Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Google Opens Up VP8, Launches New Container Format

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Zhick View Post
    Dunno... colors are slightly different I think. Maybe that's what you mean with contrast deanjo? IMHO the webm-video looks a little bit green-ish. Nothing that strikes me as annoying though.
    Global color differences clearly indicate a bug in the encoder or the decoder. That should never happen.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Remco View Post
      Global color differences clearly indicate a bug in the encoder or the decoder. That should never happen.
      Or it's just another color format

      Comment


      • Originally posted by deanjo View Post
        You think they would have done that with Google Talk and Google Book search as well don't you? Didn't work out so nice and clean there now did it?
        That was not a nice list of patents that they could verify. It's always possible to get sued for an unknown patent. That's a general hazard of life.
        Sure they are, and how long did that take to get to that point?
        8 years, and ongoing. Considering that crappy-implemented-VP8 already compares well with H.264 baseline, what will VP8 look like after more than 8 years of improvement?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Remco View Post
          8 years, and ongoing. Considering that crappy-implemented-VP8 already compares well with H.264 baseline, what will VP8 look like after more than 8 years of improvement?
          Actually.. how well DOES it compare?
          I'm reluctant to take the source from the x264 dev homepage, but that one looked like shit.
          http://doom10.org/compare/vp8.png
          http://doom10.org/compare/xvid.png <-- I'd say it's pretty close to xvid.
          http://doom10.org/compare/x264baseline.png

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Micket
            Actually.. how well DOES it compare?
            I'm reluctant to take the source from the x264 dev homepage, but that one looked like shit.
            http://doom10.org/compare/vp8.png
            http://doom10.org/compare/xvid.png <-- I'd say it's pretty close to xvid.
            http://doom10.org/compare/x264baseline.png
            I'd say it clearly beats xvid and it's worse than baseline, from those pics. The author of the comparison acknowledged that the difference between baseline and VP8 is down to lack of psy optimisations in the latter. With all the hype and the window of opportunity this codec represents I doubt it'll take 8 years to get them.

            I don't know the affiliations of these guys and I guess they only used baseline, but here there is another data point:

            http://www.streamingmedia.com/Articl...red-67266.aspx

            Comment


            • Originally posted by XorEaxEax View Post
              Yes, but we all know that from that day on we will have to pay if h.264 is the standard web video format. The whole idea behind mpegla is to corner the market for video so as to be the only game in town and then profit handsomely from licencing fees. Hulu and Netflix are not the targets of vp8 since they likely have strong ties to many companies in the mpeg la patent pool. But they are also not particularly important in the success or failure of a video codec. There's still a huge amount of sites hosting videos and this will just continue to grow. And these sites will likely see vp8 as the most attractive choice given that h.264 licence fees will kick in for them either immediately if they are a pay to view or in 5 years even if they are free.
              Just had to dig this up.

              DENVER--(BUSINESS WIRE)--MPEG LA announced today that its AVC Patent Portfolio License will continue not to charge royalties for Internet Video that is free to end users (known as “Internet Broadcast AVC Video”) during the entire life of this License. MPEG LA previously announced it would not charge royalties for such video through December 31, 2015 (see http://www.mpegla.com/Lists/MPEG%20LA%20News%20List/Attachments/226/n-10-02-02.pdf), and today’s announcement makes clear that royalties will continue not to be charged for such video beyond that time.
              http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20100825006629/en

              Comment


              • Free for end users.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by benmoran View Post
                  Free for end users.
                  For end users? Unless I'm reading something wrong, that's not true. It's free for whomever is serving AVC videos on the web for free (which may not include services that include advertisements).

                  The end user still must pay for the encoder that creates the videos and for the decoder to watch them.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by spiritofreason View Post
                    For end users? Unless I'm reading something wrong, that's not true. It's free for whomever is serving AVC videos on the web for free (which may not include services that include advertisements).

                    The end user still must pay for the encoder that creates the videos and for the decoder to watch them.
                    You are correct whoever is serving video's via the web can use h264 for free providing they are not relieving remuneration for the service.

                    http://news.softpedia.com/news/MPEG-...e-153913.shtml

                    Comment


                    • Another link,

                      http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20014864-264.html

                      Comment


                      • There is still plenty of reason to embrace a free alternative.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                          Well at least one good thing has come of VP8: it got MPEG-LA to stop being coy about their intentions.

                          Originally posted by spiritofreason View Post
                          For end users? Unless I'm reading something wrong, that's not true. It's free for whomever is serving AVC videos on the web for free (which may not include services that include advertisements).
                          Which is blatant sophistry, as they're necessitated to make a loss and forbidden from minimising those losses. 'Free' suddenly becomes rather costly.

                          Comment


                          • You can not imagine how uncomfortable and confusing is that the english language can not separate free libre from free gratis...

                            Comment


                            • There's no confusion on that point at all.

                              Comment


                              • All I can say is that I had an educated suspicion that this would happen, it just came sooner then I anticipated.

                                Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                                h264 could just as easily remain under the current terms come 2015.
                                Maybe I should have rephrased that to include the word "confirmed" back then.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X