BBC Wants Help With Dirac Codec 296
Number Ten Ox writes "According to The Register the BBC wants help to develop their open source video codec Dirac. '[Lead developer Dr. Thomas] Davies said the codec could live on anything from mobile phones to high-definition TVs but not before a lot of further work is completed. For one thing, Dirac doesn't currently work in real-time. Davies also reckons that the compression offered by the technology could be further optimised. The BBC is working on integrating the technology with its other systems, but the corporation would welcome more help in developing Dirac.' Sounds like something worth helping with."
I say help (Score:5, Informative)
Cheaper patent licenses (Score:2, Informative)
Unlike licenses for MPEG standards, some licenses for the Dirac codec will be available royalty-free.
Re:H-264? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:dirac vs. theora? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:BBC + Codec = Not Free (Score:1, Informative)
But the BBC isn't a business. It's a state service. THEY DONT'T MAKE MONEY.
"if and when the BBC has a working codec will they be held responsible for copywrited material translated into it?"
No.
Re:dirac vs. theora? (Score:3, Informative)
Links to sourceforge and BBC's homepage (Score:4, Informative)
BBC's Dirac homepage [bbc.co.uk]
Re:Someone explain (Score:5, Informative)
They already have... (Score:4, Informative)
Why Open Source Codes are essential (Score:5, Informative)
In it Steve explains why the Digital Home has to come from Microsoft and specifically Microsoft's committment to DRM everywhere. A facinating, if biased piece.
Re:H-264? (Score:1, Informative)
Re:BBC + Codec = Not Free (Score:5, Informative)
Nope. The BBC need the codec in order to save themselves a bucketload of cash in the future when they make their digital program archive available over the internet (something they have to do according to their Charter). They're not intending to make pots of money from the codec, they just want it to exist so they can use it themselves.
Re:redundant (Score:5, Informative)
So yes, we do need this codec and others like it. Theora is nice but it dosen't hold up against any of the new generation of commercial codecs that are coming out now.
Re:dirac vs. theora? (Score:2, Informative)
N.B I used to work for a broadcast equipment manufacturer, Snell & Wilcox, alongside many ex BBC engineers, and they employ some very good people.
You're missing a lot (Score:5, Informative)
Dirac is a wavelet codec. The technology is far more advanced than Theora's. In fact, until On2 came along, Ogg were working on a video wavelet codec called Ogg Tarkin. They want with open sourcing VP3 because it would be quicker and easier, nothing more. As the BBC are demonstrating, putting together a competent wavelet-based video codec is non-trivial to say the least.
Put simply, Ogg Theora is already outdated. The source material (On2's VP3 codec) does not match any decent MPEG-4 codec. The BBC would be wasting their time by messing around with dated tech.
That said, Theora is usable and just about the only decent patent unencumbered video codec in existance. Until Dirac is finished, Theora will remain the sane choice for those who want to stay legal without paying through the teeth.
If and when Dirac is ready, it will blow everything else away. It will be worth the wait.
codec modules? (Score:3, Informative)
New codecs come along infrequently, and are usually too little, too late. There's a lot of duplicated effort across these projects. It seems a better strategy for everyone to share a skeleton that gets populated with codec core "plugins". An easy install mechanism might even let new datatypes deliver the smaller cores for codec'ing on the fly.
Re:Cheaper patent licenses (Score:2, Informative)
Dirac is available under "some licenses," namely the Mozilla.org tri-license of MPL+GPL+LGPL. The applicable patent licenses are granted royalty-free to any copyright licensee of the code [bbc.co.uk].
Re:BBC rules! (Score:5, Informative)
I think the only reason that the use Real is that the streams are more proprietary and harder to rip (for the novice in anycase), and it probably makes some copyright holders happier to let the BBC re-webcast certain content.
See here [bbc.co.uk]:Re:Theora and Dirac mailing lists and forums... (Score:1, Informative)
Actually they have a FAQ entry "What about Ogg Theora?" [bbc.co.uk]
Re:dirac vs. theora? (Score:5, Informative)
Every 9 years (IIRC) the government reviews the BBC's progress and what funding method it should have.
Basically what I'm saying is the
This is in direct contradiction to social security in the US where the government controls it and could (probably) stop paying out tomorrow.
saw them yesterday (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Lets stop paying for all software (Score:3, Informative)
a) the BBC isn't just a "company" - it's the highest quality broadcaster in the world. They always have done research and been at the forefront of new technology throughout their history. This is a project that anybody can help contribute to - as it'll benefit the community as a whole when it's complete.
b) they have put effort into it already - they've put out quite a few releases already (SF page [sourceforge.net]) and have been working on it for a couple of years
c) although they want it to improve their online streaming services (currently done using Real technology), an open standard, no encumbrance from patents, with technology that other codecs at present don't use, is a very important project for not only the BBC, but for all of the computing community
Re:What about high quality profiles for a change? (Score:3, Informative)
ATSC gives each RF channel 19.392658 megabits/second... very few broadcasters use all of that, in fact the majority tend to stay under 10 even with multiple programs in their broadcast.
Sporting events, like high motion/action movies often need more bandwidth to look good than a soap opera or day time talk show, it's likely that someone either was lazy and didn't up the rate for the game or they just don't do that ever.
Take a look at DirecTV sometime, you'll notice that many of the movie and tv channels are pretty low bitrate, but for major sporting events (ie super bowl, boxing, etc) they up it very high to ensure a pristine signal and picture.
Re:This CODEC is a good thing! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:dirac vs. theora? (Score:5, Informative)
But not by you, evidently. Medicare and social security are paid for (and run by) the the US government. The BBC is paid for by a license fee which comes directly from TV owners.
If it was a government funded body then it might have thought twice about attacking the government over their made-up WMD/Iraq claims, so I reckon the distinction is quite significant. Does that make me a pedantic moron too?
Re:You're missing a lot (Score:5, Informative)
This isn't really true. Wavelet codecs are not necessarily better than non-wavelet codecs. This is especially true in the case of video, because, as of yet, no one has figured out a way to efficiently peform motion estimation in the context of a wavelet codec. While wavelets in the context of still images have done very well (see JPEG2000), most attempts in video have not been so successful (see Indeo 5 or...Tarkin).
I think it should say a lot that after briefly experimenting with wavelets in MPEG-4 "texture" compression, the smart people behind AVC (aka H.26L/H.264) decided to completely forget about wavelets in their next codec. In fact, AVC doesn't even use a classic DCT, it uses an "integer transform," which is generally considered of even worse quality than the DCT used in MPEG-1/2/4SP.
The most likely reason Xiph started video work on Tarkin with wavelets first is that wavlets are completely patent free. When On2 granted them rights to use their DCT-related patents from VP3, that no longer became an issue.
Put simply, Ogg Theora is already outdated. The source material (On2's VP3 codec) does not match any decent MPEG-4 codec.
This is a real oversimplification of matters. The Theora guys can tune their codec (a lot), and there is a lot of stuff a VP3/Theora encoder could do that an MPEG-4 encoder couldn't. There was a time when Vorbis was not even up to the level of MP3. A few years of tuning later, and now it's beating everyone.
If and when Dirac is ready, it will blow everything else away. It will be worth the wait.
I've heard this one before.
Video compression is around 15 years old now. For maybe the last 10, "wavelets" has been a hot keyword that gets people thinking "Ooo, that'll change everything!" The confusion got even worse with JPEG-2000, since now everyone seems to think that the gains in efficiency from JPEG to JPEG-2000 will be directly applicable to video (ignoring the facts that a lot of that comes from JP2's arithmetic coder and improved predictor, both of which are already being used in video codecs). Point is, I'd look at Dirac with a lot of skepticism. The fact that it is currently unable to decode video in a meaning manner at normal speed concerns me greatly. This suggests that it's already 10-100x times slower than current generation video codecs. Frankly, I think making something 100x faster (needed for Dirac) is probably going to be harder than making it perform 50% better (needed for Theora),
dirac (Score:2, Informative)
Re:dirac vs. theora? (Score:3, Informative)
The government then said "Will you retract that, as it isn't true". The BBC asked Gilligan, he stood by it. The BBC said we won't retract that.
Flash forward
People think Hutton was a whitewash, because almost no-one's read it, and every newspaper in the country felt the need to stand up for their journalistic brother and pretend that the kerfuffle had been caused by something other than one specific lie in Gilligan's story.
Re:dirac vs. theora? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:dirac vs. theora? (Score:3, Informative)
A system I don't like is the one on Canada where the CBC are completely at the mercy of the government. In the US, PBS is kept in its place by being poor and constantly having to go on begging sprees.
Sex hurts compression (Score:3, Informative)
The urge to benchmark with smut is strong, but should be resisted.
Re:BBC rules! (Score:3, Informative)
http://eff.org/IP/BBC_CMSC_testimony.php
The Creative Archive is a really exciting venture and one of the projects that gives me small hope that the British Government may yet get the hang of copyright and online content
Re:dirac vs. theora? (Score:2, Informative)
The domestic BBC has two sources of funding: the license fee and "commercial ventures". For example, they sell cheesy old series to PBS for american viewers. And, of course, they sell DVDs, etc.
Re:dirac vs. theora? (Score:5, Informative)
First the BBC *is* actually responsible for collecting the licence fee. They farm the operation out to another entity, but its a statutory responsibility written in to their charter.
Second the BBC's grant-in-aid funding is paid from the the pot of licence fees but its level is set when the the BBC's charter is renewed every decade or so (of course the govt of the day has a large influence over that process when it occurs). So yes, the grant often diverges from what is in the common fund but the license fee which fills that fund is explicitly tied to this payment stream. And yes, the GotD has a big stick it can wave at the BBC - but a decade is a long time in politics and whilst theoretically, vide the Crown in parliament, the GotD can abolish the BBC (ie fail to renew its charter) if it gets uppity, the cost in goodwill would be horrendous. Even in her most eye-swivellingly megalomaniac stages, Thatcher never seriously considered doing that.
Addressing the way upthread post that started this off, the BBC is explicitly charged as part of its charter with conducting R&D into things like broadcast and storage technologies so this is exactly what they should be doing with the money they've been given. If they weren't, they'd be failing to fulfill their mandate. There's a lot of stuff out there that has come from the BBC Technology Divisions. Our gift to the rest of the world.
Regards
Luke
Re:Suggestions for Team Dirac: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:You're missing a lot (Score:2, Informative)
With the jump from MPEG2 to MPEG4 type codecs we can see a compression gain of about 5-10 times the compression effiency. But basically MPEG4 came out of the "lesson" of MPEG2 and as such you should expect that it does some things better and some things worse. MPEG2 was the first major leap and MPEG4 was able to jump off even further because MPEG2 was so immature. MPEG4 is both highly developed and optimized and non likely to get much better. H.264 is supposed to be the next big thing, but it turns out that it is only incrementally better in terms of quality (and not in all cases!), but is far more complex and less attractive to chip manufacturers.
Essentially we are reaching the hairy edge of compression and more advanced codecs will be orders of magnitude more complex and the incremental gains will be very small. It is unlikely that we will see any more revolutionary video codecs that are "the greatest thing since sliced bread."
It is starting to reach a point where the surrounding features are the selling points. For example the DivX certified program ensures that your certified DVD player can play your DivX movies. You can't do that with real, wmv, or even Xvid. Our marketing department loves to say this, but DivX is the MP3 of video. Most codecs simply focus on compression, but it really is more than that! Video is the entire experience starting with the encode and ending at all the places you can watch the movie.
The bottom line is "Content is King." Even if you are 5% behind the best video codec, studios are going to look to the codec with the widest consumer base. PSNR be dammned, how many people can watch the movie is a far more powerful business case.
I am glad that the BBC is out there looking at this stuff as it is a breath of fresh air to have a studio actually understand how video compression works! However, I don't know that they will be able to "add value" in a way that will encourage people to use their codec.
Keep on encoding, people!
(NB- I have a slightly biased opinion as I am a codec developer at DivX...
Re:You're missing a lot (Score:2, Informative)
I'm sure that with a little research, much could be done with BBC's codec.
Re:Wavelets patent-free? I think not! (Score:4, Informative)
True, my statement "wavlets are completely patent free" is errant. (And not just because I spelled wavelets incorrectly. Ouch.)
Wavelets are, however less patent encumbered in the context in which they are used in Tarkin and Dirac, which is...why they're being used in Tarkin and Dirac.