Mozilla Considers H264 After WebM Fails To Gain Traction 182
HerculesMO writes with word that "Looks as though Mozilla is considering using H264, one step closer to unification of a single protocol for video encoding. It's a big deal for HTML5 traction, but it still leaves Google holding onto WebM." The article, though a bit harsh on Ogg Theora, offers an interesting look at the way standards are chosen (and adopted by the browser makers).
Realmedia codec (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The justification for WebM (Score:4, Interesting)
Is there any reason they have to choose a side?
No seriously, why can't they have both h264 and WebM support and let the market decide which one gets used more?
Re:Realmedia codec (Score:2, Interesting)
My quick fix is to change the extension. Rename .mov to .mp4 and BAM over 90% of files suddenly work on the other players I have.
Re:Alternative? (Score:5, Interesting)
I suspect the bigger problem is that there are so many patents on video codecs that any better open source alternative would infringe on at least one of those patents.
This is a controversion question. The consortium which licenses H264 has certainly expressed this opinion. They say things along the lines of: "we can't say on which of our patents it infringes but we know it must because 1) it is a modern video codec, and 2) one cannot possibly write a modern video codec without having to deal with at least some of our patents."
The view is expressed by the developers of VP8 (WebM) is that H264 is the result of deliberately steering developement so as to intersect as many of the consortium's members' patents as possible. VP8 is supposedly the result of heading toward the same goal while steering around them.
Whether the VP8 developers can make their codec as good as H264 without involving any of the MPEG consortium patents is still an open question. I gather that they have not achieved that goal yet.
Re:Harsh? (Score:3, Interesting)
The videos look absolutely identical until the last part with birds, a clearly pathological case of "make benchmark to fit the product" type. In both videos the view of birds is highly distorted at the end, and no details other than a whole screen filled with slow-moving high-frequency pattern, are visible. x264 example keeps the birds distinct while VP8 blurs them, but neither provides usable details -- those videos have to be encoded at higher rate to be watchable, no matter what.