Slashdot Mirror
New VP8 Codec SDK Release Improves Performance
An anonymous reader writes "Google released a new version of the VP8 codec SDK on Thursday. They note a number of performance improvements over the launch release including 20-40% (average 28%) improvement in libvpx decoder speed, an over 7% overall PSNR improvement (6.3% SSIM) in VP8 'best' quality encoding mode, and up to 60% improvement on very noisy, still or slow moving source video. In other WebM news, Texas Instruments has a demo of 1080p WebM video playing on their new TI OMAP 4 processor, in both Android and Ubuntu."
Because the people in control of mp4 are pricks.
When i read the stuff you wrote, i begin to ask myself... did he really not read the article?
Doubtful. H.264 is still subject to patent trolling and royalties later on. And as long as that's the case it shouldn't be the standard we use. The only made it free in one respect which is streaming. As far as I can tell they didn't make any guarantees about the ways that matter.
H.264 isn't free. Never has been and never will be. It's only free to end users, not to the people that actually produce the software. Meaning that after you paying via the copy of the software you use, they're magnanimously choosing not to charge you again for the streaming.H.264/MPEG-4 AVC - Patent licensing
Because MKV and MP4 are containers, whereas VP8 is a codec... I'm more than half convinced that you're just trolling.
But it doesn't need to. For one, all you have to do is be "good enough". This idea that every last bit has to be wrangled out of codecs is silly these days. Storage and bandwidth are cheap. So long as it is good enough, meaning performs like similar codecs (AVC, VC-1 and so on) it is fine. Remember that streaming Flash video was VP6 for a long time, and much of it still is.
However what it offers is a free option, truly free. Encoders, decoders, streaming, all have no royalties and never will. That is important. If you think AVC is free just because of x264 all that means is you aren't doing your homework. Go have a look, you have to pay to have encoders and decoders.
WebM is useful, if for no other reason than it puts pressure on MPEG-LA not to be dicks about patent licensing. However that aside, it may well be the smart choice for streaming out web based video (once it gets integrated in to browsers) since you don't have to worry about issues in the future.
That they didn't make the announcement on no royalties until AFTER WebM hit the scene. Before that, there weren't royalties, but it was a "grace period" thing that they could rethink the license terms every 5 years. They can still do that with regards to license costs for encoders and decoders.
I'd like to add that watching H.264 content is free for end-users at the moment as long as they are using a licensed decoder. If you are using an unlicensed one though the company behind H.264 still retains their right to sue your pants off. If you live in a country which honors US software patents and the company could prove you're using for example VLC to decode H.264 streams they could legally sue you. Rather daunting.
Google follows a really interesting pattern. As far as I can tell, all their software is reactive, rather than proactive.
It is the result of saying "Everyone's using X, but it sucks. We can do it better." They then take a very methodical, PhD-oriented approach to solving the problem. A few parts innovation, many parts simple engineering.
Now they have 10000 employees, but the basic formula hasn't changed. Is there software that Google has made that hasn't been a direct response to an existing product?
That said, I think there's definitely a case to be made that Google is the software industry's first adult. Software's awkward adolescent foibles are on their way out. No more 90s, no millions and millions of VC dollars being spent on Pets.com, no more Netscape and Microsoft working furiously on really terrible codebases adding incompatible nonstandard crap to the internet. No more Myspace, no more Geocities. No more paperclips bouncing around asking me if I'm writing a letter; I'm using Google Docs now.
Google approaches software the way a civil engineering firm would approach a skyscraper: they are actual engineers. They collaborate with academia. They write papers. They sit on the W3C and help create standards. They have architects, PMs, devs, testers, and even lawyers to support their projects.
In a way, this is a sad thing. It was a magical time, when a university student in Finland could just sit down, write a simple OS for x86, and watch half the internet run on it a few years later. When a kid from Texas could create a whole new genre of games in a few thousand lines of C. Sometimes I worry that I was born a couple years too late.
Halfway through my CS degree, I hope that the era of cowboy coders isn't entirely done. It would be a terrible shame if CS became just another engineering specialization. At the same time, Google's professionalism is a breath of fresh air.
Call me jaded, but the way the patent system is right now (meaning "fucked up"), as far as I am concerned, everything is subject to patent trolling until tested in court (and even then, sometimes another troll shows up later :-P)
Now considering that, why exactly should I assume that H.264 should be subject to patent trolling later and while WebM remains (patent) troll-free? Just because Google said so? Just because Google has an army of lawyers and money in the bank? Guess what, all of those arguments apply to H.264 too (the MPEG LA also says they have all the patents for it, they have lawyers and money in the bank from the license fees). And what Googles promises and their lawyers are actually worth, we will sadly see soon when the Android patent trials against Oracle gets started.
Also, since we already know that WebM and H.264 are technically very similar, I personally think that possible patent lawsuits coming from future patent trolls might be directed at both systems simultaneously, which would make any perceived advantage from WebM moot in that regard.
Now, WebM still has a lot of merit as an open and royalty-free web video codec. But as far as I am concerned, until either of them gets really tested in court against a patent troll, both codecs are still susceptible to litigation and H.264 may actually have an advantage in that regard as it has been on the market (and thus as a target for patent trolls) longer.
The outcome of patent trials isn't 100% dependent on pesky facts, people can win and get injunctions because the other guy's lawyer was having a bad hair day or because the judge was too busy playing with his penis pump or any number of "human factors".
No sig today...
So Android (no GNU there) is a micro blip on the radar? Where do you get your data, so I can avoid it?
Youtube isn't exactly "small" and uses MP4 with H.264, so no.
Anyone who wants to sell a decent device in the US as opposed to $5 player needs to pay royalties to the MPEG-LA, regardless of where it was built.
Dilbert RSS feed
Wow.
What Microsoft is saying is that they are going to provide codec support so every application on the planet doesn't have to reinvent the wheel and that endusers don't have to download codec packs from 3rd parties!
Mozilla could use the provided codec frameworks on each platform to provide h.264 support. The reason they will not is simply one of politics.
Choice is a good thing so let the endusers decide. First time they got to play and h.264 video give them the choice of using the internal codec frame work or not. And in a security warning if you wish.
If not I see a lot of folks going with Chrome.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
> free for end-users at the moment as long as they are using a licensed decoder
In other words, free as long as they have already paid for it, right? ;)
eternally free for those who only transfer the data. Not free for those who want to create or view data.
But hey, let's not get stuck in details -- who'd want to create or view videos?
Important politics. They want an open web. Supporting web video through a proprietary codec goes against that goal. It amazes me how many miss that point.
I'd like to add that watching H.264 content is free for end-users at the moment as long as they are using a licensed decoder.
If you purchased (say) Final Cut Studio from Apple to make a movie, television show, ad, or other "commercial" video, you have to buy—on top of what you paid for the software—a licence from the MPEG to legally make that video:
15. H.264/AVC Notice. To the extent that the Apple Software contains AVC encoding and/or decoding functionality, commercial use of H.264/AVC requires additional licensing and the following provision applies: THE AVC FUNCTIONALITY IN THIS PRODUCT IS LICENSED HEREIN ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL USE OF A CONSUMER TO (i) ENCODE VIDEO IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE AVC STANDARD ("AVC VIDEO") AND/OR (ii) DECODE AVC VIDEO THAT WAS ENCODED BY A CONSUMER ENGAGED IN A PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY AND/OR AVC VIDEO THAT WAS OBTAINED FROM A VIDEO PROVIDER LICENSED TO PROVIDE AVC VIDEO. INFORMATION REGARDING OTHER USES AND LICENSES MAY BE OBTAINED FROM MPEG LA L.L.C. SEE HTTP://WWW.MPEGLA.COM.
http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/finalcutstudio2.pdf
Ditto for iMovie in the iLife suite: http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/ilife09.pdf
So yes, if you're just making a movie of the kid for the grand-parents, you're fine. If you want to do anything more and make some cash, be prepared to fork over some cash.
To the OP: How is that "free"?
Do I think WebM will be better able to defend itself against patent trolls just because Google has an army of lawyers and money in the bank?
Um... yes? Plus the due diligence they did to ensure it was not infringing before they bought it.
As far as I am concerned, this planet may not be habitable after an asteroid hits until it gets tested. However, if you are going to live your life in fear then you will never get anything done.
I agree with Google that the recording and playing back of moving images and sound is too fundamental to society and to the web to put a toll gate in front of.
Phillip.
Property for sale in Nice, France
This idea that a CODEC is somehow different that all the other DLLs that Firefox leverages on a Windows system is laughable. It amazes me how many people don't get that.
Firefox loads *many* proprietary DLL's on Windows systems (and the OS/X equivs) in order to render web content.
You've turned it into a religion ONLY in the case of CODECS. Why are CODECS special?
"His name was James Damore."
I understand it.
But the statement that Firefox can to use h.264 is a flat out lie.
They can use it and they can use it without a paying a cent. The can just use the already installed codec system for each of the OSs. In fact that would be the correct way from the stand point of code reuse and software components.
It is silly to have 5 different programs on one OS all implanting h.264.
Firefox can implement h.264 they have chose not to to make a political statement! To put in any other way is a lie. And I do not care how important you think it is to make that statement it should not be wrapped with a lie.
What amazes me is how many people miss that point and are okay with that lie.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.