Slashdot Mirror
Theora Development Continues Apace, VP8 Now Open Source
SergeyKurdakov writes "Monty 'xiphmont' Montgomery of the Xiph Foundation says the latest action-packed, graph- and demo-clip-stuffed Theora project update page (demo 9) is now up for all and sundry! Catch up on what's gone into the new Theora encoder Ptalarbvorm over the last few months. It also instructs how to pronounce 'Ptalarbvorm.' Ptalarbvorm is not a finished release encoder yet, though I've personally been using it in production for a few months. Pace on improvements hasn't slowed down — the subjective psychovisual work being done by Tim Terriberry and Greg Maxwell has at least doubled-again on the improvements made by Thusnelda, and they're not anywhere near done yet. As a bonus Monty gathered all Xiph demo pages in one place."
Also on the video codec front, and also with a Xiph connection, atamido writes "Google has released On2's VP8 video codec to the world, royalty-free. It is packaging it with Vorbis audio, in a subset of the Matroska container, and calling it WebM. It's not branded as an exclusively Google project — Mozilla and Opera are also contributors. Builds of your favorite browsers with full support are available."
An anonymous reader points out this technical analysis of VP8.
As far as HTML5 Video goes, a new upcoming Flash will make things even more interesting and mix them up. The final version of Adobe Flash 10.1 supports P2P to reduce the bandwidth costs for site owners. It works out of the box too, so users can still get the video normally streamed, but it will seriously lower bandwidth usage and hence costs for video streaming sites. This same P2P feature also works for both on-demand and live video aswell as Flash based multiplayer games.
Live streaming should have some common specs too, but P2P streaming requires such to be made into the standard so it works for all. It's a quite large feature for site owners too, since it dramatically lowers bandwidth costs.
I don't think we will still see Flash going away, even if we at some point can even decide about the codec used for HTML5 Video. There's still too many features Flash has that HTML5 Video doesn't support at all.
I, for one, welcome our new open codec overlords.
Woohoo! Much good will come of this.
And all you closed, patent encumbered codec trolls: please go away now. Your services are no longer required.
The project is also backed by hardware partners such as AMD, ARM, and Nvidia. "Hardware acceleration is extremely important." Sunder Pichai, Google vice president of product management (From TheRegister link).
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Analysis can be found here. Comparison pictures to other codecs are included.
Read the blog post. Needless to say, this is astounding.
Google says it holds certain patents on the VP8 video codec that is part of WebM but there's no assurance that Google's patents are the only patents required. What about patents that third parties could assert? While it appears to be a nice gesture if a major player releases software on open source terms, it's imperative to perform a well-documented patent clearance.
Developers should be provided with detailed explanations why Google believes that no one adopting WebM will have to fear allegations of patent infringement. Otherwise those developers might be exposed to considerable risk. It wouldn't be possible to check on millions of different patents but at the very least I think Google should look at the patents held by the MPEG LA pool as well as patents held by some well-known 'trolls' and explain why those aren't infringed. Programmers have a right to get that information so they can make an informed decision for themselves whether to take that risk or not.
It's not unreasonable to ask Google to perform a well-documented patent clearance because they certainly have the resources in place while most open source developers don't.
The situation surrounding Android shows that Google might opt to stand on the sidelines if those adopting its open source technologies -- such as HTC -- are sued by patent holders. I can't find any promise on the WebM website that Google would come to the aid of third parties adopting the technology, so Google should at least help everyone to assess the risk.
We all know Steve Jobs' recent email in which he said a patent pool was being assembled to go after open source codecs. So the patent question is really a critical one. Also, this in-depth analysis by an X.264 developer shows that VP8 and H.264 are so similar that the risk of patent infringement could be substantial.
I have previously called for this kind of patent clearance, in connection with the open source Theora codec as well as with VP8, here on slashdot as well as on my blog, such as in this post.
http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/?p=377
They don't seem that impressed. It is less robust than H.264, in some places seems to outright copy it. Google is offering no patent indemnification (from the article: "this is a patent time-bomb waiting to happen.")
They give it credit for being the best open source format out there, but they fault it generally in every other category.
OK, I get that Ogg and Theora and Vorbis, etc., are interesting geek in-jokes. They are also horribly crappy product names. You and I might have no problem with them, but I guarantee that 95% of non-geeks will dismiss "Ptalarbvorm" as stupid and confusing without ever evaluating it. Pro-tip: if you need a pronunciation guide, then you desperately need to pick a better name. Yes, better, as in "the current one sucks and should be taken out back and shot".
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
WebM is available under a new license. So far haven't been able to find out whether Google will try to get this license OSI-approved.
So if you want to see who is watching a given YouTube (or porn site) video, just watch it yourself, and then watch your network while the flash player is still active.
Yet Another Codec, both Gratis AND Freedom ?
Supported by a fuck-ton of companies ?
- among which not only the major player which made better the modern web as we know it (All the companies mentioned in the summary. Basically anything beside Microsoft)
- but also several hardware industry backers (like major such as ARM, Qualcomm and Texas Instruments) ?
(We can expect a "WebM accelerated on embed chip's GPU+DSP" Google Summer of Code poping up this year...)
Well, thank you Google ! That's pretty much good news !!!
Only question : How will be the HTML5 standards organised ? Will it be possible to mix and match the various codecs (Theora, VP8, ...) with the various containers (OGG, Matroska, ...) ? Or will it be specified only as defined combination (WebM = Matroska + VP8 + Vorbis ; ??? = OGG + Theora + Vorbis, H264 = MP4 + Mpeg 4 AVC/h264 + AAC) ?
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
You, sir, obviously dont have a clue what you are talking about. For starters, flash isnt even a codec. You're comparing a container to a codec, that's not even apples and oranges, that's apples and boxes.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
On the one hand we have a detailed point by point analysis of the spec and screenshot from an upcoming encoder comparison featuring different video formats with encoders set up to provide maximum quality that can be replicated by anyone. On the other hand we have On2 marketing material.
Seriously you want me to believe in the latter?
I would take the X264 dev's opinion over the company that originally designed the format... The X264 dev also posted screenshots of their results, and VP8 did not turn out very impressive.
Not to mention, On2 (who again, designed VP8) offers no technical analysis, while the X264 dev did a code level analysis.
I'm not saying the X264 folks won't have bias, but at least they're more neutral and did a spec level review.
Well, if streaming media has proved *anything* over the years, it's that the general public doesn't care if the compression ruins the work as long as they can play it for free.
Reference the following:
* RealMedia
* Most Youtube videos, "fan reposts" aka re-encodes, and re-re-encodes
* Low bitrate MP3
* JPEG (ok, it's not streaming, but still - "needs more JPEG artifacts")
* Screeners, cams, and foreign translations from the DIVX Discount Theatre
* Webcams
* Most QuickTime videos
* Most AVIs
* Most streaming video on Flash today
* Cable and satellite delivered HD content
Really, the only thing you need to say is "free" and people will at least give it a try.
Google still has a load of patents with which it can countersue any third party that isn't a pure-play non-practicing entity.
No, Google isn't a patent powerhouse. Its patent portfolio is only a fraction of the size of Apple, for an example, and even Apple isn't extremely big compared to some others. Look at this analysis, for an example:
In a recent investor note from Deutsche Bank, analyst Chris Whitmore compares the patent libraries of Apple, Google, and HTC. What he found was that in the past few years, Apple has been issued 3,000 patents, Google has been issued 316 patents, and HTC has been issued a measly 58 patents.
Also, if Google had the ability to do this, why would they stand on the sidelines when Android adopters such as HTC are being sued or when royalties are collected from them?
So can somebody clarify a few things related to html5 video for me? The video is encoded in one of these formats correct? ( H.264, WebM, etc). Then in html5 it is introduced into the page via some sort of video tag. So, if I'm using a browser that supports WebM, I still need it to support H.264 if I'm browsing a site that has videos encoded in H.264. Is this correct? So what is really the big deal about html5 vs playing video with a plug in? Just one less process running on the computer in favor of an additional browser process running (or a more bloated browser process)? Are the benefits that we now get tighter integration with the browser interface so you can now scale video or do weird stuff like rotations ala the firefox demo? In other words, is this really any different than, say, building quicktime playback natively into the browser rather than needing a plug-in? I understand that html5 offers a lot of new functionality but the video part of it seems unnecessary beyond removing a plug-in unless I'm not seeing something. And in some cases you still need a plug-in if your favorite browser doesn't support a certain kind encoded video. Thanks for any info.
But that's a good thing. Google in fact holds patents on it. Why is this good? Well they give people a license to use it, free of charge. However the license is revoked if (and only if) you file a patent infringement suit against VP8. So this means if someone sues them, they can no longer implement VP8 in their products in any form. Also, since Google has patents, they have those to fire back with. If the patent filer infringes on any of those, they are in trouble, again since the license to use them is revoked.
Basically, there really isn't any harm. I mean yes, Google could take away the ability to get new licenses at some point if they wanted, but that's true even with no patents. However as the license stands you are free and clear, and they cannot revoke it, except if you file an infringement lawsuit over VP8.
Honestly, you've got On2 on the side supporting VP8 and X264 on the of h.264. Neither side seems to be free of conflict of interest.
Put identity in the browser.
I guarantee that 95% of non-geeks will dismiss "Ptalarbvorm"
People won't call Theora 1.2 "Ptalarbvorm" any more than they call Windows Vista "Longhorn". Referring to software products by their version codenames seems to be restricted to Debian (e.g. lenny), Ubuntu (e.g. Lucid Lynx), and Mac OS X (e.g. Snow Leopard).
Hear, hear.
If you're running Big Media Pay-Per-View movies and television, I can understand that the quality of the picture might, maybe, be important. Then again, I've seen people happily watching Big Media "content" as horribly smeared/blurry-looking "digital HD cable", so maybe not even then.
I'm not sure how high-resolution helps improve videos of skater kids suffering accidental testicular trauma or kittens attacking inanimate objects...
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
The WebM license consists of two portions: a copyright license and a patent license. The copyright license is identical to the 3-clause BSD license, which is already OSI approved.
Bless you.
Let me get this straight. Old is not necessarily good and new is not necessarily better. Bearing in mind correlation != causality. I'm sure a Russian Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods could come up with something for old Koreans that will generate ... profit!
There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
...Sanyo...
It doesn't matter if the Hello Kitty plush toys are H264 enabled or not.
What matters is that the actual maker of chips embed found in 99.9% of multimedia hardware like smartphones (the various ARM based chips), are endorsing this and will probably roll out some for of hardware acceleration or another.
The only valid point for h.264 vs. other codec ("it's supported in hardware accelerated form on embed chips, and in portable widgets, every saved watt counts") will become moot.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
They aren't talking about making VP8 a part of HTML5 standard *yet*.
Yet = the keyword.
And if VP8 is supported by Firefox (a good chunk of desktop machines), Opera (a good chunk of embed systems) and Google (one word : Youtube), there's a good chance that it will be on the recommended list of codecs.
Even more so as the makers (ARM, TI, Qualcomm...) of the most prolific chips on portable media widgets such as smart phones are on the same bandwagon.
Suddenly the h264 vs. Theora flameware (quality + hardware support vs. patent licensing problems + opensource) becomes moot.
(As VP8 is a modern era codec, and will probably improve to levels in the same range as h264,
chip-makers can roll out hardware acceleration, probably GPU+DSP based,
and Google will grant free patent license for opensource implementation)
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Suing a Free Software project just guarantees that the patent holders suing 1) look like horrible thugs in front of a jury
Which is why a sufficiently large patent-holding company will pay its lawyers big money to find a way to get a judge to pass summary judgment on as many issues as possible before the jury even hears the case.
2) limit the amount of damages that they can ask for
Practicing entities don't necessarily want damages; instead, they want an injunction so that they don't have to compete with free. Sometimes this can be as easy as a cease and desist notice, as it was with ASF demuxing support in VirtualDub 1.3 series.
Hmmm, considering Adobe's record of using Akamai's P2P client as part their Download Manager, which you have to use to download stuff from their store (or did at one time anyway). The thing runs in stealth mode, and I'd venture to guess that most users who have it installed don't know that they do, and don't know that they may *still* be sharing their bandwidth long after they downloaded their Adobe product.
Basically, I'd be fine with it so long as they give users a true opportunity for informed consent (not bury some sneaky clause in a EULA), AND give users control over how much bandwidth is used/when.
For example, if my laptop is connected off a 3G card, I don't want to share *any* bandwidth. And if I downloaded some content a week ago, time's up, I'm not sharing that thing anymore. And if I'm playing a lag-sensitive game, I don't want some background P2P client mucking with my bandwidth.
The fact that Adobe is putting this P2P stuff directly into their Flash player is problematic unless they do a *much* better job than in the past of respecting the fact that the computer and its bandwidth belong to the user.
But if somebody does want to get into a patent fight over codecs, I imagine that some targets are less attractive than others.
Google? Would some lawyer want to bring his patents into court against Google? There can't be a company on Earth better prepared to find prior art to invalidate any plaintiff's entire patent portfolio than Google. They're Google. They index the world's information. It's what they do. It wouldn't surprise me if Google had prior art on trellis quantization based on translation of Olmec temple ornamental carvings.
Lawyer fights are usually such dry, boring drawn out things that they don't get much attention. That, though? That would be such a one-sided brutal crushing of the plaintiff that if it were televised I'd like to pay-per-view it.
Help stamp out iliturcy.