Theora Development Continues Apace, VP8 Now Open Source 312
SergeyKurdakov writes "Monty 'xiphmont' Montgomery of the Xiph Foundation says the latest action-packed, graph- and demo-clip-stuffed Theora project update page (demo 9) is now up for all and sundry! Catch up on what's gone into the new Theora encoder Ptalarbvorm over the last few months. It also instructs how to pronounce 'Ptalarbvorm.' Ptalarbvorm is not a finished release encoder yet, though I've personally been using it in production for a few months. Pace on improvements hasn't slowed down — the subjective psychovisual work being done by Tim Terriberry and Greg Maxwell has at least doubled-again on the improvements made by Thusnelda, and they're not anywhere near done yet. As a bonus Monty gathered all Xiph demo pages in one place."
Also on the video codec front, and also with a Xiph connection, atamido writes "Google has released On2's VP8 video codec to the world, royalty-free. It is packaging it with Vorbis audio, in a subset of the Matroska container, and calling it WebM. It's not branded as an exclusively Google project — Mozilla and Opera are also contributors. Builds of your favorite browsers with full support are available."
An anonymous reader points out this technical analysis of VP8.
Re:Welcome, our new open codec overlords! (Score:3, Insightful)
Ogg Theora has had this problem for some time, yes it was open but there was no way of knowing if there were hidden patents so it didn't become popular.
It only takes a few whispered words about patents before everyone but a few dedicated people abandon the project or start paying "protection" money to trolls.
Re:HTML5 video (Score:5, Insightful)
P2P with the new version of Flash? Yupp thank-god for Flashblock.
Namefail (Score:3, Insightful)
OK, I get that Ogg and Theora and Vorbis, etc., are interesting geek in-jokes. They are also horribly crappy product names. You and I might have no problem with them, but I guarantee that 95% of non-geeks will dismiss "Ptalarbvorm" as stupid and confusing without ever evaluating it. Pro-tip: if you need a pronunciation guide, then you desperately need to pick a better name. Yes, better, as in "the current one sucks and should be taken out back and shot".
Re:IE9 Will Support VP8 Playback (Score:3, Insightful)
Keyword(s);
"when the user has installed a VP8 codec on Windows."
They've already said they'll support any codec installed on the machine. But they're only going to bundle H.264.
OT: Flash P2P vs. privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
So if you want to see who is watching a given YouTube (or porn site) video, just watch it yourself, and then watch your network while the flash player is still active.
Re:Welcome, our new open codec overlords! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Welcome, our new open codec overlords! (Score:5, Insightful)
The trouble is even that wont give you an authoritative answer under this screwed up patent regime. So yes it's a fair assumption that both Theora and WebM have been thoroughly checked out by legal. It's also a fair assumption they found some patents that might appear to apply to them (this will be the case for anything you do) and that legal concluded those patents were invalid and would be defeated in court were they asserted. It's a fair assumption that the holders of those patents would have already asserted them if their own legal teams did not concurr that the risk of invalidation was high. But until and unless they actually go to court, no one can know for sure.
Re:First in-depth technical analysis of VP8 (Score:2, Insightful)
While an excellent analysis, it unfortunately confirms all the worst fears I've had about VP8: The quality doesn't match up to H.264, it despite that also can't even match it in speed, the spec is apparently an unholy abomination, the implementation needs work, and most disappointingly of all, it appears there is serious risk of patent issues (largely due to blatantly ripping off various parts of H.264). If there's sufficient assurance that there won't be any patent troubles, it's at least an improvement for patent-unencumbered codecs, but as it stands I'm far less unenthusiastic about it than when I first heard about Google acquiring On2.
Re:X264 dev doesn't like VP8. Color me shocked. (Score:3, Insightful)
On the one hand we have a detailed point by point analysis of the spec and screenshot from an upcoming encoder comparison featuring different video formats with encoders set up to provide maximum quality that can be replicated by anyone. On the other hand we have On2 marketing material.
Seriously you want me to believe in the latter?
Re:X264 dev doesn't like VP8. Color me shocked. (Score:4, Insightful)
I would take the X264 dev's opinion over the company that originally designed the format... The X264 dev also posted screenshots of their results, and VP8 did not turn out very impressive.
Not to mention, On2 (who again, designed VP8) offers no technical analysis, while the X264 dev did a code level analysis.
I'm not saying the X264 folks won't have bias, but at least they're more neutral and did a spec level review.
Re:VP8 won't replace MPEG 4 AVC (H.264) (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, if streaming media has proved *anything* over the years, it's that the general public doesn't care if the compression ruins the work as long as they can play it for free.
Reference the following:
* RealMedia
* Most Youtube videos, "fan reposts" aka re-encodes, and re-re-encodes
* Low bitrate MP3
* JPEG (ok, it's not streaming, but still - "needs more JPEG artifacts")
* Screeners, cams, and foreign translations from the DIVX Discount Theatre
* Webcams
* Most QuickTime videos
* Most AVIs
* Most streaming video on Flash today
* Cable and satellite delivered HD content
Really, the only thing you need to say is "free" and people will at least give it a try.
Re:Welcome, our new open codec overlords! (Score:3, Insightful)
You can never know for sure, unless you've went through all the patents.
Unfortunately, even then, that means nothing. Just because someone reviewed each and every patent in existence and doesn't think there is patent infringement, doesn't mean someone else will review the same information and disagree. So the question is really of high risk versus low risk for patent infringement, rather than yes or no. To me, it seem like h264 is guaranteed patent infringement, while VP8 is low risk, given that the distribution license has a patent clause.
Re:X264 dev doesn't like VP8. Color me shocked. (Score:2, Insightful)
Honestly, you've got On2 on the side supporting VP8 and X264 on the of h.264. Neither side seems to be free of conflict of interest.
It's a codename (Score:4, Insightful)
I guarantee that 95% of non-geeks will dismiss "Ptalarbvorm"
People won't call Theora 1.2 "Ptalarbvorm" any more than they call Windows Vista "Longhorn". Referring to software products by their version codenames seems to be restricted to Debian (e.g. lenny), Ubuntu (e.g. Lucid Lynx), and Mac OS X (e.g. Snow Leopard).
Re:HTML5 video (Score:3, Insightful)
so, if I don't want to share my bandwidth, the site I'm trying to view from has the option to give me a crappy version (or no version at all) of what I'm trying to view.
Wow. That'll kill flash faster than steve jobs ever could. "give us your bandwidth or no cookie".
Re:VP8 won't replace MPEG 4 AVC (H.264) (Score:3, Insightful)
Hear, hear.
If you're running Big Media Pay-Per-View movies and television, I can understand that the quality of the picture might, maybe, be important. Then again, I've seen people happily watching Big Media "content" as horribly smeared/blurry-looking "digital HD cable", so maybe not even then.
I'm not sure how high-resolution helps improve videos of skater kids suffering accidental testicular trauma or kittens attacking inanimate objects...
Re:Welcome, our new open codec overlords! (Score:4, Insightful)
First, google paid over $124 million for this codec, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say they dropped a penny or two on legal to figure out just what they were getting before they made the check out.
Second, they are using this codec themselves (in chrome, on youtube, etc). They have a vested interest in defending it from patent suits, if those suits should arise.
Re:Welcome, our new open codec overlords! (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow.... the patent system is deeply broken.
Re:WebM/VP8 patent risk for software developers (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't have a Slashdot account since I normally don't respond but this time I just feel the need to say this.
I disagree.
The burden of proof lies/or should lie with those intending to claim infringement. Until a claim has been made and the case has been settled or judged by the courts, these codecs like Theora and VP8 should be treated as being patent free, as far as submarine patents are concerned. To do otherwise would mean that it would be impossible to create any open and free codecs, as there is always the slightest possibility that someone somewhere in the world has patented a certain technique just because he thought of it first and others just had the same idea. There are only so many ways to do efficient compression so even if one were to forget all the current techniques and start from the ground up, one would still be likely to infringe patents because the used techniques are simply logical solutions to the problems at hand.
This is one of the reasons why software patents are fundamentally flawed. In a lot of cases they simply frustrate innovation and progress more than they stimulate it. Theora needs to change their methods to work around these patents if they notice a conflict which delays a high quality Theora codec, and they still don't have any guarantee it doesn't infringe.
I don't know how similar VP8 is to the other codecs or wether it infringes any patents. Whatever the case may be, I Hope that Google does everything in it's power to prevent H.264 from becoming the standard on the web, for if that happens, we will all pay the price one way or another. Mozilla also knows this, and refuses to support it in any way. If H.264 becomes the standard on the web, we will have the same situation as we already have with free software and mp3 or optical media, which is also protected by patents, leaving free software legally unable to play it because licenses need to be bought.
End Of Rant
Re:Welcome, our new open codec overlords! (Score:3, Insightful)
"Is H264 incumbered by any patents not held by the MPEG-LA?" Probably.
The protection that H264 has is that any outside entity filing an h264 patent lawsuit is going to have to defend themselves against MPEGLA's patent portfolio.
VP8 has exactly the same protection from Googles patent portfolio.
The difference between the two is that Google offers a free forever license, where MPEGLA can start charging any amount at any time and that there are no H264 cameras that are legally licensed for commercial or for profit work. Every professional videographer using H264 is in violation of the MPEGLA license.
Re:Welcome, our new open codec overlords! (Score:5, Insightful)
Most video codec patents revolve around implementations of the discrete cosine transform, Huffman coding, chroma sub-sampling, and bilinear interpolation. All of these techniques are older than the patent examiners who approved the patents and indeed the judges who will try the cases. It's all mathematics, every last bit. These patents are all essentially equivalent to patenting the tetrahedron.
There is nothing the USPTO will not give a patent for. As such, there is absolutely nothing in the universe past or present which can be declared patent free wherever the authority of the USPTO is recognised.
Re: Re-hash (Score:3, Insightful)
Let me get this straight. Old is not necessarily good and new is not necessarily better. Bearing in mind correlation != causality. I'm sure a Russian Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods could come up with something for old Koreans that will generate ... profit!
Re:Confused about HTLM5 video (Score:4, Insightful)
Paragraphs next time, please.
Yes, of course.
<video> is semantic - it has a specific meaning, unlike object or embed, which could be anything. Then there are the attributes and the DOM interface that go with the <video> tag, which allow direct control and integration with the page. Plugin-based systems are just a big black box sitting in the midst of all this native web content, with minimal interaction between the two. <video> makes video a native, interactive, first class citizen of the web.
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/video.html [whatwg.org]
The video decoding could still be handled with an external process, BTW. Nothing in the spec prevents that.
Re:First in-depth technical analysis of VP8 (Score:4, Insightful)
If you're one of them most powerful technology companies in the world, one patent probably isn't too much of a problem, but many patents, and potentially major ones, could certainly be a problem. And VP8 hasn't seen any real usage yet either and there's already been possible problems with regard to patents identified.
Well, Google certainly seems to be willing to risk it as they're moving YouTube to it. That is rather confidence-inspiring. I understand that there are no guarantees either way, but I'd trust a major corp to do a thorough legal analysis before making moves like that - especially when patents have been part of the story all along - over a few random guys with blogs proclaiming imminent doom.
Re:First in-depth technical analysis of VP8 (Score:3, Insightful)
While an excellent analysis, it unfortunately confirms all the worst fears I've had about VP8: The quality doesn't match up to H.264
Really? Because they don't have any bias? How about this [on2.com]? VP8 looks significantly better in that video compared to x264.
Hello Kitty (Score:3, Insightful)
...Sanyo...
It doesn't matter if the Hello Kitty plush toys are H264 enabled or not.
What matters is that the actual maker of chips embed found in 99.9% of multimedia hardware like smartphones (the various ARM based chips), are endorsing this and will probably roll out some for of hardware acceleration or another.
The only valid point for h.264 vs. other codec ("it's supported in hardware accelerated form on embed chips, and in portable widgets, every saved watt counts") will become moot.
Not *yet* (Score:3, Insightful)
They aren't talking about making VP8 a part of HTML5 standard *yet*.
Yet = the keyword.
And if VP8 is supported by Firefox (a good chunk of desktop machines), Opera (a good chunk of embed systems) and Google (one word : Youtube), there's a good chance that it will be on the recommended list of codecs.
Even more so as the makers (ARM, TI, Qualcomm...) of the most prolific chips on portable media widgets such as smart phones are on the same bandwagon.
Suddenly the h264 vs. Theora flameware (quality + hardware support vs. patent licensing problems + opensource) becomes moot.
(As VP8 is a modern era codec, and will probably improve to levels in the same range as h264,
chip-makers can roll out hardware acceleration, probably GPU+DSP based,
and Google will grant free patent license for opensource implementation)
Summary judgment for an injunction (Score:3, Insightful)
Suing a Free Software project just guarantees that the patent holders suing 1) look like horrible thugs in front of a jury
Which is why a sufficiently large patent-holding company will pay its lawyers big money to find a way to get a judge to pass summary judgment on as many issues as possible before the jury even hears the case.
2) limit the amount of damages that they can ask for
Practicing entities don't necessarily want damages; instead, they want an injunction so that they don't have to compete with free. Sometimes this can be as easy as a cease and desist notice, as it was with ASF demuxing support in VirtualDub 1.3 series.
Re:IE9 Will Support VP8 Playback (Score:3, Insightful)
So it's much the same way that Safari supports Ogg Theora/Vorbis video and audio - once you've installed the free XiphQT QuickTime component
Which is not available for iPhone OS.