Slashdot Mirror


YouTube, HTML5, and Comparing H.264 With Theora

David Gerard writes "Google Chrome includes Ogg support for the <video> element. It also includes support for the hideously encumbered H.264 format. Nice as an extra, but ... they're also testing HTML5 YouTube only for H.264 — meaning the largest video provider on the Net will make H.264 the primary codec and relegate the equally good open format Ogg/Theora firmly to the sidelines. Mike Shaver from Mozilla has fairly unambiguously asked Chris DiBona from Google what the heck Google thinks it's doing." DiBona responded with concerns that switching to Theora while maintaining quality would take up an incredible amount of bandwidth for a site like YouTube, though he made clear his support for the continued improvement of the project. Greg Maxwell jumped into the debate by comparing the quality of Ogg/Theora+Vorbis with the current YouTube implementations using H.263+MP3 and H.264+AAC. At the lower bitrate, Theora seems to have the clear edge, while the higher bitrate may slightly favor H.264. He concludes that YouTube's adoption of "an open unencumbered format in addition to or instead of their current offerings would not cause problems on the basis of quality or bitrate."

21 of 361 comments (clear)

  1. Theora FAIL by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Understanding TFA linked from your "equally good" link to a slashdot story? YOU FAIL IT!!! From TFA:

    Let me reiterate- and this is important- as folks have run way too far cherrypicking quotes from this update: Both before and after the correction, this graph shows only that Theora is improving. PSNR means very little when comparing Theora directly to x264. PSNR is an objective measure that does not represent perceived quality (though they correlate), and PSNR measurements have always been especially kind to Theora. None of these PSNR measurements, including clips where Thusnelda 'wins', mean that Thusnelda beats x264 in perceived quality, as it certainly does not (yet ;-), only that the gap is closing even before the task of detailed subjective tuning has begun in earnest.

    So just to recap, you have suggested that Ogg Theora video provides quality comparable to H.264 based on a study using a specific development-version Ogg Theora video codec and a specific H.264 encoder (x264) which is NOT the best encoder around, when it in fact has inferior SnR (the only thing the study was meant to test) as compared to x264, which has inferior SnR as compared to other H.264 encoders?
    I don't know who failed bigger, you, Soulskill, or the peoples of slashdot who actually use the firehose... but you have all failed miserably.

    With all that said; is there any reason they can't add Theora support later?

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:Theora FAIL by Jurily · · Score: 5, Interesting

      With all that said; is there any reason they can't add Theora support later?

      The codec Youtube uses will severely affect everything else on the net, if they come out first. You can't deny that.

      How long will it take for IE to have support for another codec? They will have Youtube support in no time, I guarantee you that.

    2. Re:Theora FAIL by mariushm · · Score: 5, Interesting

      IE will probably render any video tag through Silverlight, forcing you to install it. That's how you make market share for your products in Microsoft land.
      On the good side, Silverlight 3 has support for both WMV and h264 and can decode them in hardware using the video card.

    3. Re:Theora FAIL by IntlHarvester · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I don't see a problem with this approach. One of the silly things about HTML5 is that it looks like browser vendors are all going to run off and implement their own media stacks. Which just increases bloat and potential security issues. Why not just use WM, QT, or whatever comes with the OS?

      Not to mention that if I'm RTFAing correctly, Firefox's <video> tag is already incompatible with Chrome's.

      --
      Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
    4. Re:Theora FAIL by samkass · · Score: 4, Interesting

      YouTube may have some effect on the de-facto internet codecs, but Theora has been losing this battle for awhile now so this isn't an out-of-the-blue decision. Many desktop and embedded video chips can decode h.264 in hardware, it's the primary Blu-Ray codec, it's used in several video chat applications, and many cable and satellite providers are going from MPEG2 to h.264. In addition, YouTube has been using h.264/AAC for over a year for "high quality" videos and videos delivered to iPhones, so they already have an h.264 infrastructure.

      And for consumers, it actually seems to work really well. The "encumbered" nature of the codec may affect some tiny number of people, but for most it appears to be a huge win.

      --
      E pluribus unum
    5. Re:Theora FAIL by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Good point. My Radeon 4650 supports hardware decoding of Divx, WMV, and h264. Does Theora even have a hardware accelerated codec? With the rise of netbooks, green computing, and the Ion Netbook solution it is pretty obvious that hardware assisted video decoding is where the market is headed. So even if Theora gets "good enough" (which reading TFA may be awhile yet) if Theora doesn't come up with a good hardware assisted decoder and quick I'm guessing it will be a non starter.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    6. Re:Theora FAIL by iluvcapra · · Score: 5, Funny

      Question is how long it will take them to implement HTML5 video.

      They'll get to it, just after they've managed to properly implement HTML.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    7. Re:Theora FAIL by roca · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Where by "some tiny number of people" you mean "everyone broadcasting H.264 on the Internet, next year when the moratorium on H.264 Internet broadcast fees runs out".

    8. Re:Theora FAIL by master5o1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I am in partial agreement: The browser venders should be implementing HOOKS to the operating system's native multimedia libraries. In Windows, Internet Explorer, Firefox, Safari, Chrome and Opera should all be hooking into DirectShow, QuickTime if installed, ffmpeg if installed, VLC's libraries, if VLC is installed.

      In Linux distributions, Firefox, etc should all hook into FFmpeg, Gstreamer, etc.
      On MacOS X, Safari (etc) should hook into QuickTime.

      They should be acting more like any other media player: Implement the native multimedia API, rather than 'create' your own. This way all browser should be able to support as many codecs as the operating system can support.

      --
      signature is pants
    9. Re:Theora FAIL by mabhatter654 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      the point is that the codex part of Theora is pretty settled down. Sure it's slow, but it's FREE... really Free just like png or HTML. The HTML5 group isn't mandating that people HAVE to use Theora for commercial sites. What they're really after is that ALL web browsers will support Ogg & Theora as part of the basic specification. Then everybody will be able to have multimedia functions without paying anybody royalties. It's the companies with interest in their own pony that are causing the problems because they like having everybody have to pay "somebody" for multimedia.

    10. Re:Theora FAIL by mabhatter654 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      the spec is designed to be open and to use whatever the vendor wants to include. That's good. Along the way the HTML5 folks are trying to throw Free Software a bone by using Ogg and Theora as the "preferred" spec partly as a matter of philosophy and partly as a matter of pragmatism .

      The big problem is Apple and Noika. Both of which build hardware and both have significant browser interests now... webkit and Qt (covering Safari, Nokia phones, and Chrome].Both also have no problem being buddy with the media companies and other patent holders. Unlike Firefox and Opera, Apple and Nokia are part of the patent club and see no need to "rock the boat" for "moral principal" reasons. Hence people keep berating Ogg & Theora simply so that they look "right" by not playing along simply because they don't want to and it conflicts with their other interests.

    11. Re:Theora FAIL by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I personally don't give a flying crap if they do it by bashing pixies over the head to squeeze pixie dust into the hardware, all i care about (and I'm guessing 99.995% of the public agrees) is that my CPU isn't being pounded when I'm running 1080p. And since I happen to have the box in front of me I'll be happy to quote from it. Quote-

      Multi Code Hardware Acceleration. Enables inloop deblocking, Motion Compensation acceleration for the latest codecs including H.264, WMV9, DivX. programmable video engine with enhanced post processing capabilities.

      Now again me and the bazillion other folks buying these things don't give a crap HOW they are doing it, all we care about is we can watch 1080p while doing half a dozen other things because our CPUs aren't being pounded into next week. And my earlier point still stands. with the rise of Netbooks, Nettops, and Ion based platforms more and more of the video decoding is being done on the GPU instead of the CPU. Even on a dual core desktop like mine offloading to the GPU gives the video a nice fast cache of GPU RAM and a processor more designed for video decoding than a general purpose CPU, which lets my CPU do other tasks, as well as cut down on heat as today's GPUs are a lot more heat efficient than CPUs.

      If Theora wants to be taken seriously they need a GPU based hardware decoder than works on the big three, Intel, ATI, Nvidia, and they need it yesterday, and they need to start offering it to the GPU manufacturers so they can bundle support like they do for WMV9, Divx, and H.264. Because out of the box with the default drivers my Radeon decodes all of the above as well as Mpeg2. The Nvidia does the same. Folks don't want to go play "hunt the decoder" they just want it to work. So while I applaud the Theora guys for trying to come with a free high def codec I'd say they still got a ways to go for mainstream use. Hardware decoders for the big three should be right at the top of the list IMHO.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  2. Decoding Chips by chonglibloodsport · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Superior in objective PSNR Quality. OK.

    How about CPU utilization? Are there any ultra-low-power decoding chips that play Theora?

    H.264 already has a large install base of devices that play it. Is there enough of an advantage to Theora to warrant dumping all of those for new ones?

  3. Re:repeat of ogg? by nxtw · · Score: 4, Informative

    Ogg Vorbis was better in quality than MP3 - back then (and even today) the most popular compression for music. However, AAC and WMA are also better than MP3 - and people actually sold music in AAC and WMA formats as well as MP3.

    Theroa is not better than h264 (the new popular standard for video on the Internet, many Blu-ray discs, HD satellite, and HD broadcast in some parts of the world), so it's not a repeat of Vorbis at all. Theora just scores higher on a scoring algorithm when compared ot a single h264 encoder, the open-source x264.

  4. Re:repeat of ogg? by jd142 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I wasn't blaming so much as pointing out that like many blogs, slashdot can be an echo chamber. The same opinions are repeated over and over and treated as if they are held by the majority of people. I was younger then and still thought slashdot had a finger on the pulse of technology. It doesn't. It's really great as a news aggregator and the comments are often a hoot, but it isn't what I thought it was.

  5. Re:repeat of ogg? by julian67 · · Score: 5, Informative

    There are an awful lot of players which support ogg. Almost anything from Cowon, iRiver or Sansa does. And almost all the Chinese brand/no-name/shop brand players support ogg even though they fail to explicitly state this (preferring to emblazon their players and packaging with mp3 and wma logos). I used to import and sell mp3 and mp4 players and generally it's only the very cheapest mp4 video players which don't support ogg, that's the ones which claim asf container support is something to brag about.....usually these use an old rockchip video processor.

    I have 5 personal players. 2 are old iRivers, H140 and H340, 2 are tiny no name Chinese mp3 players and one is a Chinese mp4 video player. Only the iRivers claim to support ogg audio but the cheap mp3 players handle it fine as well. I lived in SE Asia and every cheap mp3 player I ever checked played ogg audio too. Not a single one made mention of it in the instructions, the specs, on the box or on the player.

  6. Re:Stupid stupid stupid... by loufoque · · Score: 5, Insightful

    An open-source browser cannot legally read h264 video, that is the real issue that people seem to have trouble to understand. That is why the HTML standard only mandates a format that is not impaired by any legal restrictions: Theora.

    Not being able to legally play DVDs, Blurays, connect your ipod, etc. on linux are already big problems, we don't need another one.

  7. Re:repeat of ogg? by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 5, Informative

    Ogg Vorbis is also used in video games because it has some other advantages: it supports 6-channel audio, and has support for bit-accurate decoding, allowing seamless looping of audio, and it sounds better at lower bitrates. I know MP3s can be kludged to do some of these, but it's easier just to use Vorbis in these cases.

    Our upcoming game will actually be shipping with both MP3 and Ogg Vorbis audio. The MP3 decoder we're using is significantly more efficient than the reference Vorbis libraries, and allows us to play more simultaneously decoded channels. However, if a piece of audio needs to loop, to use multi-channel, or if we're encoding a LOT of it (music, voice-overs, etc), we use Ogg Vorbis.

    Honestly, the cost of the license isn't really an issue at all. It's all about what does the job best for us, and MP3 and Vorbis each have strengths and weaknesses.

    --
    Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
  8. That's a different situation by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 4, Informative

    Pirates have the advantage that they don't have to pay for patent licenses, so H.264 and Theora are both "free". But for law-abiding companies like Mozilla and Google, Theora is free and H.264 isn't.

  9. Re:repeat of ogg? by iMacGuy · · Score: 5, Informative

    > Theora just scores higher on a scoring algorithm when compared ot a single h264 encoder, the open-source x264. It doesn't even do that; it only scored higher when using Xiph's PSNR tool, because it respected a buggy colorspace header written by ffmpeg that didn't match the video. x264 won rather heavily when that was fixed, but /. never retracted the story.

    --
    Why won't slashdot let me change my terrible username :(
  10. Re:Stupid stupid stupid... by Super_Z · · Score: 5, Informative

    This document describes the terms of the H.264 license. The license seems to cover both encoding and decoding.