The Next Generation of XAnim 96
You don't hear much about xanim anymore, but it's certainly an old stand by (FAQ: Yes, you can use it to play cinepak encoded movies if you have a few closed source modules). But are you curious about what's happening with old faithful?
rsk noted that the
next generation xanim featurelist is online. It's not ready yet, but it's nice to see an update.
any video news (Score:1)
Any video news on Linux is good. The video players suck under it. RP Alpha is the only one that's passable. MTV is ok, but it's too small (window size, unadjustable) and stops working after a few minutes. The remaining ones freeze up and go too slow and are generally not high-quality. If there was finally an all-in-one video/media player for Linux that actually worked, it would be a boon to the community.
Re:Quicktime codecs ? (Score:5)
As psergiu said, "polite".
This isn't open source. Check out gstreamer (Score:1)
Have a look at gstreamer [sourceforge.net]. It's a media framework just like xanim wants to be, but it has these advantages:
Currently it supports about a lot of the input/output options that xanim says it will support. There are just a few developers working on it. If you can lend a hand I'm sure they would love it.
--
Xanim (Score:1)
skyfish
(dedicated debian user)
I'M BAAAACKKKK (Score:1)
--Shoeboy
Yeah, right (Score:2)
Too much duplication of effort (Score:4)
* Xanim doesn't fully support MPEG1
* SMPEG is also only MPEG 1 based
* XMovie does MPEG2
* AviFile is an interface for MS-MPEG4, among others
* Livid [library] and OMS [player] plays DVD movies
* RealPlayer plays RealMedia content and nothing else
Each of these libraries implements the same features over and over again. Different rendering modes, resampling for screen sizes, fullscreen mode, player interfaces and skinning, plugins [visualization, etc] etc.
This is a massive duplication of effort and [unlike similar duplications of effort] neither project covers the full spectrum of whats ouyt there [compare this to KDE - GNOME, which both happily run whatever apps are out there providing the libraries are installed].
We need to put a standard for pluggable codecs / extensions [an extension being a parent for other codecs - eg, the AviFile version of WINE, or a non-Real interface for RealPlayer codec]. Perhaps integrate it into SDL if appropriate.
The result would be a standard api [which a number of players could be used on top of] suitable for Audio and Video, and easily extensible. Can the developers of all the projects mentioned in this thread start please talking to each other?
---
Re:I'M BAAAACKKKK (Score:1)
Re:why use xanim? (Score:1)
Qmail is NOT [cr.yp.to] open source software, by any definition of the term. The author has never accepted patches that I know of, explicitly forbids the distribution of modified versions, and will never, ever permit a fork.
And frankly, that's probably a good thing, as it's the reason why qmail is not the horrid mess that sendmail is and that postfix seems hell-bent on becoming.
Re:I'M BAAAACKKKK (Score:1)
Welcome back, shoeboy.
What do I do, when it seems I relate to Judas more than You?
Re:And it plays Windows native formats - including (Score:2)
Re:Quicktime codecs ? (Score:2)
Re:Quicktime codecs ? (Score:1)
I hobby-code in a fairly competative field. We're all cooperative, but I only like to distribute version x of my code after I've started using version x+1, which is faster/better of course. Share - but only so much.
Donc je m'accuse.
Sue me.
FatPhil
The right way (Score:1)
We are shooting ourselves in the foot by reinventing this with every few weeks by providing a new player for your specific format.
Re:Quicktime codecs ? (Score:1)
Re:XAnim is a bit obsolete ... try aviplay (Score:1)
Re:Too much duplication of effort (Score:2)
Re:A Better picture of the future... (Score:2)
Sue Secretary certainly cares when Word and Windows continually makes her day a misery. How she wished that she could get her boss to hire a freelance programmer to fix the bugs that _really_ irritate her! Unfortunately, her boss would love to spend a bit of money to allow her to be more productive, but it's just plain impossible to fix bugs in Word or Windows. Worst of all, Microsoft aren't supporting these versions anymore, and so won't fix the bugs. Sue's boss would much rather give money to a programmer who can fix their problems than to the company who has abandoned them, but he has no choice.
Don't be a dick. These things really do make a difference to normal, everyday people in normal, everyday ways. Not caring about them is like not caring about what kind of insurance you have on your house/car/whatever.
I'm getting sick of the "what about your car's code?" question. Realise that free software is designed for general purpose computers, like PCs, as opposed to embedded, special purpose stuff. It may also apply to these things, but I dunno, I haven't thought about it enough yet.
On first glance, there does appear to be some merit for it, at least once a model of car has been discontinued. If you drive an older car, one before all this computerized gadgetry became embedded in them, then it's relatively easy for you to fix your car when it breaks. You can go to any spare parts place and get what you need, and failing that you can probably fashion it yourself out of sheet metal or a similar model or something.
But if it's the embedded computer which needs fixing, and the car company has told you that they don't support your car anymore (and so won't sell you spare parts), you're substantially more fucked. In fact, you're basically stuck with the proverbial car-with-hood-welded-shut. It's the computer, not the hood, that's welded shut, but the effect is the same. If the car company had decided to release the source and specs to your car as free software, then you and other owners of your car, perhaps with similar problems, could fix it. Hell, you could even make it better, fix any bugs or tweak things to be exactly how you like them! The patches and tools could be available on the Internet. If you can't do it, then you could hire someone to do it for you - techies could make a living doing this kind of thing on weekends. It's really the same as Sue Secretary's case.
Like I said before, don't be a dick.
not trivial (Score:5)
IIRC, about 4% said a move to a UNIX-based OS would result in incompatibility issues. Another 7% mentioned having to retrain employees. But approximately 84% replied that UNIX - and Linux in particular - has no support for viewing pornography in a video form. One Fortune 500 exec noted that the online porn industry is rapidly migrating to streaming video because of the high availability of bandwidth. Until Linux, BSD, etc. decide to support this vital part of the market, Microsoft will continue to dominate.
yes, of course I'm kidding
Re:quicktime (Score:1)
After downloading the trailer from the official site, and trying to play with xanim I get:
$ xanim finalfantasy_320.mov
XAnim Rev 2.80.0 by Mark Podlipec Copyright (C) 1991-1999. All Rights Reserved
Video Codec: Sorenson Video not yet supported.(E18)
Unknown(and unsupported) Audio Codec: QDM2(0x51444d32).
Notice: Video and Audio are present, but not yet supported.
Usage:
XAnim [options] anim [ [options] anim
-h lists some common options, but may be out of date.
See xanim.readme or the man page for detailed help.
:(
any GPL'd players out there? (Score:2)
Are there any gpl'd players out there that will:
1) Use the video4linux api;
2) play realtime onscreen with controls;
3) optionally create a video file (prefer mpeg but others are ok).
TIA.
for the media format impaired (Score:1)
Re:quicktime (Score:1)
pr0n. (Score:4)
Re:quicktime (Score:1)
Re:I'M BAAAACKKKK (Score:1)
Mholve does.
--Shoeboy
Next Generation ? (Score:1)
Re:I'M BAAAACKKKK (Score:1)
foolish me
my money was on Bruce Perens, but mholve is way lower.
Thanks.
Re:not trivial (Score:1)
x...an...i...m.... (Score:1)
Re:any GPL'd players out there? (Score:2)
--
Re:Too much duplication of effort (Score:1)
Until something like this happens, I will continue using Windows Media Player. Whatever you think of Microsoft, this product and the the supporting infrastructure (Directmedia/Activemovie/Directsound and all that stuff) is awesome. If you don't believe me, try playing with the filter graph editor (graphedit.exe) sometime. The only complaint I have with Media Player is the new version 7 interface. I have played fullscreen MPEG-1 3200k/sec files on a 486-100 will full screen anti-aliasing flawlessly. Linux has a lot of catching up to do in this regard.
re: pr0n! (Score:2)
Re:Quicktime codecs ? (Score:1)
Don't release it then; I won't use it. I can frankly do without streaming video and my favorite radio station (WFMU [wfmu.org]) has MP3 streams.
What these companies keep forgetting is that the multitude of incompatible streams and players will soon eclipse bandwidth as the single greatest reason that streaming on the 'Net is a waste of time. Then, one day, Ogg's [vorbis.org] video codec or something similar will put that whiny project lead out of a job.
Good for him.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
RTSP+RTP+H.263 good, license bad (Score:1)
But it's too bad it won't be Open Source.
Re:XAnim is a bit obsolete ... try aviplay (Score:1)
Re:Quicktime codecs ? (Score:2)
And rightly so. If they want to get onto this bandwagon and reap the rewards, then they need to be prepared to play by our rules or else be shoved off. They would fight if we tried to enter their proprietary software arena and not play by the rules, after all. They shouldn't be surprised that people using Free OSes want Free software to play movie files.
Apple (and others like them) shouldn't be surprised if their current attitude puts them in a worse situation in the future.
Re:This is not news to me (Score:1)
The thing is, this isn't some highly-publicized event like the rollout of Win95. You'd have to have been in some backwaters part of the world to have missed Microsoft's media blitz on that one. Certainly, it would be hard to be on the net (reading
Re:any GPL'd players out there? (Score:1)
One Answer is: (Score:2)
apt-get install xawtv
quality is so-so (could be the card) but it will vidcap 12fps (avi format) on a 400mhz box, and display what appears to be full speed.
Quicktime codecs ? (Score:3)
On a related note, does anybody know if it is at all possible (via wine or something) to listen to windows media player streams in Linux ? I find that honestly Realplayer streams blow chunks, and I would really love to listen tp WMP streams instead (www.com is a perfect example)
why use xanim? (Score:1)
<p>
MPEG is very well supported with the <a href="http://www.lokigames.com/development/smpeg.
SMPEG library</a>, thanks to loki<a
There's even a plugin for xmms that works quite well.
<p>
AVI's are _fully_ support with <a href="http://divx.euro.ru/"> avifile</a>. I mean fullscreen, full frame rate support of ever avi filetype, including the DivX
<p>
There's even a project called <a href="http://xmps.sourceforge.net/">XMPS</a> which takes smpeg, avifile, and a couple other programs and puts them into one great piece of software.
<p>
So why do we need xanim?
Re:any GPL'd players out there? (Score:2)
Re:why use xanim? (Score:4)
MPEG is very well supported with the SMPEG library [lokigames.com], thanks to loki. There's even a plugin for xmms that works quite well.
AVI's are _fully_ support with avifile [divx.euro.ru]. I mean fullscreen, full frame rate support of ever avi filetype, including the DivX ;-) codec. This is a jaw-dropping piece of software.
There's even a project called XMPS [sourceforge.net] which takes smpeg, avifile, and a couple other programs and puts them into one great piece of software.
So why do we need xanim?
Re:any GPL'd players out there? (Score:1)
quicktime (Score:3)
all those pretty trailers like Final Fantasy [apple.com] (The Movie.) Its the best cg ive ever seen, but i cant watch it because xanim wont play it.
And all those funny commercials on adcritic. is there maybe a way using windows dll's or something?
Re:XAnim is a bit obsolete ... try aviplay (Score:1)
Though, I believe it is technically possible to use just about any codec, it's an AVI file after all - just needs the player program to understand the codec in use.
Re:RTSP+RTP+H.263 good, license bad (Score:1)
Re:quicktime (Score:1)
An alternative to Xanim... (Score:2)
One great alternative though, is xtheater, which can play DIVX AVI files, and last time I checked, Microsoft's ASF (Not reliably thought...)
Check it out at http://xtheater.sourceforge.net.
Re:quicktime (Score:2)
Marc Poplidec (sp?) says on the Xanim website that he asked Sorenson for specs so he could write a decoder. He routinely signs NDAs and implements binary-only Xanim modules for proprietary video formats. Give him a cross-compiler, and he'll compile it for whatever platform you run.
Anyway, Sorenson said they'd love to, but that Apple forbade them from doing so. Hence, Apple are preventing you from viewing a large chunk of the video available on the Web, and Mark can't do anything about it, despite having the willing and the technical expertise.
--
XAnim is a bit obsolete ... try aviplay (Score:5)
hello... (Score:1)
------------------------
wow (Score:1)
Re:any GPL'd players out there? (Score:1)
xanim is moving slowly (Score:2)
Once the new swiss-army-knife-xanim actually gets released, then let us know.
This is not news to me (Score:1)
This has been on the website for months, I saw it back in July or August when I wanted to download the "old standby".
I do not belong in the spam.redirect.de domain.
Re:not trivial (Score:3)
Neither does Microsoft. A year or so ago, someone made a similar comment to me, so I took a fresh W98SE install into alt.binaries.multimedia.erotica and found most of the pr0n wouldn't play either.
The problem with .AVI is that .AVI can mean any one of dozens of codecs. Off the top of my head, in loose chronological order, YUV9, IR32, IR42, IV5, I.263, MP4v2, MP4v3, DiVX...
In order to pick up all the codecs, I had to spend a fair bit of time browsing web sites people had set up to solve this problem. (No, I don't consider the MSFT solution of "Install Media Player 7 and let it munge your system online, and rat back to Bill, Inc. what pr0n you're viewing" as a solution).
The length of the alt.binaries.multimedia.erotica FAQ (and the effort to which people had gone through, both to "get" the codecs, many of which are, of course, no longer available even in closed-source form from Intel and what-not) tells me that "supporting .AVI" is as much of a problem for Micros~1 as it is for xanim.
But it's also a testament to how much work people are willing to go through to get their pr0n.
> Until Linux, BSD, etc. decide to support this vital part of the market, Microsoft will continue to dominate.
Although the author of the comment said he was just kidding, and got modded "Funny", I think he's got a pretty good point.
Look back - pr0n is what made the VCR popular. Bandwidth limitations for static images brought us .GIF and .JPG, and pr0n users were probably the ones who most needed the compression. Then comes .MPG, MPEG2, and a gazillion different codecs wrapped in .AVI.
Look at DejaNews (no, they don't archive binaries, but they do archive alt.binaries.multimedia.erotica.d.) and find out who the earliest adopters of MPEG4 video were. The pr0n groups appear to be several months ahead of the curve when it came to what-eventually-became-DiVX.
Say what you will about the cheeziness of pr0n, but you can learn a lot about the state of the art in video compression just by looking at the file extensions of postings in alt.binaries.multimedia.erotica.
Re:Quicktime codecs ? (Score:2)
1st Law Of Networking: Loose ends are bad, termination is good.
XAnim Problems (Score:1)
Reverse engineer the Sorensen codec (please!) (Score:1)
I have no ide how hard that would be, though. Somebody should reverse engineer those binary modules of xanim too. With access to the xanim source that should be easier.
Re:XAnim is a bit obsolete ... try aviplay (Score:2)
http://www.google.com/search?q=aviplay
Re:why use xanim? (Score:1)
Re:XAnim is a bit obsolete ... try aviplay (Score:1)
Re:any GPL'd players out there? (Score:1)
siri
Re:Quicktime codecs ? (Score:2)
Re:XAnim is a bit obsolete ... try aviplay (Score:2)
You're confusing one group of assholes with another. Its primarily the MPAA who is upset about the DVD copying issue... Of course, a number of the members of the RIAA are owned by the same large corporations that own a number of the members of the MPAA, so it all works out, I guess...
And it plays Windows native formats - including MS (Score:2)
Here's the full list os supported codecs...note the Microsoft ones.
ATI VCR-2
Cinepak®
DivX
Indeo® Video 3.2, 4.1, 5.0
Microsoft MPEG-4
Motion JPEG ( based on rather slow libjpeg, so not yet very usable )
Audio:
DivX
Microsoft GSM 6.10
IMA ADPCM
MSN Audio
MPEG Layer-1,2,3 Audio
PCM
On an unrelated note - RealPlayer for Linux is version 7 and won't play any of the recent media streams. Time to add Real to your Book of Grudges again.
Re:Quicktime codecs ? (Score:1)
"we do not directly support linux, and therefore will not supply drivers for it; however have out interface spec - feel free to write your own (modulo NDA)."
Personally I don't need the source code, and I don't care who compiled the executable. Only two things matter - does it seem to work and when it appears it doesn't is there someone interested in fixing it.
If I had to tweak the source code myself, I'd be prepared to sign an NDA. There's nothing immoral about NDAs you know.
Phil
Others (Score:2)
Unfortunately, neither of these will play the stuff that I really want to see, like the Lord of the Rings Trailer or the D&D movie trailer. I'm forced to fall back to VMWare for that. Damn Quicktime...
Re:Too much duplication of effort (Score:1)
Some programs are attempting to bring together the functionality of whatever libraries are available for playback. Xtheater, xmps, LAMP are examples of projects in relatively similar states of development.. I suspect one of these may become a much bigger factor in the Linux community sometime soon.
Re:Finally (Score:1)
It's much better than mpegtv, and it is GPLed.
Re:hello... (Score:2)
Because it was the first movie|animation player for unix|linux and it was the only one available for free for a loooong period of time. It deserves our respect. I do install-it every time i find-it packaged in a distribution even if i use-it very seldom.
An xanim has his strenghts - it's the only one that can play
--
X marks the spot (Score:1)
O P E N___S O U R C E___H U M O R [mikegallay.com]
Re:Quicktime codecs ? (Score:5)
Maybe a gazilion polite e-mails from the
--
avifile sucks (Score:3)
Still, if you do want to use avifile, aviplay and XMPS are not the best players. Try LAMP [inria.fr] or XTheatre [sourceforge.net] instead.
There are better options for MPEG also. SMPEG only works for MPEG-1 (as does mtvp). For MPEG-2, try xmovie [linuxave.net], xine [sourceforge.net], or the VideoLan [videolan.org] client.
There's also at least 3 Open Source divx (i.e. MPEG-4) CODEC efforts that I'm aware of - I submitted the story yesterday, but it was rejected.
Re:why use xanim? (Score:4)
Okay... I'm friggin tired of this attitude. Yes, it is *damn* important that it's Open Source. Did you ever think in your tiny little mind that there *might* just be something that you aren't getting about Open Source/Free Software?
It's not the quality... for every quality comparison where Open Source wins (Apache vs. IIS 4.0, BSD Networking vs. the rest of the world), there is another where closed source wins (Any DTP program).
The difference is that Open Source is a not a magic bullet to quality, but rather places the onus of quality on the userbase. It's not about free software, it's about the potential of Free software.
Look around... not counting the people who use Linux on faith (either because it's trendy, or because someone they trust told them to try it), most users of Linux are people who make a living using computers. Most are people who have a serious personal investment in computing. And they choose Linux. It's hard to explain to someone who isn't a developer (heck, it takes time for even a computer developer) why XML is better than a binary file -- i.e., why open standards are better than propietary. Why the following is worse than 20k of code to read an XML file (pseudocode ahoy!):
struct foo {
int head,
int torso,
char lleg,
char rleg
}
write(fp,foo,sizeof(foo))
It's faster, smaller, leaves a smaller footprint... why not use it? For the exact same reason Linus refuses to change the /proc fs to binary read files. There is a philosophy inherent that is time tested, and experience shows that will result in more work at first, and less work later.
And that's what both Open Source and Free Software are... philosophies that pay back later. Some of it pays off now (gimp, Konqueror, qmail), but it's the potential that, once it hits critical mass, will pay off in the future.
--
Evan "Typed hurriedly, not proofread, as I need to catch a train..." E.
Re:This is not news to me (Score:1)
I'm betting I'm not alone.
Re:wow (Score:2)
Try mtv, smpeg, xmovie, LAMP..
If you want decent fullscreen support on a slower speed machine (as you would get in Windows), then you need XFree 4.0 with the Xv extension and a player that supports it. Xv supports shared memory transfer of YUV images (MPEG decoder output) from user space directly to the graphics card memory, and uses the graphics card's hardware YUV-to-RGB conversion and scaling support.
BTW, there's only a few cards (such as Matrox g400) that have Xv driver support yet.
If you don't have Xv support, then second best would be a player like LAMP that supports DGA (direct video memory access under XFree).
xmovie [linuxave.net]
LAMP [inria.fr]
Erm... (Score:1)
Finally (Score:1)
Re:any GPL'd players out there? (Score:2)
I was getting ready to poke at some of the apps I saw over at Building #3, but thought I'd ask here, since a similar topic is up. As I recall, most of the apps to do this are somewhat primitive, grainy, unreliable, and don't have much of any controls.
The gqcam application is very cool, but is only for the qcam. I'm almost thinking about trying to make something similar to that for bttv, presumably using the V4L api.
BTW, if anyone sees this and knows something about the S-video inputs on many bttv cards (what they can/can't do -- typical resolution, etc) please enlighten me.
T-again.
Re:not trivial (Score:2)
And:
But it's also a testament to how much work people are willing to go through to get their pr0n.
I notice this spelling of porn a lot... why? You don't appear to be a person cursed with the sheeple-like need to phrase everything in "l33t-speak," so I am guessing that this spelling serves some purpose.
Would you please fill in this poor un-initiated Slashdotter?
:-)
Re:not trivial (Score:1)
That's 'pr0n'. Just a heads up.
Re:any GPL'd players out there? (Score:2)
I'm guessing if I can get more than 5 fps they will be happy.
Might need to pause and slew back through the actual captured frames on-the-fly, maybe 5 minutes worth.
Another poster in this thread mentioned gqcam working with devices other than the quickcam, maybe it will work with bttv?
Re:any GPL'd players out there? (Score:2)
The s/w does detect the device info properly, though.
---
S.D.
Re:any GPL'd players out there? (Score:2)
I think creative bought the quickcam a year or two ago, so the usb is basically the same guts as a quickcam.
gqcam locks up if i have it use the bttv848 board, unfortunately...but it does report it properly before locking
Re:I'M BAAAACKKKK (Score:2)
Anyhow, user numbers shouldn't count for anyone who was on slashdot before we had them, and mholve and I both fall in that category...
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [ncsu.edu].
A Better picture of the future... (Score:1)
Come to think about it, what about the code in the car you drive? Aren't you 'upset' that it too isn't open source?
Re:Xanim (Score:2)
Re:Quicktime codecs ? (Score:1)
Karen Nickolaisen
Director of Sales
Sorenson Media, Inc.
4393 South Riverboat Road, Suite 300,
Salt Lake City, UT 84123
Write to her in your own fair hand on superior note paper and ever so politely ask when a QuickTime 4 plugin for Netscape running on Linux is coming out.
Also you might care to offer $X for the module.
For me:
Polite emails to Sorenson (Score:2)
Dear Sir / Madam
Today, many video clips are powered by the Sorenson codec. I notice that there are decoders / viewers for Microsoft Windows and Apple Macintosh, yet there are none for GNU/Linux and UNIX in general.
There is a UNIX video stream player called 'Xanim', found at http://xanim.va.pubnix.com/ . This program has the ability to plugin binary decoder modules, to allow playback of many different codecs. I note that the Sorenson codec is not among them.
Because of Xanim's ability to accept binary modules, the source code to your codec does not need to be revealed to anyone. Please consider supporting the Linux and UNIX communities by providing a module for Xanim. We all look forward to watching videos powered by Sorenson!
Regards
My name here
The last thing we need is them refusing, on account of rude people emailing them...
_______________________________________
Is that an African or European swallow?
Re:first (Score:1)
Re:quicktime (Score:2)
This came from dpkg -p xanim; I don't actually use it, so this may not work so well. I don't know.
Hey! (Score:1)
------------------------
Re:Quicktime codecs ? (Score:3)