We can already stream DVD-quality movies encoded at 1 mbps or so, well within the current consumer "broadband" offerings.
No, we can't. Of course, if you've been fooled into thinking that scene crap is "DVD quality", then perhaps this holds true. Otherwise, you would realize that not even H.264 can deliver DVD quality video (720x480, no artifacts) in less than 1 Mbps.
Viewing their samples (not to mention that they are NOT sd resolution despite what they claim), their supposed "magical breakthrough" codec appears to have the quality of early DivX revisions.
I see: 1) blurring out of details 2) blocks 3) dct noise
Their claim that they can compress SD video to 750kbps and HD to 3Mbps at good quality is completely unfounded.
For bloating my web browser with support for a shitty video format that nobody uses. Thank you for perpetuating a format that doesn't even match up to MPEG-2 in quality. Thank you for retarding the progress of Good Technology like MPEG-4 H.264/AVC and MPEG-4 AAC. With idiots evangelizing crap formats like Vorbis and Theora, it's no wonder that nobody takes w3c seriously.
Everything that Xiph has created is shit.
OGG - hacked up container with high overhead, incompatibility with non-Xiph formats, and no new features over AVI or MKV.
Vorbis - hacked up audio codec that doesn't do anything MP3 does and is glaringly inferior to AAC. No multi-channel support? No Spectral Bandwidth Replication? No wonder nobody uses it.
Theora - the newest in Xiph's line of crap. Except, this one doesn't even pretend to be useful. 1995 called. They want their MPEG-2 back.
Yes. And... why does it matter and why should we care?
Regardless of the circumstances, if something is not illegal, it is not illegal. If you don't like it, make a law. On the other hand, it appears that what you are trying to do is to gather an emotional response rather than a logical one. The law is not about revenge or vengeance (though each day I say that with less certainty) and should not be.
This here is what we call a logical fallacy. You propose a comparison between two things that are not alike and ask us to determine which is better. In this case, no comparison exists because CoreAVC is a decoder and x264 is an encoder. Maybe you should read a little bit on what each are? Like what x264 and CoreAVC are?
Now, assuming that you meant to ask "what advantage does CoreAVC hold over other (free) decoders such as FFMPEG?", the answer is as follows:
CoreAVC is much faster in single-threaded operation than FFmpeg, especially in the deblocking routines. It supports interlaced H.264 which FFmpeg did not until recently support. It has much more efficient multi-threaded routines than FFmpeg. All of these matters because 1920x1080i/p H.264 videos such as HDTV broadcasts in some countries as well as Blu-Ray/HD-DVDs are being increasingly common. In order to play these videos using FFmpeg, one would need something like a 3GHz Core 2 Quad whereas a much lower-clocked Core 2 Duo is sufficient with CoreAVC.
Um, because most video cards rely on DMA in order to not render at 0.001 fps? And moroever, I can't count the number of times ATI drivers have kernel paniced by Linux box so it's not a "lol windows" issue. Nice try. You failed.
These are 'the' two leading standards of the day with the expection of MPEG4 which doesn't perform as well as VC1 and there are additional licensing issues with real MPEG4 content.
Whoa there, Cowboy.
H.264/AVC is part of MPEG-4 and it is easily more efficient than VC-1. Careful with your Microsoft-flavor Kool-Aid.
OZYMANDIAS
I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand,
Half sunk, a shatter'd visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamp'd on these lifeless things,
The hand that mock'd them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear:
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains: round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away.
Kind of fitting actually.
Before announcing/implementing these wonderful new useless features (XComposite/AIGLX), I'd like to see existing functionality fixed.
fglrx currently can handle dual-head setups in one of two ways. The first: you run two X servers, which wastes memory and makes you unable to move windows between them. To make it worse, Xv doesn't work on the second head. The second: use a combined framebuffer/xinerama setup which works if your monitors are exactly the same resolution but otherwise forces one to change res.
It is impossible to use both OpenGL and Xv at the same time with fglrx. That's just plain stupid.
VSync doesn't stop OpenGL video playback from tearing, it just makes the video tear diagonally/in the corner.
fglrx is just plain unstable. I've had it regularly lock up my machine with no apparent reason.
fglrx isn't even fast. Running 3dMarkSE2001 in WINE (not a great benchmark by any means), I get a good 60ish% performance loss compared to Windows. That's just plain stupid.
What you describe can and has been done. Dolby AC-3 and DTC audio (DVD audio) have metadata attached to the actual audio containing information that tells the player how to dynamically compress it. There are a couple reasons this isn't being done on CDs however. Like you said, it is *relatively* computationally expensive and not Red Book (CD-Audio) compliant so any CDs mastered this way will not work on normal CD players.
How about - putting a watermark into an audio/video stream permanently changes it from the original, in effect degrading it. It doesn't matter whether or not it's audible or not, I'm no longer buying the original song.
Your post is so wrong, I don't even know where to start. First off, if MPEG-1 Audio Layer 3 (mp3) was state-of-the-art 16 years ago, that means it's 16 years old already. Back then, MPEG-1 Video was also "state-of-the-art" but you don't see anyone using that these days.
Second, "mp3 is a non-proprietary codec". Well, guess what, so are Vorbis (which also happens to be FREE), and MPEG-2/4 AAC (which, unlike mp3, does not have a license fee to be able to play). Seeing as these give better quality than mp3, there's no reason that people wouldn't have switched other than the fact that *Joe Sixpack can't tell the difference between 32 kbit/s mp3 and the original*.
Third, the FLAC *programming API* changed, FLAC 1.0 files can still be decoded using FLAC 1.2.
Your post is so wrong, I don't even know where to start.
First off, if MPEG-1 Audio Layer 3 (mp3) was state-of-the-art 16 years ago, that means it's 16 years old already. Back then, MPEG-1 Video was also "state-of-the-art" but you don't see anyone using that these days.
Second, "mp3 is a non-proprietary codec". Well, guess what, so are Vorbis (which also happens to be FREE), and MPEG-2/4 AAC (which happens to have LESS patent regulation and is supported by nearly every player). Seeing as these give better quality than mp3, there's no reason that people wouldn't have switched other than the fact that *Joe Sixpack can't tell the difference between 32 kbit/s mp3 and the original*.
Third, the FLAC *programming API* changed, FLAC 1.0 files can still be decoded using FLAC 1.2.
Slashdot Mirror
MKV is superior container because it allows multiple streams within a single container, including multiple languages and subtitles.
You mean like AVI, MPEG, and MP4 all do? http://www.alexander-noe.com/video/amg/en_myths.html
It *doesn't care* about the underlying codec's. For cripes sake, it supports DTS-HD out of the box without any special extensions.
It sure as hell does care. Read http://haali.net/mkv/codecs.pdf which goes into very specific detail on how to work with the "underlying codecs".
I have a feeling MKV is exactly what's needed right now.
And I have a feeling that you're wrong.
A lot of hi-def media devices are already supporting it, everything from China these days supports it.
Citation needed.
You can imagine that media companies hate it simply because it doesn't allow lock in to a format.
And in case you don't get it, this is not not like an OGG VOBIS debate; this is about using open standards for data.
1) Are you trying to suggest that OGG and *Vorbis* are not open standards? 2) MPEG (all revisions) and VP1 are also open standards.
You're making the equivalent argument that all documents should be in MS Office format because that's all you ever use.
MKV is here to stay simply because it's perfect for 2009.
When did he say that?
We can already stream DVD-quality movies encoded at 1 mbps or so, well within the current consumer "broadband" offerings.
No, we can't. Of course, if you've been fooled into thinking that scene crap is "DVD quality", then perhaps this holds true. Otherwise, you would realize that not even H.264 can deliver DVD quality video (720x480, no artifacts) in less than 1 Mbps.
Viewing their samples (not to mention that they are NOT sd resolution despite what they claim), their supposed "magical breakthrough" codec appears to have the quality of early DivX revisions.
I see:
1) blurring out of details
2) blocks
3) dct noise
Their claim that they can compress SD video to 750kbps and HD to 3Mbps at good quality is completely unfounded.
For bloating my web browser with support for a shitty video format that nobody uses. Thank you for perpetuating a format that doesn't even match up to MPEG-2 in quality. Thank you for retarding the progress of Good Technology like MPEG-4 H.264/AVC and MPEG-4 AAC. With idiots evangelizing crap formats like Vorbis and Theora, it's no wonder that nobody takes w3c seriously.
Everything that Xiph has created is shit.
OGG - hacked up container with high overhead, incompatibility with non-Xiph formats, and no new features over AVI or MKV.
Vorbis - hacked up audio codec that doesn't do anything MP3 does and is glaringly inferior to AAC. No multi-channel support? No Spectral Bandwidth Replication? No wonder nobody uses it.
Theora - the newest in Xiph's line of crap. Except, this one doesn't even pretend to be useful. 1995 called. They want their MPEG-2 back.
"NAT transversal" is a fancy term for "connect to a proxy server outside of the NAT". If everyone is on NAT, that would obviously not work.
Yes, let me know when "Thoera" has b-frames. You know, like those things in MPEG-1.
String Theory is not based on *physical* evidence, but it is supported by *mathematical* evidence, as are pretty much all modern scientific theories.
Look at the reviews for almost any of the other films he wrote (THX-1138, Willow, Captain EO, Star Wars I-III)...
What do you have against American Graffiti?
RAID-5/6. Or good old-fashioned backups.
Yes. And... why does it matter and why should we care?
Regardless of the circumstances, if something is not illegal, it is not illegal. If you don't like it, make a law. On the other hand, it appears that what you are trying to do is to gather an emotional response rather than a logical one. The law is not about revenge or vengeance (though each day I say that with less certainty) and should not be.
Hint: I'm not French. Go ahead, sue me.
You can combine them. Or make larger chips. The achievement in TFA is significant because of the storage density achieved.
This here is what we call a logical fallacy. You propose a comparison between two things that are not alike and ask us to determine which is better. In this case, no comparison exists because CoreAVC is a decoder and x264 is an encoder. Maybe you should read a little bit on what each are? Like what x264 and CoreAVC are?
Now, assuming that you meant to ask "what advantage does CoreAVC hold over other (free) decoders such as FFMPEG?", the answer is as follows:
CoreAVC is much faster in single-threaded operation than FFmpeg, especially in the deblocking routines. It supports interlaced H.264 which FFmpeg did not until recently support. It has much more efficient multi-threaded routines than FFmpeg. All of these matters because 1920x1080i/p H.264 videos such as HDTV broadcasts in some countries as well as Blu-Ray/HD-DVDs are being increasingly common. In order to play these videos using FFmpeg, one would need something like a 3GHz Core 2 Quad whereas a much lower-clocked Core 2 Duo is sufficient with CoreAVC.
Um, because most video cards rely on DMA in order to not render at 0.001 fps? And moroever, I can't count the number of times ATI drivers have kernel paniced by Linux box so it's not a "lol windows" issue. Nice try. You failed.
Whoa there, Cowboy. H.264/AVC is part of MPEG-4 and it is easily more efficient than VC-1. Careful with your Microsoft-flavor Kool-Aid.
OZYMANDIAS I met a traveller from an antique land Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand, Half sunk, a shatter'd visage lies, whose frown And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command Tell that its sculptor well those passions read Which yet survive, stamp'd on these lifeless things, The hand that mock'd them and the heart that fed. And on the pedestal these words appear: "My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!" Nothing beside remains: round the decay Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare, The lone and level sands stretch far away. Kind of fitting actually.
Seeing as you're a 26 year old Japanophile that has yet to successfully graduate from college, you really don't get to complain.
Before announcing/implementing these wonderful new useless features (XComposite/AIGLX), I'd like to see existing functionality fixed.
fglrx currently can handle dual-head setups in one of two ways. The first: you run two X servers, which wastes memory and makes you unable to move windows between them. To make it worse, Xv doesn't work on the second head. The second: use a combined framebuffer/xinerama setup which works if your monitors are exactly the same resolution but otherwise forces one to change res.
It is impossible to use both OpenGL and Xv at the same time with fglrx. That's just plain stupid.
VSync doesn't stop OpenGL video playback from tearing, it just makes the video tear diagonally/in the corner.
fglrx is just plain unstable. I've had it regularly lock up my machine with no apparent reason.
fglrx isn't even fast. Running 3dMarkSE2001 in WINE (not a great benchmark by any means), I get a good 60ish% performance loss compared to Windows. That's just plain stupid.
Then we'd get porn with clothes! If you use enough imaginition... On second thought, let's not go there.
What you describe can and has been done. Dolby AC-3 and DTC audio (DVD audio) have metadata attached to the actual audio containing information that tells the player how to dynamically compress it. There are a couple reasons this isn't being done on CDs however. Like you said, it is *relatively* computationally expensive and not Red Book (CD-Audio) compliant so any CDs mastered this way will not work on normal CD players.
Evolution does not even attempt to explain the origin of life. Next time try to research what you're attacking.
The *API* has nothing to do with the files. The API defines how applications interact with libflac. When software evolves, their interfaces change.
How about - putting a watermark into an audio/video stream permanently changes it from the original, in effect degrading it. It doesn't matter whether or not it's audible or not, I'm no longer buying the original song.
Stupid HTML formatting.
Your post is so wrong, I don't even know where to start.
First off, if MPEG-1 Audio Layer 3 (mp3) was state-of-the-art 16 years ago, that means it's 16 years old already. Back then, MPEG-1 Video was also "state-of-the-art" but you don't see anyone using that these days.
Second, "mp3 is a non-proprietary codec". Well, guess what, so are Vorbis (which also happens to be FREE), and MPEG-2/4 AAC (which, unlike mp3, does not have a license fee to be able to play). Seeing as these give better quality than mp3, there's no reason that people wouldn't have switched other than the fact that *Joe Sixpack can't tell the difference between 32 kbit/s mp3 and the original*.
Third, the FLAC *programming API* changed, FLAC 1.0 files can still be decoded using FLAC 1.2.
Your post is so wrong, I don't even know where to start. First off, if MPEG-1 Audio Layer 3 (mp3) was state-of-the-art 16 years ago, that means it's 16 years old already. Back then, MPEG-1 Video was also "state-of-the-art" but you don't see anyone using that these days. Second, "mp3 is a non-proprietary codec". Well, guess what, so are Vorbis (which also happens to be FREE), and MPEG-2/4 AAC (which happens to have LESS patent regulation and is supported by nearly every player). Seeing as these give better quality than mp3, there's no reason that people wouldn't have switched other than the fact that *Joe Sixpack can't tell the difference between 32 kbit/s mp3 and the original*. Third, the FLAC *programming API* changed, FLAC 1.0 files can still be decoded using FLAC 1.2.