Slashdot Mirror
Intel Considers Hardware Acceleration For Google's WebM Format
CWmike writes "Intel is considering hardware-based acceleration for Google's new WebM video file format in its Atom-based TV chips if the format gains popularity, an Intel executive said on Thursday. Announced last Wednesday at Google I/O, WebM files will include video streams compressed with the open-source VP8 video codec, which was acquired by Google when it bought On2 Technologies in February. 'Just like we did with other codecs like MPEG2, H.264 and VC1, if VP8 establishes itself in the Smart TV space, we will add it to our [hardware] decoders,' said Wilfred Martis, a general manager at Intel's Digital Home Group."
It would be nice to have hardware support.. and the support of Intel.. and guess they don't want to be accused of favoring some parties and not others.. and certainly there is a cost to adding to the hardware but still is it not also a chicken and egg problem?
http://www.hawknest.com/
So beceause Intel may add VP8 hardware acceleration that it means that H.264 (which dominates in pretty much every area of home video and VOD, etc) is done? lolwut?
WTF? Intel might add hardware support for this codec and you declare victory? Intel is a bit-player in hardware video decoders. H.264 is already everywhere. Also, I don't know where you get the idea that it's patent-free. You simply can't make a modern video codec without treading on someone's patent any more, and this is no exception. Remember MS proudly announced that VC1 was patent-free, too. It's all a form of corporate trolling.
Its not the first time that someone has had to build and incredibly similar version yet slightly worse, just to fill a civic need. On2 is doing what Tesla did when Edison prevented him from using his lightbulb design.
How long will it take to get popular? 1 year?
How long will it take to design the hardware implementation? 6 months?
How long will it take to get into production? 1 year?
How long will it take to get into a product that is on store shelves? 6 months?
This is too long. Intel may as well have said they aren't interested. 3 years from now there are going to be how many tens of millions of devices with hardware H.264 support and no way of upgrading to VP8 support? People aren't going to toss these things in the trash just so the can buy brand new devices that give them the exact same experience.
It doesn't mean that. What it does mean is that Theora is done, though.
According to their page AMD, ARM, nVidia, MIPS, Marvell, TI, and Freescale are all onboard. That leaves pretty much just Intel and Analog Devices as the only two major chip makers for various devices that haven't cast in. If they can get widespread hardware support, it means that devices will likely have WebM acceleration by default, simply due to the chips they use. That being the case, enabling software support for it makes good sense.
I think it has a real shot at becoming the streaming media standard. H.264 is likely to remain the high quality standard for video because it is used on Blu-ray and a good deal of recording devices, but WebM could well take over streaming. While it isn't as high quality per bit, it is good enough (after all, VP6, its predecessor is used in a good deal of Flash video) and free is hard to say no to. If devices support it in hardware, then there you go.
Have to see how things shake out, but I'm optimistic. There's a large base of support for it in all the right areas. Only real thing that could sink it is a successful patent lawsuit. However I believe Google when they claim they've evaluated it before and after purchasing On2 and they are confident. I think it is likely that if VP8 infringes on any patents, it infringes only on ones that they can find prior art for, and that they may also have some patents of their own they can hit back with.
Here's hoping. Not only would a completely free format be good various uses, but its existence should force MPEG-LA to keep H.264's licensing terms reasonable.
What the fuck mods?
How the fuck is this flamebait? A MAJOR hardware manufacturer. Probably the most relevant and biggest hardware making in history is willing to support an open standard. And one of the biggest players in the industry is the one pushing that open standard (Google). It's already supported by all relevant Free Software packages (i.e: ffmpeg), Out of the 5 major browsers, 3 already implemented it, and another (no one but MS's IE) said it'll support it if you have it installed.
That's what I call a FUCKING MAJOR BREAKTHROUGH.
This is the closest we've ever been to having an actually open, compatible web. And my comment is flamebait? I'm just fucking happy that this is happening, and I'm just recognizing an incipient victory when I see it.
Now, go ahead an mod this down too if you want.
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
how about your phone? your TV? your bluray player? thats right, TV's + phones + blueray players > laptops(and some of those have that broadcom crystalHD card thing in them)
All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
Political correctness might be misdirected, but posting "niggers" several times in the row is still vulgar, rude and a sign of a fucking moron.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
With how close they are to each other as a format, it shouldn't be too hard to make it decode in hardware as most of the stuff is already there. Hell, with how close they are you could probably rig up a decoder that already ran partially in hardware as is.
It is a win for VP8 but not exactly like it would be a hard thing to do or even expensive on Intels part.
To be honest, this actually looks like the logical thing to do on their part.
1) Format becomes popular that is already mostly able to run on your current designs and is also free to use and implement.
2) Modify your process to finish the hardware decoding on your system as it was cheap and mostly already done.
3) Profit, you now have another selling point for your hardware with little (relatively speaking) financial investment on your end.
You simply can't make a modern video codec without treading on someone's patent any more, and this is no exception.
Yes, that's the MPEG's assertion. However, your comment implicitly asserts that Google is tremendously stupid. Even Google's biggest detractors can't reasonably make that claim.
Google is pushing the format pretty hard. And after all, they bought On2 in the first place. And, considering they must have a truckload of lawyers who specialize in software patents, they'd know if they had a timebomb on their hands. They sure aren't acting like it, which leads me to believe that they think they can make a very good case that it's patent free.
As for the format itself, it's certainly inferior to h264 - but I'll take slightly larger size/worse quality for patent free any day of the week.
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
google is an h.264/MPEG-LA licensee so they won't be affected if it infringes on that patent set.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
All they are saying is that "if it gets popular, we may support it". So... they're basically saying nothing but the obvious, given it's in their interests to support popular formats anyway.
Given that VP8 is really just a minor modification of h.264, and Intel already supports h.264 decoding in hardware, what exactly has to be done to support VP8? Modify the driver to reload the proper DCT constants and other minor things. The only hardware stuff I can see is if the hardware is hardwired for h.264 in which case they need to rewire it to be a little more flexible. But given they support many codecs already with the same pieces, it should be already in place (a lot of other pieces get reused decoding VC-1, for example).
Surely all the h.264 blocks could be re-used as VP8? In which case Theora's practically dead because everything supports h.264 decoding already and can probably be trivially converted to support VP8 as well.
Heck, you probably can do the same with an h.264 encoder to have it spit out a VP8 bitstream...
Google gains nothing by releasing an inferior codec under the same restrictions. After all, if you need the MPEG patents, why not just use MPEG4?
I imagine they're working up to it. More specifically, they're probably fishing for a lawsuit so they can prove that it's kosher.
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
google is an h.264/MPEG-LA licensee so they won't be affected if it infringes on that patent set.
They will be affected if such additional usage of patented items requires the payment of further license fees that they did not anticipate.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
It's flamebait because it's a completely unwarranted conclusion. You've got it pumped up to +4 right now, somehow, but the flamebait was a better moderation idea. Seriously, how is h.264 "finished" just because someone's willing to add it to their decoder spec? Nothing in that post was insightful, informative, or interesting (objectively speaking. It was pure opinion, which may be subjectively interesting). The only thing it did was try to start a fight over what's better, h.264 or this. That's the very definition of flamebait.
Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
I don't think there is actually a _single_ h.264 hardware component that could be directly reused for a vp8 decoder. Maybe if you designed your motion compensation engine with a lot of filter flexibility it could be reworked for vp8 without too much work... but really, in engineering "similar" is not the same as "the same". For the reuse of pre-existing parts "the same" is what counts.
What a ridiculous statement.
H.264 is massively entrenched. Which content do you think you're going to get in VP8? DirecTV already adopted H.264. Cable is stuck on MPEG-2 at the moment, but will definitely take whichever format allows them to use their limited bandwidth most efficiently (H.264). What about cable in Europe, DVB? Nope, that already went to H.264. Will pirates give up a little bandwidth to use a free CODEC? They're already pirating content, you think they care about licensing fees for CODECs? Blu-ray? H.264 (and VC-1). CD-DVD? AVS.
The bizarre part to me is that you got modded up for your comment. Who thought this comment added to the conversation?
I think VP8 will get some use, but victory over H.264 is extremely unlikely. It's just too little, too late to take the lead.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
fyi, the crowning achievement of any internet troll is to type "niggers" and have some dork post a 5000 word essay (that nobody reads) in response.
congrats, you are more meaningful to some basement-dweller than the $100 hooker he lost his virginity with.
My TV doesn't support h264. Even fancy HD digital cable still uses mpeg2.
They have like 1 patent out of 200 or something.
Developing CODECs isn't "nothing".
I have no idea where you get your idea that it's only on 10% of computer systems. It's on every Mac and Windows 7 machine for starters. And that's over 10% of the market. And anyone who has VLC or Windows Media Player on other platforms.
And support for it is near ubiquitous in HD video players. Portable ones, etc. That's a big market. As I mentioned, it's in cable (and free to air) systems in Europe, it's on all DirecTV boxes that do HDTV (and many that don't). It's in virtually all HD camcorders.
You're detached from reality.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
This is true, but it does not guarantee a victory for Google or for open standards.
We have entered the FUDwar, the FUD launching has begun in full and it does not matter that open standards and Google are slinging truth. With the patent case it does not matter what is true necessarily but what MPEG-LA and its backers, most notably Apple and Microsoft can get judges and lawyers to believe. Google also understands this.
Right now, Google and open standards are the Allies, Apple is Nazi Germany and Microsoft is Imperial Japan. I suppose IBM would be the Soviet Union but that's not withstanding, all sides are looking for the atomic bomb, and that bomb is a patent law which decimates the opposing side.
The war is far from over, in fact it has only just begun.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Are you kidding? Google still has a shit-load of work to do getting VP8's spec (which, apparently, is just based on chunks of C++ code, complete with comments and TODOs) up to the level of H.264's (which is an actual formal specification). H.264's support is ubiquitous. VP8's is not, and even Intel adding hardware decoding to their Atoms isn't going to change that. Not even close. H.264 is the video codec of the moment, and it very likely to stay that way for considerable time. Theora is the codec that should be worried about this, as VP8 is far better than it, and is also open-source. HTML5 has nothing to do with codecs. That is, and always has been, up to the implementation of the browser to choose. Just as the img tag doesn't specify what image formats a browser should support. What the fuck are you smoking?
Your faith in your friends is your greatest weakness, young Jedi
Soon you will witness the power of this fully armed and operational patent pool.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Bawww! I wrote a rabid post cheerleading Team Freedom and got modded down. The hive has rejected me! Now I'll have to face the terror of individuality.
Hey kiddo Microsoft, Fox News and Big Oil want cheerleaders too. And unlike Team Freedom they actually pay them. Plus they don't have any of that awkward peer moderation.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
How many of those patents have been tested? I'll bet it's not many. I'll bet the holders do not want them tested. I'll bet there are prices that can settle these matters. We're talking about Google and Intel here; they have patent lawyers. Good ones. They have deep pockets. Pockets deep enough to settle patent disputes.
Very, very, good point. So far fear, and FUD, have kept the game going. It will be interesting to see what happens when someone actually has the balls to say "bullshit" and back it up with a legal team.
We live, as we dream -- alone....
Content Apple Adobe MPEG-LA patent pool Profit You vs
Content Apple MPEG-LA patent pool Profit You
Content Google MPEG-LA patent pool Profit You vs
Content Google VP8 Profit You
Everybody is trying to cut one lawyer/developer step out of the profit/content/consumer chain before they demand a drink from the credit card # typing consumer.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
ok lets test this. i'll go out and buy a device with h.264 and you go buy a device supporting VP8, and first person back posts wins.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
K i'm back with a h.264 device. guess i win.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
The egg came first; the first egg from which the first chicken emerged was laid by a bird that we would not fully classify as a chicken. The actual resulting chicken was the result of a genetic mutation relative to the mother.
Theora still has its use. It's less processor intensive than VP8 or H.264, and does about as well at low bitrates. This makes it a good choice for low-quality videos that need to play on older hardware.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
DVB-T, at least in the UK, uses both MPEG-2 and H.264. If you get over-the-air HDTV from the BBC, it's H.264. If you get the same channels via satellite, they're MPEG-2.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
What they're saying is that MPEG-LA, Apple, and Microsoft won't scare them away with patent threats just by saying VP8 is infringing on H.264. Whether that means they believe it doesn't infringe or that they're willing to pony up licensing funds isn't really clear from the summary.
This is what it will take for INTEL to support hardware accelerated VP8.
Mainly because they'll have to create a full blown VP8-core (or more likely, try to see if they can modify the existing video core and cram in the few missing parts).
That's because their embed 3D chips aren't that brilliant and Larrabree project is heading nowhere.
Now, for other companies, it might simply be a purely software problem, leveraging the various SIMG, DSP & GPU components.
Theora has hardware implementation runing on the SIMD and DSP featured in *current* OMAPs
Although VP8 is more complex, it might still be solved, for example using some GPGPU computing (OpenCL for the win !). So on hardware featuring better GPUs (ATI & Nvidia), VP8 support might be a software update away.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Not always... :)
My other account has a 3-digit UID.
Only when you're a niggerfaggot.
MPEG-LA does it because they know they can't guarantee that there aren't any submarine patents on the technology they license. If Google was truly confident that VP8 doesn't infringe any patents then they would be indemnifying their users.
However, nobody needs to put new content in GIF format because PNG is available everywhere.
MNG and APNG, the animated extensions to PNG, are not available elsewhere. The alternatives to animated GIF are SWF and HTML+PNG+JavaScript.
The very fact the MPEG-LA says there are patents but won't specify which shows that there actually aren't any.
There is aleady a PDF listing patents in the H.264 pool. As for the proposed WebM pool, give it time. MPEG-LA members are still reviewing their portfolios to see which patents are essential enough to go on such a list.
The analysis on the x264 blog concluded that VP8 most closely resembles H.264 baseline, and the comparison shows that H.264 baseline encoded with x264 lies somewhere between Theora and H.264 Main.
Intel makes homes?
Wow, only two minutes. You must live above a Best Buy or something.
Fine, let me rephrase.
Theora is done as an HTML5 video codec.
(what else matters, anyway?)
Hope that makes you feel better...
Besides the fact that TV and Bluray players may well be using generalized DSP cores for hardware acceleration.
Bluray players are especially likely to have programmable DSP cores, since they need to support:
Nevertheless, your bluray player probably does not have a web browser, so who cares if it has WebM support. It was never intended for you to play WebM videos by burning them to disc and putting them in your bluray player.
The same logic makes WebM support irrelevant for TVs, Nobody has ever specified a way to transport WebM over coax, composite cables, component cables, s-video, or HDMI. Further very few TV have a web browser, so that is irrelevant.
Thus the only devices likely to have use for WebM acceleration are PCs (where) Intel is very popular, and cell phones. Many of the cell phones powerful enough to support H.264 are Using TI's OMAP processors, which have a general DSP which can be programmed to accelerate WebM.
Stylish sheet to fix many problems in Slashdot's D3: https://gist.github.com/801524
Please immediately put measures in place that stop all Apple iP[ao]ds and iPhones supporting WebM as you did with Flash.
I thoroughly enjoyed reading all of the tenuous fanboi postings about how lack of Flash is a good thing & am always more than happy to sit down with bag of popcorn and nice cup of tea to watch a great comedy sequel...
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
It makes me wonder if Google purposely released a vague and poorly written specification for VP8 just to make it hard on MPEG-LA to search through for any patent violations.
But since most Blu-ray players are flash-upgradeable, they could potentially add accelerated VP8 support in the future.
Most != all. I'm not convinced that even all Bonus View (BD 1.1) players support codec upgrades, which means each disc would have to have a system requirements panel so that someone doesn't unwittingly buy a VP8 disc and try to play it on a player model that cannot be upgraded to decode VP8. It's possible that a player can accept upgrades to BD-J, BD+, etc., without accepting upgrades to video codecs, partly because so much of a video codec might be implemented directly in silicon, or the DSP might be executing out of actual ROM. Should H.264 royalty rates increase that quickly, VC-1 would become the preferred choice for new discs and remasters, even if only to eliminate the consumer confusion about players that cannot be upgraded