Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

VP8 Codec Coming To FFmpeg

Posted by kdawson on from the small-fast dept.

Jim Buzbee writes "Interested in Google's VP8 codec? Well, so were the FFmpeg guys, so they went ahead and wrote their own native decoder in only 1,400 lines of unique code. They were able to keep the line-count low by relying on heavy reuse from the existing H.264 codebase."

9 of 218 comments (clear)

  1. Hmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Is anyone else worried by..

    They were able to keep the line-count low by relying on heavy reuse from the existing H.264 codebase."

    I bet the MPEG-LA will see that as proof that it violates their patents.

    1. Re:Hmmm... by poetmatt · · Score: 3, Interesting

      so you're saying an x264 development blog by an x264 developer is going to be biased against vp8, has been quoted a million times, and has no real world tests (there are real world tests out there). color me surprised! /sarcasm.

      Here a real article, trollop.

      Saying that H264 is better or worse than vp8 shows straight up ignorance because they both have specific scenarios which they cater to. To avoid recognizing that is a lie.

      In the real world, studies have shown the two perform quite similarly, actually. Also, at the rate VP8 adoption is going MPEG is going to have to sue a lot of people, and they're going to lose in public image among other things.

    2. Re:Hmmm... by MrHanky · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Vorbis isn't any worse than the competition. Certainly better than mp3, and AFAIK with better encoders than AAC. Quality isn't the reason why Apple refuses to support it. Denying competition is.

    3. Re:Hmmm... by Svartalf · · Score: 2, Interesting

      But only if Google really have inherited some killer On2 patents as part of their acquisition. I hope they have - it would make sense of their strategy and confidence in VP8 if this kind of thing were going on in the background.

      Even though it's speculation, I'm strongly suspecting that you're going to find that this is the case. Combine that very possible reality along with many of the patents not being actually patentable, for varying reasons including in re Bilski being upheld in some fashion, and any delay impairing any ability TO enforce, and you see the picture as we see it.

      MPEG-LA members rumbling about patents and doing NOTHING about it, and Google forging forward without any comments about the noise from the "other camp".

      --
      I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
    4. Re:Hmmm... by sl3xd · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There is a difference between a specification and a standard.

      The patent-encumbered AAC, MP3, H.264, etc. are actual standards, governed by a recognized standards body. Vorbis, Theora, and VP8 are self-published specifications, much like Windows Media. The fact that Vorbis, et al. are more open than Windows Media does not make them a "standard". Until it is recoginized and ratified by an actual standards body, it isn't a standard; it's yet another vendor specification.

      I can crap in a box and call it a "standard." That doesn't mean it is a standard.

      Don't get me wrong -- Vorbis is excellent, Theora is pretty good. VP8 is still a train wreck that needs cleaning up, but at least it creates decent video. None are recognized standards. They are self-published specificaitons, and in the case of VP8, the specification consists of a reference implementation and nothing else.

      On the other hand, AAC and H.264 are standards, goverend by a recognized standards body. There is a legitimacy given by the standards body that doesn't exist for a self-published specification, and there is merit to the process. There is a full specification (that goes into agonizing detail) that is entirely separate from a reference implementation.

      A gratis published specification is not necessarily an open standard.

      An open standard doesn't have to be gratis, nor does it have to be patent free.

      Apple and Microsoft are supporting actual open, standards-body controlled audio and video standards, and are choosing to ignore a few self-published fiat specifications. There is prudence in sticking to ISO standards, even if it irks the Free Software world, and I respect the decision.

      I'm for free software; I support Vorbis, Theora, and VP8. They are great pieces of free software. A couple even have a decent written specification. But until I see a recognized standards body give a stamp of approval, and more importantly, the turning of the standard over to the standards body (rather than the parent company - Xiph or Google, retaining it), I won't see Vorbis, Theora, or VP8 as anything other than a free software alternative to the actual standardized formats.

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
  2. Good idea? by surmak · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Is is really a good idea to advertise how similar VP8 and H.264 are? Send in the patent trolls.

  3. It gets worse by Chrisq · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Is anyone else worried by..

    They were able to keep the line-count low by relying on heavy reuse from the existing H.264 codebase."

    I bet the MPEG-LA will see that as proof that it violates their patents.

    From tfa:
    since H.264 (the current industry standard video codec) and VP8 are highly similar, we can share code (and more importantly: optimizations) between FFmpeg’s H.264 and VP8 decoders (e.g. intra prediction).

  4. Same codebase? by Mystra_x64 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What does "relying on heavy reuse from the existing H.264 codebase" actually mean? For example, if you make some kind of new a superfast array sorting algorithm for 1 project and 'reuse' it elsewhere it does not mean both projects are the same. [Of course I haven't RTFA.]

    --
    Quick way to get 30% Funny 70% Troll: defend Opera browser on /.
    1. Re:Same codebase? by WWWWolf · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What does "relying on heavy reuse from the existing H.264 codebase" actually mean?

      It means exactly what it says: The developers added a VP8 decoder to FFmpeg, and only had to write very little of completely new code, while making extensive use of the code that already exists in FFmpeg. This way, VP8 decoder will improve when the rest of FFmpeg improves, and all codecs that share the same bits of code benefit from those improvements.