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."
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?
There is certainly some chicken-and-egg concern(though this might be obviated by the fact that Google has a massive arsenal of web videos, and a browser, and mozilla could probably also be counted on).
As for costs, it wouldn't surprise me if the format was designed(in part) to keep those low. Remember the analysis linked to here a few days ago? The punchline was, in essence "very much like h.264, except in a few specific ways that are largely worse". Now, assuming that the On2 people aren't complete morons(which would also imply that their new Google overlords are complete suckers), why would they create a codec like that?
Well, h.264 is the best supported(in terms of software, and embedded hardware decoders) of modern video formats. It is also considered to be quite good, the product of research by a large number of people and entities. However, it is patent encumbered. Therefore, you would expect a rational competitor to do the following: Copy h.264 as closely as possible in all unpatented respects, or respects where patents can be worked around. Nobody is giving you any extra credit for re-inventing the wheel, and (unless you have particular reasons to believe the contrary) trying to do so would likely result in a worse wheel. Where the spec is simply too patent encumbered, implement the least-worst replacement for that bit that isn't encumbered.
Based on that technical analysis, it strikes me as extremely likely that this is more or less what On2 did. Do a patent search, presumably focusing on the MPEG-LA pool, and any other likely suspects. For any parts of h.264 too heavily covered to engineer around the patents, make the smallest legally tenable compromise.
Since the vast majority is extremely similar to h.264, this will likely make adding hardware support cheaper, since most of the dedicated decoder logic and/or embedded DSP firmware can be shared between h.264 and WebM, with small additions to cover the differences.
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.
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.
3 years from now? H.264 is on my computers, my blu ray player, my phone, my camera, my video camera, it's everywhere now. In order for any codec to replace H.264 it has to be technically superior, just not "free". And from what I've seen, VP8 is better than Theora, but still not H.264.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
My point is that by the time Google and their partners could get this into widespread use, H.264 is going to be in even more widespread use than it is now.
If Google wanted to really compete, the time to do it was a few years ago. It's too late now. The only way to stop H.264 is to come out with a codec that makes H.264 look like bloated garbage. This isn't such a codec.
Anyway, that's my opinion. I would love to be proven wrong - I don't really want to have to start paying royalties in 2015.
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 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.
What about hardware support for animated GIFs, if today is "ridiculous uses for an FPGA day" ?
This only needs to get to be the current GIF vs PNG situation and it's enough. There are still GIFs on the internet everywhere. They will never go away. However, nobody needs to put new content in GIF format because PNG is available everywhere. GIF licensing fees are now taxes on stupidity and help to mean that IP supporting companies become ever less competitive.
That means that the entire television industry, which is locked into H.264 will become less competitive against the internet / Google / web / open access type companies. This is the reason why the MPEG-LA is desperately spreading FUD. Hint; if you know that there's a patent which is essential to a particular existing standard there is absolutely no reason not specify exactly which patent it is out loud. If you don't do it you risk losing money for accusations of bad faith. If these people really knew which patent it was, then they wouldn't say they had it (admit they've done that analysis) without specifying exactly where the breach was. The very fact the MPEG-LA says there are patents but won't specify which shows that there actually aren't any.
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();