David Gerard writes "Google Chrome includes Ogg support for the <video> element. It also includes support for the hideously encumbered H.264 format. Nice as an extra, but ... they're also testing HTML5 YouTube only for H.264 — meaning the largest video provider on the Net will make H.264 the primary codec and relegate the equally good open format Ogg/Theora firmly to the sidelines. Mike Shaver from Mozilla has fairly unambiguously asked Chris DiBona from Google what the heck Google thinks it's doing."
DiBona responded with concerns that switching to Theora while maintaining quality would take up an incredible amount of bandwidth for a site like YouTube, though he made clear his support for the continued improvement of the project. Greg Maxwell jumped into the debate by comparing the quality of Ogg/Theora+Vorbis with the current YouTube implementations using H.263+MP3 and H.264+AAC. At the lower bitrate, Theora seems to have the clear edge, while the higher bitrate may slightly favor H.264. He concludes that YouTube's adoption of "an open unencumbered format in addition to or instead of their current offerings would not cause problems on the basis of quality or bitrate."
Let me reiterate- and this is important- as folks have run way too far cherrypicking quotes from this update: Both before and after the correction, this graph shows only that Theora is improving. PSNR means very little when comparing Theora directly to x264. PSNR is an objective measure that does not represent perceived quality (though they correlate), and PSNR measurements have always been especially kind to Theora. None of these PSNR measurements, including clips where Thusnelda 'wins', mean that Thusnelda beats x264 in perceived quality, as it certainly does not (yet;-), only that the gap is closing even before the task of detailed subjective tuning has begun in earnest.
So just to recap, you have suggested that Ogg Theora video provides quality comparable to H.264 based on a study using a specific development-version Ogg Theora video codec and a specific H.264 encoder (x264) which is NOT the best encoder around, when it in fact has inferior SnR (the only thing the study was meant to test) as compared to x264, which has inferior SnR as compared to other H.264 encoders? I don't know who failed bigger, you, Soulskill, or the peoples of slashdot who actually use the firehose... but you have all failed miserably.
With all that said; is there any reason they can't add Theora support later?
IE will probably render any video tag through Silverlight, forcing you to install it. That's how you make market share for your products in Microsoft land. On the good side, Silverlight 3 has support for both WMV and h264 and can decode them in hardware using the video card.
I don't see a problem with this approach. One of the silly things about HTML5 is that it looks like browser vendors are all going to run off and implement their own media stacks. Which just increases bloat and potential security issues. Why not just use WM, QT, or whatever comes with the OS?
Not to mention that if I'm RTFAing correctly, Firefox's <video> tag is already incompatible with Chrome's.
I am in partial agreement: The browser venders should be implementing HOOKS to the operating system's native multimedia libraries. In Windows, Internet Explorer, Firefox, Safari, Chrome and Opera should all be hooking into DirectShow, QuickTime if installed, ffmpeg if installed, VLC's libraries, if VLC is installed.
In Linux distributions, Firefox, etc should all hook into FFmpeg, Gstreamer, etc.
On MacOS X, Safari (etc) should hook into QuickTime.
They should be acting more like any other media player: Implement the native multimedia API, rather than 'create' your own. This way all browser should be able to support as many codecs as the operating system can support.
the spec is designed to be open and to use whatever the vendor wants to include. That's good. Along the way the HTML5 folks are trying to throw Free Software a bone by using Ogg and Theora as the "preferred" spec partly as a matter of philosophy and partly as a matter of pragmatism .
The big problem is Apple and Noika. Both of which build hardware and both have significant browser interests now... webkit and Qt (covering Safari, Nokia phones, and Chrome].Both also have no problem being buddy with the media companies and other patent holders. Unlike Firefox and Opera, Apple and Nokia are part of the patent club and see no need to "rock the boat" for "moral principal" reasons. Hence people keep berating Ogg & Theora simply so that they look "right" by not playing along simply because they don't want to and it conflicts with their other interests.
Your argument subtly implies that Firefox's implementation is more secure, without providing any proof of your own assertion. Bluntly, Firefox's security record has been far from top-notch for quite some time now, and while their patch response times tend to be excellent, this doesn't change the fact that security vulnerabilities of varying severity are still frequently occuring; and we're all familiar with Microsoft's security record. I can't conclude which implementation is likely more secure.
Which is irrelevant anyway, as you've missed the point of the GP's post in the first place (did you listen?). His argument was that if the OS supports decoding the video format, which it will if it's a modern consumer OS, why should every browser then implement its own media stack to provide a service that the OS already provides? You just end up with a proliferation of software that all does exactly the same thing. Thus, you end up with more security issues (as each implementation will almost certainly have security flaws throughout its lifetime) and more bloat (code duplication, and increase in code size for each respective browser implementing its own media stack).
You can be surgical here and note that this doesn't necessarily translate to greater exploitation, just more security issues. Lots of different media stacks means different exploits, meaning different exploit code, and incompatibility is high. So, any given exploit might only be able to target a small subdomain of the overall browser market, but this is really just a security through obscurity argument, and good security practices (e.g. sandboxing) should mitigate such concerns, and all browsers should have either implemented such technologies or have it on their roadmap.
I understand the value in having a variety of different options, but implementing a solution for no express reason than to offer an alternative, is inherently pointless. It has to have an advantage (and no, being open-source isn't an advantage for most), so if the OS implementation is up to snuff, then the GP does have a valid point.
Good point. My Radeon 4650 supports hardware decoding of Divx, WMV, and h264. Does Theora even have a hardware accelerated codec? With the rise of netbooks, green computing, and the Ion Netbook solution it is pretty obvious that hardware assisted video decoding is where the market is headed. So even if Theora gets "good enough" (which reading TFA may be awhile yet) if Theora doesn't come up with a good hardware assisted decoder and quick I'm guessing it will be a non starter.
I personally don't give a flying crap if they do it by bashing pixies over the head to squeeze pixie dust into the hardware, all i care about (and I'm guessing 99.995% of the public agrees) is that my CPU isn't being pounded when I'm running 1080p. And since I happen to have the box in front of me I'll be happy to quote from it. Quote-
Multi Code Hardware Acceleration. Enables inloop deblocking, Motion Compensation acceleration for the latest codecs including H.264, WMV9, DivX. programmable video engine with enhanced post processing capabilities.
Now again me and the bazillion other folks buying these things don't give a crap HOW they are doing it, all we care about is we can watch 1080p while doing half a dozen other things because our CPUs aren't being pounded into next week. And my earlier point still stands. with the rise of Netbooks, Nettops, and Ion based platforms more and more of the video decoding is being done on the GPU instead of the CPU. Even on a dual core desktop like mine offloading to the GPU gives the video a nice fast cache of GPU RAM and a processor more designed for video decoding than a general purpose CPU, which lets my CPU do other tasks, as well as cut down on heat as today's GPUs are a lot more heat efficient than CPUs.
If Theora wants to be taken seriously they need a GPU based hardware decoder than works on the big three, Intel, ATI, Nvidia, and they need it yesterday, and they need to start offering it to the GPU manufacturers so they can bundle support like they do for WMV9, Divx, and H.264. Because out of the box with the default drivers my Radeon decodes all of the above as well as Mpeg2. The Nvidia does the same. Folks don't want to go play "hunt the decoder" they just want it to work. So while I applaud the Theora guys for trying to come with a free high def codec I'd say they still got a ways to go for mainstream use. Hardware decoders for the big three should be right at the top of the list IMHO.
YouTube may have some effect on the de-facto internet codecs, but Theora has been losing this battle for awhile now so this isn't an out-of-the-blue decision. Many desktop and embedded video chips can decode h.264 in hardware, it's the primary Blu-Ray codec, it's used in several video chat applications, and many cable and satellite providers are going from MPEG2 to h.264. In addition, YouTube has been using h.264/AAC for over a year for "high quality" videos and videos delivered to iPhones, so they already have an h.264 infrastructure.
And for consumers, it actually seems to work really well. The "encumbered" nature of the codec may affect some tiny number of people, but for most it appears to be a huge win.
Where by "some tiny number of people" you mean "everyone broadcasting H.264 on the Internet, next year when the moratorium on H.264 Internet broadcast fees runs out".
the point is that the codex part of Theora is pretty settled down. Sure it's slow, but it's FREE... really Free just like png or HTML. The HTML5 group isn't mandating that people HAVE to use Theora for commercial sites. What they're really after is that ALL web browsers will support Ogg & Theora as part of the basic specification. Then everybody will be able to have multimedia functions without paying anybody royalties. It's the companies with interest in their own pony that are causing the problems because they like having everybody have to pay "somebody" for multimedia.
How about CPU utilization? Are there any ultra-low-power decoding chips that play Theora?
H.264 already has a large install base of devices that play it. Is there enough of an advantage to Theora to warrant dumping all of those for new ones?
The problem is encoding, not decoding, as the decoding is done in third party hardware (final user). Also in the transcoding process, i.e., decode from whatever to h264/Theora, decoding is much faster than encoding (because of pattern matching and movement analysis). Anyway, bandwidth is the main problem, as uploaded video is reencoded *once*, and played *many* times.
No, the problem is decoding too. Software decode is fine on the desktop, but a non-starter for phones. Good phone video requires and uses ASIC or GPU acceleration. Theora, as a much older and simpler codec will probably decode faster in software than a maxed-out H.264 bitstream, but even if it could get to full-screen on a handset, it'd require a lot more bandwidth, and would run the battery down very quickly.
"Bandwidth is the problem" is also very much Theora's problem. The rather...odd example linked to aside, for any interesting bitrate or quality, Theora will need at least 2x as many bits to hit the same quality level as H.264 High Profile.
The example page is a little confusing. While they compare Theora to H.264 (and admit it wins), their "money" compare is to H.263, which is a VP3 era codec in its own right. If they compared a good H.264 encode to Theora at the 327 Kbps bitrate, H.264 would turn Theora into a thin red paste.
Where's your evidence? Why is Greg's example odd? Have you done a comparable experiment with a different video clip to justify your 2x claim, or more importantly, show that at the same bitrate Theora looks much worse on your clip?
And yes, I've done plenty of my own tests as well on Big Buck Bunny and many other clips.
Why would it, since it didn't at 499Kbps? Or are you claiming that Youtube uses a bad H.264 encoder? Or do you think that example is rigged?
YouTube doesn't use High Profile (no 8x8 blocks or adaptive quantization matricies) or CABAC entropy coding. So they're going to be at least 20% less efficient than the best encodes could be.
Also, they trimmed the clip before the really interesting high motion parts. Most of the shots in the section they did use were static camera, and as animation is noise-free. Toss a nice grainy movie trailer in there and Theora shows basis pattern left and right.
I wish he'd reported the Theora settings used in the encode.
I remember when ogg first came out. I read slashdot regularly, saw all the information about how great it was, how since it was free it would be easily adopted by hardware makers who didn't need to pay for the privilege. I bought into the hype. I ripped my cd's to ogg files, paid extra money for a neuros player because it was one of the few players that handled ogg files.
Now, 5 years later I have a large collection of ogg files that are essentially useless. No one in the mainstream uses ogg, despite the superiority and price. Whenever I get a new player, I have to carefully read the specs to see if it will play my oggs. Few do. Luckily I have the cds and I can simply re-rip them to mp3s as I find the time/care too.
My guess is that the same thing will happen with theora. It may be superior. It may be cheaper. But I just don't think it will catch on. It's another example of the slashdot echo chamber.
Everyone has made a mythology about VHS somehow losing to Sony Beta despite being inferior. If you lived in that day, and walked into a store, there was really no significant difference between picture quality between VHS and Beta on the average TV of the day. There just wasn't. And, everyone forgets that the superiority of Beta was achieved by making the tapes only an hour long. VHS vs Beta was a silly argument. Beta claimed superior picture quality on TV's nobody had, but, VHS could store entire movies. To most people, Beta's claims sounded a lot like BS, while VHS was clearly better.
I wasn't blaming so much as pointing out that like many blogs, slashdot can be an echo chamber. The same opinions are repeated over and over and treated as if they are held by the majority of people. I was younger then and still thought slashdot had a finger on the pulse of technology. It doesn't. It's really great as a news aggregator and the comments are often a hoot, but it isn't what I thought it was.
Ogg Vorbis was better in quality than MP3 - back then (and even today) the most popular compression for music. However, AAC and WMA are also better than MP3 - and people actually sold music in AAC and WMA formats as well as MP3.
Theroa is not better than h264 (the new popular standard for video on the Internet, many Blu-ray discs, HD satellite, and HD broadcast in some parts of the world), so it's not a repeat of Vorbis at all. Theora just scores higher on a scoring algorithm when compared ot a single h264 encoder, the open-source x264.
> Theora just scores higher on a scoring algorithm when compared ot a single h264 encoder, the open-source x264.
It doesn't even do that; it only scored higher when using Xiph's PSNR tool, because it respected a buggy colorspace header written by ffmpeg that didn't match the video. x264 won rather heavily when that was fixed, but/. never retracted the story.
Ogg players are still quite common. I got an MP3 player a while ago, and was surprised to find it played ogg. I got it because it advertised FLAC support.
I would take ogg over mp3, and aac over both of those.
Not to defend ogg vorbis too much, but it has actually achieved success in a few realms - it's the audio format of choice on Wikipedia, which is one of the web's most popular sites, and it's used in tons of video games (precisely because it doesn't need to be licensed, I think). The things that made it successful in those areas (matching ideology and price/compression performance, respectively) don't really mean much to the average MP3 player user, though.
Ogg Vorbis is also used in video games because it has some other advantages: it supports 6-channel audio, and has support for bit-accurate decoding, allowing seamless looping of audio, and it sounds better at lower bitrates. I know MP3s can be kludged to do some of these, but it's easier just to use Vorbis in these cases.
Our upcoming game will actually be shipping with both MP3 and Ogg Vorbis audio. The MP3 decoder we're using is significantly more efficient than the reference Vorbis libraries, and allows us to play more simultaneously decoded channels. However, if a piece of audio needs to loop, to use multi-channel, or if we're encoding a LOT of it (music, voice-overs, etc), we use Ogg Vorbis.
Honestly, the cost of the license isn't really an issue at all. It's all about what does the job best for us, and MP3 and Vorbis each have strengths and weaknesses.
While not being a fan (or a user) of Spotify for their DRM stuff (I'm sure it's all mandated by the media lobby, but regardless) and the opaque pricing which the boss of a large (by Finnish standards) local media company Poptori suspected doesn't really get distributed all that well to artists.
However, fact is that it's gotten pretty popular in pretty short time at least in some circles, and guess what: Vorbis. Presumably for royalty and quality per bandwidth reasons (over MP3, in any case).
how since it was free it would be easily adopted by hardware makers who didn't need to pay for the privilege.
Problem is that nobody knows if this is true or not. Major manufacturers such as Apple would rather pay the MPEG tax than deal with a potential lawsuit. I don't know if this figures into Google's thinking, but they're obviously a big target.
There are an awful lot of players which support ogg. Almost anything from Cowon, iRiver or Sansa does. And almost all the Chinese brand/no-name/shop brand players support ogg even though they fail to explicitly state this (preferring to emblazon their players and packaging with mp3 and wma logos). I used to import and sell mp3 and mp4 players and generally it's only the very cheapest mp4 video players which don't support ogg, that's the ones which claim asf container support is something to brag about.....usually these use an old rockchip video processor.
I have 5 personal players. 2 are old iRivers, H140 and H340, 2 are tiny no name Chinese mp3 players and one is a Chinese mp4 video player. Only the iRivers claim to support ogg audio but the cheap mp3 players handle it fine as well. I lived in SE Asia and every cheap mp3 player I ever checked played ogg audio too. Not a single one made mention of it in the instructions, the specs, on the box or on the player.
Bingo. Theora may be equally as good, but it's trying to supplant an already-established format. 'Equally as good' isn't good enough for that: You have to be noticeably better. And Theora isn't. It offers no major advantages, and would just give YouTube headaches, as it either tried to re-encode into a choice of formats, or had to explain to people how to play the videos.
The first of those costs money, the second costs viewers. I'd bet very few people would choose the Theora choice, making the money just wasted money. And YouTube lives on it's viewers: making their site any more complicated than 'click play' is just not acceptable.
It's not worth it. Theora doesn't have enough of a benefit.
html was never really designed to do much more than have a single "document" that can link to other "documents" on the internet. over time dynamic ideas were tacked on such as javascript but it still has never been designed in such a way that 'app-y' ideas can be created without hacking up the 'document' model.
Thus html 5 attempts to correct this by modifying the original 'document' model so that it now supports 'documents' and 'app-y' ideas. its not evil, its progress.
An open-source browser cannot legally read h264 video, that is the real issue that people seem to have trouble to understand. That is why the HTML standard only mandates a format that is not impaired by any legal restrictions: Theora.
Not being able to legally play DVDs, Blurays, connect your ipod, etc. on linux are already big problems, we don't need another one.
please link to some proof of this, as i understood it h.264 is free to decode with. i suspect you are confusing patented with non free, in the usual RMS style reasoning.
An open-source browser cannot legally read h264 video, that is the real issue that people seem to have trouble to understand.
I keep hearing that, but I don't know why that would be so. MPEG-LA requires a fee for distribution of products. But Mozilla could pay the decoder cap fee (maxes out a $5M/year next year) and allow as many people to download a H.264-enabled Firefox as they want, no?
That is why the HTML standard only mandates a format that is not impaired by any legal restrictions: Theora.
HTML5 does not mandate any codec or format. Ogg with Vorbis and Theora were proposed, but not included in the current draft, due to concerns by (IIRC) Nokia and Apple.
Stop misquoting the motto! It's "don't be evil", not "do no evil". Google is just saying that they don't intend to screw over their own customers, not that they intend to become the moral custodian of justice for the entire world.
Pirates have the advantage that they don't have to pay for patent licenses, so H.264 and Theora are both "free". But for law-abiding companies like Mozilla and Google, Theora is free and H.264 isn't.
in the Rate-Distorion graph, note they start the plot at 50 Kbps, so look at the actual numbers.
For example, at 40 dB, x264 needs 70 Kbps and Theora needs 120 Kbps.
The gap would be bigger with higher motion, more detail, longer content, and particular when there are buffer constraints. Also, x264 is (properly) tuned for perceptual quality more than strict PSNR accuracy.
Theora suffers from not being a very mature implementation (which Xiph is making great progress on addressing) and being a 90's era codec design (about which Xiph can't do anything without breaking compatibility). And other codecs are getting better as well; if Theroa is refined enough to be reasonably optimal in a year, it'll be competing against the improved H.264 and VC-1 codecs of a year from now, and H.265 not that far away.
There are all kinds of interesting things about Theora, but competitive low bitrate compression efficiency isn't going to be one of them.
A keyframe interval of 250 frames was used for the Theora encoding.
10 seconds is absurdly short for any kind of codec test. That's almost as long as the buffer would be, and current Thusndela builds don't include full buffer management. Plus he picked a pretty low motion section of the clip. He should the full clip. Current Theora builds are plenty fast; it'd be faster than realtime on a laptop.
In a real codec compare, CBR is often the best way to see differences between codecs and implementations, since that's where rate distortion really s
Theora FAIL (Score:5, Interesting)
Understanding TFA linked from [mit.edu] your "equally good" link [slashdot.org] to a slashdot story? YOU FAIL IT!!! From TFA:
So just to recap, you have suggested that Ogg Theora video provides quality comparable to H.264 based on a study using a specific development-version Ogg Theora video codec and a specific H.264 encoder (x264) which is NOT the best encoder around, when it in fact has inferior SnR (the only thing the study was meant to test) as compared to x264, which has inferior SnR as compared to other H.264 encoders?
I don't know who failed bigger, you, Soulskill, or the peoples of slashdot who actually use the firehose... but you have all failed miserably.
With all that said; is there any reason they can't add Theora support later?
Re:Theora FAIL (Score:5, Interesting)
With all that said; is there any reason they can't add Theora support later?
The codec Youtube uses will severely affect everything else on the net, if they come out first. You can't deny that.
How long will it take for IE to have support for another codec? They will have Youtube support in no time, I guarantee you that.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Windows 7 is apparently coming with a H.264 codec as part of windows media. Question is how long it will take them to implement HTML5 video.
Re:Theora FAIL (Score:5, Funny)
Question is how long it will take them to implement HTML5 video.
They'll get to it, just after they've managed to properly implement HTML.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
They'll get to it, just after they've managed to properly implement HTML.
So I can view videos and play Duke Nukem Forever together?
Re:Theora FAIL (Score:5, Interesting)
IE will probably render any video tag through Silverlight, forcing you to install it. That's how you make market share for your products in Microsoft land.
On the good side, Silverlight 3 has support for both WMV and h264 and can decode them in hardware using the video card.
Parent
Re:Theora FAIL (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't see a problem with this approach. One of the silly things about HTML5 is that it looks like browser vendors are all going to run off and implement their own media stacks. Which just increases bloat and potential security issues. Why not just use WM, QT, or whatever comes with the OS?
Not to mention that if I'm RTFAing correctly, Firefox's <video> tag is already incompatible with Chrome's.
Parent
Re:Theora FAIL (Score:5, Insightful)
In Linux distributions, Firefox, etc should all hook into FFmpeg, Gstreamer, etc.
On MacOS X, Safari (etc) should hook into QuickTime.
They should be acting more like any other media player: Implement the native multimedia API, rather than 'create' your own. This way all browser should be able to support as many codecs as the operating system can support.
Parent
Re:Theora FAIL (Score:5, Insightful)
the spec is designed to be open and to use whatever the vendor wants to include. That's good. Along the way the HTML5 folks are trying to throw Free Software a bone by using Ogg and Theora as the "preferred" spec partly as a matter of philosophy and partly as a matter of pragmatism .
The big problem is Apple and Noika. Both of which build hardware and both have significant browser interests now... webkit and Qt (covering Safari, Nokia phones, and Chrome].Both also have no problem being buddy with the media companies and other patent holders. Unlike Firefox and Opera, Apple and Nokia are part of the patent club and see no need to "rock the boat" for "moral principal" reasons. Hence people keep berating Ogg & Theora simply so that they look "right" by not playing along simply because they don't want to and it conflicts with their other interests.
Parent
Re:Theora FAIL (Score:4, Insightful)
Your argument subtly implies that Firefox's implementation is more secure, without providing any proof of your own assertion. Bluntly, Firefox's security record has been far from top-notch for quite some time now, and while their patch response times tend to be excellent, this doesn't change the fact that security vulnerabilities of varying severity are still frequently occuring; and we're all familiar with Microsoft's security record. I can't conclude which implementation is likely more secure.
Which is irrelevant anyway, as you've missed the point of the GP's post in the first place (did you listen?). His argument was that if the OS supports decoding the video format, which it will if it's a modern consumer OS, why should every browser then implement its own media stack to provide a service that the OS already provides? You just end up with a proliferation of software that all does exactly the same thing. Thus, you end up with more security issues (as each implementation will almost certainly have security flaws throughout its lifetime) and more bloat (code duplication, and increase in code size for each respective browser implementing its own media stack).
You can be surgical here and note that this doesn't necessarily translate to greater exploitation, just more security issues. Lots of different media stacks means different exploits, meaning different exploit code, and incompatibility is high. So, any given exploit might only be able to target a small subdomain of the overall browser market, but this is really just a security through obscurity argument, and good security practices (e.g. sandboxing) should mitigate such concerns, and all browsers should have either implemented such technologies or have it on their roadmap.
I understand the value in having a variety of different options, but implementing a solution for no express reason than to offer an alternative, is inherently pointless. It has to have an advantage (and no, being open-source isn't an advantage for most), so if the OS implementation is up to snuff, then the GP does have a valid point.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We've been through this a couple of times now. Prove Microsoft's implementation is as secure as the one in Firefox, and I'll listen to you.
To look on the bright side, IE6 will finally die.
Yes, we have been through this before, and the conclusion was that shared libraries beat a multitude of statically compiled versions.
I'm certainly not implying that any implementation is any more insecure - they have all had their problems.
Re:Theora FAIL (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Theora FAIL (Score:5, Interesting)
I personally don't give a flying crap if they do it by bashing pixies over the head to squeeze pixie dust into the hardware, all i care about (and I'm guessing 99.995% of the public agrees) is that my CPU isn't being pounded when I'm running 1080p. And since I happen to have the box in front of me I'll be happy to quote from it. Quote-
Multi Code Hardware Acceleration. Enables inloop deblocking, Motion Compensation acceleration for the latest codecs including H.264, WMV9, DivX. programmable video engine with enhanced post processing capabilities.
Now again me and the bazillion other folks buying these things don't give a crap HOW they are doing it, all we care about is we can watch 1080p while doing half a dozen other things because our CPUs aren't being pounded into next week. And my earlier point still stands. with the rise of Netbooks, Nettops, and Ion based platforms more and more of the video decoding is being done on the GPU instead of the CPU. Even on a dual core desktop like mine offloading to the GPU gives the video a nice fast cache of GPU RAM and a processor more designed for video decoding than a general purpose CPU, which lets my CPU do other tasks, as well as cut down on heat as today's GPUs are a lot more heat efficient than CPUs.
If Theora wants to be taken seriously they need a GPU based hardware decoder than works on the big three, Intel, ATI, Nvidia, and they need it yesterday, and they need to start offering it to the GPU manufacturers so they can bundle support like they do for WMV9, Divx, and H.264. Because out of the box with the default drivers my Radeon decodes all of the above as well as Mpeg2. The Nvidia does the same. Folks don't want to go play "hunt the decoder" they just want it to work. So while I applaud the Theora guys for trying to come with a free high def codec I'd say they still got a ways to go for mainstream use. Hardware decoders for the big three should be right at the top of the list IMHO.
Parent
Re:MS won't require Silverlight. Too easy. (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why would they do that when they could just make it an "urgent system security update" in the first place?
Re:Theora FAIL (Score:5, Interesting)
YouTube may have some effect on the de-facto internet codecs, but Theora has been losing this battle for awhile now so this isn't an out-of-the-blue decision. Many desktop and embedded video chips can decode h.264 in hardware, it's the primary Blu-Ray codec, it's used in several video chat applications, and many cable and satellite providers are going from MPEG2 to h.264. In addition, YouTube has been using h.264/AAC for over a year for "high quality" videos and videos delivered to iPhones, so they already have an h.264 infrastructure.
And for consumers, it actually seems to work really well. The "encumbered" nature of the codec may affect some tiny number of people, but for most it appears to be a huge win.
Parent
Re:Theora FAIL (Score:5, Insightful)
Where by "some tiny number of people" you mean "everyone broadcasting H.264 on the Internet, next year when the moratorium on H.264 Internet broadcast fees runs out".
Parent
Re:Theora FAIL (Score:5, Insightful)
the point is that the codex part of Theora is pretty settled down. Sure it's slow, but it's FREE... really Free just like png or HTML. The HTML5 group isn't mandating that people HAVE to use Theora for commercial sites. What they're really after is that ALL web browsers will support Ogg & Theora as part of the basic specification. Then everybody will be able to have multimedia functions without paying anybody royalties. It's the companies with interest in their own pony that are causing the problems because they like having everybody have to pay "somebody" for multimedia.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I liked this troll better when it talked about tron fanzines and linux web sights.
Decoding Chips (Score:4, Interesting)
Superior in objective PSNR Quality. OK.
How about CPU utilization? Are there any ultra-low-power decoding chips that play Theora?
H.264 already has a large install base of devices that play it. Is there enough of an advantage to Theora to warrant dumping all of those for new ones?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The problem is encoding, not decoding, as the decoding is done in third party hardware (final user). Also in the transcoding process, i.e., decode from whatever to h264/Theora, decoding is much faster than encoding (because of pattern matching and movement analysis). Anyway, bandwidth is the main problem, as uploaded video is reencoded *once*, and played *many* times.
Re:Decoding Chips (Score:4, Informative)
No, the problem is decoding too. Software decode is fine on the desktop, but a non-starter for phones. Good phone video requires and uses ASIC or GPU acceleration. Theora, as a much older and simpler codec will probably decode faster in software than a maxed-out H.264 bitstream, but even if it could get to full-screen on a handset, it'd require a lot more bandwidth, and would run the battery down very quickly.
"Bandwidth is the problem" is also very much Theora's problem. The rather...odd example linked to aside, for any interesting bitrate or quality, Theora will need at least 2x as many bits to hit the same quality level as H.264 High Profile.
The example page is a little confusing. While they compare Theora to H.264 (and admit it wins), their "money" compare is to H.263, which is a VP3 era codec in its own right. If they compared a good H.264 encode to Theora at the 327 Kbps bitrate, H.264 would turn Theora into a thin red paste.
Parent
Re:Decoding Chips (Score:4, Informative)
Where's your evidence? Why is Greg's example odd? Have you done a comparable experiment with a different video clip to justify your 2x claim, or more importantly, show that at the same bitrate Theora looks much worse on your clip?
Xiph's own metrics show a 2x advantage on even a very easy short clip:
http://web.mit.edu/xiphmont/Public/theora/demo7.html [mit.edu]
And yes, I've done plenty of my own tests as well on Big Buck Bunny and many other clips.
Why would it, since it didn't at 499Kbps? Or are you claiming that Youtube uses a bad H.264 encoder? Or do you think that example is rigged?
YouTube doesn't use High Profile (no 8x8 blocks or adaptive quantization matricies) or CABAC entropy coding. So they're going to be at least 20% less efficient than the best encodes could be.
Also, they trimmed the clip before the really interesting high motion parts. Most of the shots in the section they did use were static camera, and as animation is noise-free. Toss a nice grainy movie trailer in there and Theora shows basis pattern left and right.
I wish he'd reported the Theora settings used in the encode.
Parent
repeat of ogg? (Score:3, Interesting)
I remember when ogg first came out. I read slashdot regularly, saw all the information about how great it was, how since it was free it would be easily adopted by hardware makers who didn't need to pay for the privilege. I bought into the hype. I ripped my cd's to ogg files, paid extra money for a neuros player because it was one of the few players that handled ogg files.
Now, 5 years later I have a large collection of ogg files that are essentially useless. No one in the mainstream uses ogg, despite the superiority and price. Whenever I get a new player, I have to carefully read the specs to see if it will play my oggs. Few do. Luckily I have the cds and I can simply re-rip them to mp3s as I find the time/care too.
My guess is that the same thing will happen with theora. It may be superior. It may be cheaper. But I just don't think it will catch on. It's another example of the slashdot echo chamber.
Re:repeat of ogg? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
VHS was better (Score:4, Interesting)
Everyone has made a mythology about VHS somehow losing to Sony Beta despite being inferior. If you lived in that day, and walked into a store, there was really no significant difference between picture quality between VHS and Beta on the average TV of the day. There just wasn't. And, everyone forgets that the superiority of Beta was achieved by making the tapes only an hour long. VHS vs Beta was a silly argument. Beta claimed superior picture quality on TV's nobody had, but, VHS could store entire movies. To most people, Beta's claims sounded a lot like BS, while VHS was clearly better.
Parent
Re:repeat of ogg? (Score:5, Insightful)
I wasn't blaming so much as pointing out that like many blogs, slashdot can be an echo chamber. The same opinions are repeated over and over and treated as if they are held by the majority of people. I was younger then and still thought slashdot had a finger on the pulse of technology. It doesn't. It's really great as a news aggregator and the comments are often a hoot, but it isn't what I thought it was.
Parent
Re:repeat of ogg? (Score:4, Informative)
Rip to FLAC, then encode that into whatever fits the device best.
In my experience, finding a player that does .ogg isn't that hard. Look at the players made by Cowon for instance, they're very nice.
Parent
Re:repeat of ogg? (Score:5, Informative)
Ogg Vorbis was better in quality than MP3 - back then (and even today) the most popular compression for music. However, AAC and WMA are also better than MP3 - and people actually sold music in AAC and WMA formats as well as MP3.
Theroa is not better than h264 (the new popular standard for video on the Internet, many Blu-ray discs, HD satellite, and HD broadcast in some parts of the world), so it's not a repeat of Vorbis at all. Theora just scores higher on a scoring algorithm when compared ot a single h264 encoder, the open-source x264.
Parent
Re:repeat of ogg? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Ogg players are still quite common. I got an MP3 player a while ago, and was surprised to find it played ogg. I got it because it advertised FLAC support.
I would take ogg over mp3, and aac over both of those.
Re:repeat of ogg? (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:repeat of ogg? (Score:5, Informative)
Ogg Vorbis is also used in video games because it has some other advantages: it supports 6-channel audio, and has support for bit-accurate decoding, allowing seamless looping of audio, and it sounds better at lower bitrates. I know MP3s can be kludged to do some of these, but it's easier just to use Vorbis in these cases.
Our upcoming game will actually be shipping with both MP3 and Ogg Vorbis audio. The MP3 decoder we're using is significantly more efficient than the reference Vorbis libraries, and allows us to play more simultaneously decoded channels. However, if a piece of audio needs to loop, to use multi-channel, or if we're encoding a LOT of it (music, voice-overs, etc), we use Ogg Vorbis.
Honestly, the cost of the license isn't really an issue at all. It's all about what does the job best for us, and MP3 and Vorbis each have strengths and weaknesses.
Parent
Spotify. (Score:3, Informative)
While not being a fan (or a user) of Spotify for their DRM stuff (I'm sure it's all mandated by the media lobby, but regardless) and the opaque pricing which the boss of a large (by Finnish standards) local media company Poptori suspected doesn't really get distributed all that well to artists.
However, fact is that it's gotten pretty popular in pretty short time at least in some circles, and guess what: Vorbis. Presumably for royalty and quality per bandwidth reasons (over MP3, in any case).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
how since it was free it would be easily adopted by hardware makers who didn't need to pay for the privilege.
Problem is that nobody knows if this is true or not. Major manufacturers such as Apple would rather pay the MPEG tax than deal with a potential lawsuit. I don't know if this figures into Google's thinking, but they're obviously a big target.
Re:repeat of ogg? (Score:5, Informative)
There are an awful lot of players which support ogg. Almost anything from Cowon, iRiver or Sansa does. And almost all the Chinese brand/no-name/shop brand players support ogg even though they fail to explicitly state this (preferring to emblazon their players and packaging with mp3 and wma logos). I used to import and sell mp3 and mp4 players and generally it's only the very cheapest mp4 video players which don't support ogg, that's the ones which claim asf container support is something to brag about.....usually these use an old rockchip video processor.
I have 5 personal players. 2 are old iRivers, H140 and H340, 2 are tiny no name Chinese mp3 players and one is a Chinese mp4 video player. Only the iRivers claim to support ogg audio but the cheap mp3 players handle it fine as well. I lived in SE Asia and every cheap mp3 player I ever checked played ogg audio too. Not a single one made mention of it in the instructions, the specs, on the box or on the player.
Parent
Re:repeat of ogg? (Score:4, Insightful)
Bingo. Theora may be equally as good, but it's trying to supplant an already-established format. 'Equally as good' isn't good enough for that: You have to be noticeably better. And Theora isn't. It offers no major advantages, and would just give YouTube headaches, as it either tried to re-encode into a choice of formats, or had to explain to people how to play the videos.
The first of those costs money, the second costs viewers. I'd bet very few people would choose the Theora choice, making the money just wasted money. And YouTube lives on it's viewers: making their site any more complicated than 'click play' is just not acceptable.
It's not worth it. Theora doesn't have enough of a benefit.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And what law would that be?
What "crime" would the local DA charge you with?
What cause of action would the RIAA sue you over?
Stop spreading this moronic nonsense.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
html was never really designed to do much more than have a single "document" that can link to other "documents" on the internet. over time dynamic ideas were tacked on such as javascript but it still has never been designed in such a way that 'app-y' ideas can be created without hacking up the 'document' model.
Thus html 5 attempts to correct this by modifying the original 'document' model so that it now supports 'documents' and 'app-y' ideas. its not evil, its progress.
Re:Stupid stupid stupid... (Score:4, Funny)
Are those sarcasm tags part of the HTML5 standard?
Parent
Re:Stupid stupid stupid... (Score:5, Insightful)
An open-source browser cannot legally read h264 video, that is the real issue that people seem to have trouble to understand. That is why the HTML standard only mandates a format that is not impaired by any legal restrictions: Theora.
Not being able to legally play DVDs, Blurays, connect your ipod, etc. on linux are already big problems, we don't need another one.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Stupid stupid stupid... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
An open-source browser cannot legally read h264 video, that is the real issue that people seem to have trouble to understand.
I keep hearing that, but I don't know why that would be so. MPEG-LA requires a fee for distribution of products. But Mozilla could pay the decoder cap fee (maxes out a $5M/year next year) and allow as many people to download a H.264-enabled Firefox as they want, no?
That is why the HTML standard only mandates a format that is not impaired by any legal restrictions: Theora.
HTML5 does not mandate any codec or format. Ogg with Vorbis and Theora were proposed, but not included in the current draft, due to concerns by (IIRC) Nokia and Apple.
Re:Google and Firefox (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
That's a different situation (Score:5, Informative)
Pirates have the advantage that they don't have to pay for patent licenses, so H.264 and Theora are both "free". But for law-abiding companies like Mozilla and Google, Theora is free and H.264 isn't.
Parent
Re:That's a different situation (Score:4, Informative)
But the cost of the H.264 licenses are vanishingly small compared to the extra bandwidth cost of using Theora for a company like Google or Apple.
Using H.264 is free as long as clips are under 12 minutes. A number which may sound familiar to YouTube users :).
Here's info on the MPEG-LA licensing terms: http://www.mpegla.com/avc/avc-agreement.cfm [mpegla.com]
Parent
Re:That's a different situation (Score:4, Informative)
This?
http://people.xiph.org/~greg/video/ytcompare/comparison.html [xiph.org]
I read it, and have commented on it at length throughout this thread.
Basically the article briefly says that YouTube's H.264 is better than Theora, and then goes on at length showin how Theroa is better than H.263.
Xiph's own data shows H.264 has a big bitrate advantage at the same quality level even in a test that should favor Theora.
http://web.mit.edu/xiphmont/Public/theora/demo7.html [mit.edu]
in the Rate-Distorion graph, note they start the plot at 50 Kbps, so look at the actual numbers.
For example, at 40 dB, x264 needs 70 Kbps and Theora needs 120 Kbps.
The gap would be bigger with higher motion, more detail, longer content, and particular when there are buffer constraints. Also, x264 is (properly) tuned for perceptual quality more than strict PSNR accuracy.
Theora suffers from not being a very mature implementation (which Xiph is making great progress on addressing) and being a 90's era codec design (about which Xiph can't do anything without breaking compatibility). And other codecs are getting better as well; if Theroa is refined enough to be reasonably optimal in a year, it'll be competing against the improved H.264 and VC-1 codecs of a year from now, and H.265 not that far away.
There are all kinds of interesting things about Theora, but competitive low bitrate compression efficiency isn't going to be one of them.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Reread Shaver's methadology:
A keyframe interval of 250 frames was used for the Theora encoding.
10 seconds is absurdly short for any kind of codec test. That's almost as long as the buffer would be, and current Thusndela builds don't include full buffer management. Plus he picked a pretty low motion section of the clip. He should the full clip. Current Theora builds are plenty fast; it'd be faster than realtime on a laptop.
In a real codec compare, CBR is often the best way to see differences between codecs and implementations, since that's where rate distortion really s
Re:Laziness or Ignorance? You decide (Score:4, Informative)
WTFV. The keyframe interval is 10 seconds but the clip is nearly 5 minutes long.
Parent