Slashdot Mirror
The Ambiguity of "Open" and VP8 Vs. H.264
An anonymous reader writes "With all the talk about WebM and H.264, how the move might be a step backwards for openness, and Google's intention to add 'plugins' for IE9 and Safari to support WebM, this article attempts to clear misconceptions about the VP8 and H.264 codecs and how browsers render video. Firefox, Opera and Google rely on their own media frameworks to decode video, whereas IE9 and Safari will hand over video processing to the operating system (Windows Media Player or QuickTime), the need for the web to establish a baseline codec for encoding videos, and how the Flash player is proprietary, but implementation and usage remain royalty free."
Well I learned something new. Perhaps "liberated" would be a better term since the software, like Seamonkey, Songbird, OpenOffice.org, have been liberated from the clutches of single companies (i.e. Microsoft).
Google also has a WebP standard based on VP8, to replace GIFs/JPEGs, but it seems like it's reached a deadend. So WebM is the container.
--- VP8 is the video
--- Vorbis is the audio
Versus h.264:
--- MPEG4 AVC for video
--- plus some audio codec, like MP3 or AAC or HE-AAC
MPEG4/h264 vs. VP8 comparison (h264 slightly better - specially on low bitrate connections):
- http://compression.ru/video/codec_comparison/h264_2010/vp8_vs_h264.html
HE-AACplus vs. Vorbis (HE-AAC wins):
- http://listening-tests.hydrogenaudio.org/sebastian/mf-48-1/results.htm
JPEG vs. WebP (WebP wins):
- http://englishhard.com/2010/10/01/real-world-analysis-of-googles-webp-versus-jpg/
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
So the Right Thing is to force everyone to buy an OS from Microsoft or Apple? Do you know there are some crazy people developing free operating systems? And even using them! How dare they ask for a royalty free baseline codec for encoding video for the web? How selfish they are, giving away their OSes and expecting to be able to play with the Big Boys...
exp(i*pi)+1=0
Ok I'll come clean I havent RTFA, but it strikes me weird that a 15 year old is going to grasp all sides commercial and technological nuances of a very complex issue.
Anyone else feel the same way?
Are the h.264 people offering indemnity?
No. But they have tons and tons of patents on h.264, and h.264 and WebM are very, very similar. So we can quite safely assume that WebM is infringing on a substantial number of patents. At least we can assume that there are tons of patents where a claim that WebM infringes is not unreasonable. And you don't even need a _reasonable_ claim to sue for patent infringement.
slashdot = stagnated
"By using h.264, you pretty much guarantee that *someone* *somewhere* is paying for it. Could you imagine if say, the "David After Dentist" kid had to pay tons and tons of royalties to the MPAA for a video they created simply because they used the h.264 container format? To even conceive such a thing is such bullshit that this should absolutely be a non-issue."
It is already absolutely a non-issue. MPEG LA has made H.264 content royalty-free in perpetuity.
A.
...bringing you cynical quips since 1998
why do you cower? what are you afraid of?
you're an ignorant hypocrite.