etc. into the site.
and just because YouTube doesn't use Theora doesn't make it a bad codec. YouTube doesn't use XviD or H.264 either.
I'd really like to give you an "Insightful" on this one, but I prefer to reward logged-in users with those few mod points I have.
You don't deserve any damn mod points whatsoever- it's assholes like you that ruin moderation systems.
Mod points are meant to highlight posts that are worth reading- even if you disagree with them- and bury the crap. It's not meant to signal approval/disapproval nor (in your case) should it be a self-indulgent reward for user behaviour that you happen to prefer. Yeah, tell me that's not how people use it in real life- that's exactly why certain moderation systems suck (last time I checked, the Digg one was worse than useless for this reason).
ACs start at 0 anyway- which makes it worthwhile logging in anyway- not as a "punishment" but purely because posting ACs makes troll/flamebait/drivel posts more likely. If an AC makes a good valid point that isn't reliant upon proof of identity, it's valid regardless.
What makes it worse is your inappropriately sanctimonious attitude towards the other user who (quite validly) chose to post AC, and your implication that your misuse (or lack of) mod points in this case was the reward for "good behaviour". *You* were the one in the wrong.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
By text & images I meant: text & images.
Digital media integration in WP is nearly all images, haven't seen video in pages that I visit apart from the main page.
and just because YouTube doesn't use Theora doesn't make it a bad codec. YouTube doesn't use XviD or H.264 either.
You're refuting a point I wasn't making. The point was that WP isn't a valid reference for this stuff.
BTW, do they still sell california sunshine in the U.S.?
"Violence is the last refuge of the competent, and, generally, the first refuge of the incompetent" - Thing_1
Hello
I still wonder why so many people moan about H.264 licensing fees. It is quite reasonable and is not stupidly overpriced as in the case of AMR audio codec. Here are the terms of MPEG 4 LA
In the case of the (a) encoder and decoder manufacturer sublicenses: For (a) (1) branded encoder and decoder products sold both to end users and on an OEM basis for incorporation into personal computers but not part of an operating system (a decoder, encoder, or product consisting of one decoder and one encoder = âoeunitâ), royalties (beginning January 1, 2005) per legal entity are 0 - 100,000 units per year = no royalty (this threshold is available to one legal entity in an affiliated group); US $0.20 per unit after first 100,000 units each year; above 5 million units per year, royalty = US $0.10 per unit. The maximum annual royalty (âoecapâ) for an enterprise (commonly controlled legal entities) is $3.5 million per year 2005-2006, $4.25 million per year 2007-08, $5 million per year 2009-10.8
This means that if you would start a company that would sell a product that would embbed ffmpeg / x264 (you have to release the sources in that case because of GPL ...), you would not have to pay anything for your first 100 000 units, the above 100 000, you have to pay $20 000 / year so 0.20 $US / year / user. This sounds reasonable.
Of course such approach is not compatible with the GPL philosophy that emphasises the "no string attached" philosophy but H.264 development did not come free either. I wonder if the devlopper of x264 could not sell non GPL licences of their codec with a low price: 2$ per unit + 0.5$ per year per unit for support and patent fees. This would enable anyone wanting to do business to have a sound legal base and channel more money in open source codec developments.
Emmanuel. IVeS
Here's some double-blind listening tests comparing the perceived quality of various MP3 encoders. At 128kbps, LAME 3.95 beat the encoders from Adobe Audition 1.0, iTunes 4.2, Gogo-no-coda 3.12, Audioactive 2.04 and Xing 1.5. Sure, the test is more than four years old, but unless there's something more recent, that'll stand.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
As Monty said:
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
In most cases you can answer that question like this...
apt-get install ffmpeg
ffmpeg -formats | less
In this case, use Wikipedia. MKV leads you to the entry for Matroska.
From TFA (on Wikipedia). . .
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Actually, YouTube does use H.264 when sending videos to the iPhone/iPod touch.
They're also supposed to be using H.264 for all new videos and converting all current videos to H.264 too, from what I've heard.
Wikipedia uses a Java decoder for Theora (because no browsers include Theora yet) and for Dirac the Java version is incomplete and not real-time.
Wikipedia isn't a "big video site", but they are an enormous site in general. A small amount of video on Wikipedia still translates into a lot of video in total.
Wikipedia doesn't publish traffic statistics but I wouldn't be surprised if the Wikipedia video traffic were more than the fifth most to the hundredth most popular "video" site combined.
Yeah, Dirac's really heavy on the CPU at present.
http://rocknerd.co.uk
He's right. Moderation is here to promote discussion, not to promote your own viewpoints or logged in users, or anything else for that matter. If a comment is worth reading, mod it up. If it challenged your viewpoints in a unique way, even to the point of making angry, mod it up. I know it's hard to award what looks like accolades to something you find offensive, but it'll make for a better slashdot. Trust me.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
But the problem is, the people visiting Wikipedia aren't doing so for the video content.
That's a bit like touting a new image format because it's used (only) for the 1x1 pixel spacer/tracking images on, eg., Microsoft.com.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
With the exponential growth in prosumer video content creators and a droves of viewers, it's timely to have encoding/decoding alternatives that do not require licencing.
WordPress? I thought it was about WordPerfect!
OLPC Australia