Slashdot Mirror
VP8 Decoder Implemented In Flash Using Alchemy
An anonymous reader writes "Mozilla's Chris Double has an interesting post on his blog about a port of the VP8 decoder to Flash. He writes, 'Ralph Hauwert has been posting on twitter about work he's done on getting WebM decoding to work by compiling the libvpx source code using Adobe's Alchemy technology. Alchemy is a research project that allows compilation of C and C++ libraries into code that runs on the ActionScript virtual machine used by Flash.' Of course, it's very slow and Adobe says that they'll bring native VP8 support to Flash in due course, but implementing a VP8 decoder in ActionScript is an interesting project nonetheless."
WebM is the container
--- VP8 is the video
--- Vorbis is the audio
Why didn't Google use Ogg for the container? I see Google's also developed a WebP format for pictures, also based on VP8.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
I think adobe would be better served by closing its doors forever and stop bothering everyone
Now that Google has dropped h.264 support from Chrome, the new reality is that the <video> tag in HTML5 is dead, and pretty much all desktop video will be served in Flash players.
So it's good they are getting a head start on getting the VP8 codec tuned in Flash, although the practical reality is that for full support in all browsers all you'll have to do is encode in h.264 and call it a day; thus that's all most companies will ever do. You have to encode in h.264 to support video playback on iOS devices which is still a huge segment of the mobile market that uses the internet.
After all Adobe owns Flash, and they have no reason to remove h.264 support now that web designers are being forced to use of Flash players for desktop. So the new steady state for the system is h.264 in Flash players everywhere except for systems that can play h.264 directly.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
If video tag meant H.264, internet dies since you can't participate without the consent of a third party (the patent holders).
With WebM and not H264, the video tag MAY be dead, but only for religious zealots who DEMAND that commercial patented algorithms are the ONLY allowed solution and therefore ban the use of openly implementable standards.
as much as useless timewasting project.
I would have preferred spending those resources into making a better/faster/leaner VP8 decoder!
Maybe Computers will never be as intelligent as Humans.
For sure they won't ever become so stupid. [VR-1988]
Wow! Flash is Turing Complete! Who woulda thunk it? Now if only it could be implemented in Javascript so as to also be unusable within another interpreted / bytecode environment....
Better known as 318230.
Who cares Google did away with H.264. They can go to hell........Stop using Chrome and Android OS people!!
They won't support H.264 because its proprietary but they went out of there way to support Flash. Only reason they did that was so they had a selling point against iOS.
Actually, its not that interesting. "Engineer implements random protocol with miscellaneous sdk." The fact that a programmer gets a toolset to do something shouldn't be news. Even if the toolset is used for something it wasn't intended, a well designed toolset should handle unforeseen scenarios with some dexterity anyway. A mildly interesting hack, sure. Headline worthy? No.
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
They aren't forbidding WebM. So, no, I don't have to tell you more, since you've already walked your own way to idiocy.
Except that the method is the format. Without the format conversion, all you have are semi-random bits.
Not a programmer, are you? You do realize that there is more than one way to implement something identical, right? No? Yeah... thats how I know that you arent a programmer.
That DOES NOT MAKE IT NONSTANDARD.
Nobody said that it did. You, however, seem to think that source code makes a standard.
Plus, I suspect that you're wrong. There are several implementations of the standard.
If they are not identical, then only one of which is owned by Google and as such only one of which is covered by Googles "we wont sue you, unless.." terms.
The other could contain patented algorithms not owned by Google and STILL DECODE THE SAME STREAMS.
Do you not understand that?
You use a lot of words and have only managed to display your ignorance.
Comming from someone that doesnt know what patents cover (WebM is not patented, although might be in the future, but the VP8 algorithms ARE patented .. the ALGORITHMS, not the format.)
Dont be such an ignorant rude fuck, asshole, especially when you dont have a fucking clue what you are talking about.
"His name was James Damore."
I think that one of the features of Silverlight was that it was possible to write a codec in c# and it was fast enough to process video, so that could be an interesting task for someone with enough time: Testing what performs better, decoding vp8 in flash or silverlight, without native support in neither platform
If video tag meant H.264, internet dies since you can't participate without the consent of a third party (the patent holders).
The video tag always meant, that we should be able to assume the most widely used codec was in place.
Currently that is h.264, primarily because of hardware support. But in the future it COULD have been VP8, once there was hardware in place and wider support for it.
Instead killing off the video tag means we are LOCKED INTO h.264 in a way that would not have been true if the video tag really took off. It means we are LOCKED INTO flash players in a way that would not have been true if the video tag took off.
Don't like h.264? Then you of all people should be more angry at Google than I am, because they ensured the marginalization of WebM and VP8.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I'm sure someone has already reflected on this, but the thought hit my slow brain at first today:
[li] A project like Firefox could never have succeeded in a web-landscape where license-payments were needed to implement a web browser.
[li] Without Firefox, we would most likely still be stuck with IE.
You know, regardless of whether you know your shit, or not, the only person coming across as a rude fuck is you, asshole.
How about clearly stating what it is you are trying to discuss rather than get pissy with others.
After several re-reads of the thread, it is still unclear as to what point you are trying to make.
Are you saying that if the FUD about WebM a format that predates H.264 really were to come into being it could be coded around ;)
They have licensed it BSD, because thats how you get adoption of the format. Thats what they want. Thats the only way they can succeeded...are you really trying to imply that Google is going to sue anyone. I suspect that with H.264 highly restrictive license and multiple company involvement you are gonna see a lot of people sued.
That's nothing, I want to implement orichalcum using Alchemy!
Is it not time to completely DUMP flash once and for all time lets do the right thing for once and get rid of something that is a bane to the web as a whole
Ah, revisionism. The video tag was at no point "Theora only", as you claim, Theora was suggested as a baseline.
Whoa there, you are responding to the wrong person. I never claimed that, I merely accepted what Draek said at face value. Correct him if you must correct someone.
The fact that Apple said "we are not doing that" simply goes back to my point that they noted people would not use a codec that didn't already have wide support. They also pointed out the madness of having to require a codec that had zero hardware support.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Malkovitch Malkovitch Malkovitch? Malkovitch!
Letting Safari play Theora videos would have in no way affected their precious ability to play back H.264, you don't need widespread support to merely implement something.
What happens is you kill battery life in mobile devices if you mandate support for a format no-one supports. It's just a bad idea.
I realize you care not a whit for actual USERS; the ones we all write software for? Someone had to. That's where Apple came in.
A new standard lacking hardware implementations? Inconceivable!
Actually it *is* inconceivable when if you simply specify a widely used codec that includes hardware support as baseline for the standard, you in fact have a new standard (video tag) that includes hardware support out of the gate, which means it will actually be adopted.
So? Will all the old iPhones ever be updated to support newer HTML5 specs?
They already support the HTML5 specs, including the video tag.
There's only one model of iPhone that's not tracking iOS, that is sadly EOL. But if you jailbreak it that too can run iOS4.
Apple was probably afraid that Theora would indeed gain widespread support before their older iPhones were obselete
Come on, do you REALLY believe that? APple sure didn't. It's absurd on the face of it. Apple was (rightfully) afraid of anything that would slow down HTML5 adoption; pulling a stupid stunk like forcing a base codec no-one wanted to support would not help.
They had alreasy decided that H.264 would be the Apple way and didn't want to bother working together with the rest of the web on the issue
I see, just ignore the simplest and most pragmatic reason, because it doesn't fit with your notion of Apple as the cartoon mustache twirling villain.
Google at least bothered to do something about it
Right, they decided to screw over the HTML5 video tag so they alone could control the video format used by web and mobile. How nobel and altruistic! Too bad it's done on the backs of the users who have to suffer, they suffer for the greater good*
* Google being the greatest good of all
I'll let you have the last word as obviously I cannot dent the faith of a true Google Acolyte. Shine on Google, shine on! Oh how righteous art though!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
We do have optional index support in Ogg now precisely for this case of seeking over high latency networks.
Firefox 4 uses it. In practice it seldom makes a visible difference, even though firefox doesn't cache any of the intermediate seeking steps, doesn't pipeline the range requests, and is really sloppy about stopping them— the seeking over normal round trip times is so fast that it doesn't matter.
It does, however, make a difference if you're one of the Mozilla media infrastructure engineers, -- who are all in NZ.
Opera released an alpha test with Video tag support years before the HTML5 working group adopted the video tag. Opera's alpha was "Theora only", so technically the video tag started out and was theora only for many years. Perhaps not what you intended, but it's pedantically correct and this is slashdot.
One of the starting premises justifying the existence of the video tag was the use at least one mandatory royalty free codec in order to ensure compatibility without compromising the openness of the web.
Really, Apple's refusal should have resulted in the video tag being abandoned by the HTML5 process: The tag is almost pointless without a baseline codec that you can count on being available everywhere. Fortunately, the coalition for freedom (Mozilla, Opera, and Google) appears like they are going to establish a baseline codec through sheer will.
"What happens when you kill battery life"? Nothing happens.
Vorbis was "not supported" by Apple for apparently this reason. Yet Rockbox includes Vorbis support. Didn't kill the battery.
And the accelleration isn't there fore many smartphones for H.264. Funny how h264 killing battery life for these aren't a problem.
How about the future? When WebM is the default standard, hardware support will be built in. Just like hardware support for h264 was built in after they'd invented it.