Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ITU Approves H.265 / HEVC Video Codec

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

  • #11
    Thanks to the people posting here ... I'm really grateful on the amount of info they're providing on these new works on the multimedial front !!
    Now I have some reading material (seriously, didn't know about dalaa and vp9), so I have more options for open video in my apps!

    Comment


    • #12
      This is from Jan 17

      Originally posted by Prescience500 View Post
      Is there any recent SSIM benchmarks of daala and/or VP9 vs h.265? I'm curious how they compare to each other at this point.


      I don't think daala is even close to being ready.

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by newwen View Post
        But without Apple and Microsoft support, VP9 is going nowhere as an standard. It's the same situation we have now. In fact, Apple alone can kill any de facto standard just like they did with Flash support in iOS. Not even Google has been able to force with Youtube and Chrome any free standard codec.
        Microsoft is only relevant on the desktop, now.
        Apple is an issue, but if they were THAT influential, everyone would be using aac.
        Android, however, has a huge market share, and since they've started bundling vp9 and opus with chrome, I think it reasonable to expect vp9 (along with hevc) hardware support before too long.

        Comment


        • #14
          Originally posted by EvilTwin View Post
          I think Google could have, if YouTube would be VP8-only.
          I really don't understand why they didn't force all YouTube-videos to be WebM if they want it to be the Internet-standard.
          Apart from the likely backlash when trying to force a new unproven video codec upon all end user web software, I think it's also that they didn't have a DRM solution to be implemented into webm, something which is needed (afaik) for the commercial/advertisement videos on Youtube.

          The latter has likely been rectified with Google's purchase of Widevine (DRM content technology company) but as far as it is ready to be implemented as of yet is unknown. As it stands I'd wager the outpacing of h.264 from Youtube (which according to Google is still going through) will when VP9 has been released and reached maturity/support.

          Meanwhile you can already use VP8 enabled browsers to view most of the content on youtube (the DRM-laden content being the exception). I use Firefox built in VP8 (no flash installed on my machines) to view videos on Youtube and a greasemonkey script to open said DRM-laden videos with mplayer if I come across them.

          Comment


          • #15
            Originally posted by brosis View Post
            MPEG LA is going to work with HEVC, so you can expect the same legal situation here as with H264.
            Then ITU can go to hell. Standards are not meant to pad interests of corporations like MPEG LA or somesuch. Doing so just undermines all idea of standards. If you're forced to pay, there will be strong demand for alternatives anyway. F..k you, MPEG LA.

            Comment


            • #16
              Originally posted by XorEaxEax View Post
              Apart from the likely backlash when trying to force a new unproven video codec upon all end user web software, I think it's also that they didn't have a DRM solution
              1) As servers owner I don't need "proven" codec if I can't stream video to USA citizens without f...ng up my brain and pocket with all these patents and royalties. So open and royalty free codec in a browser is a must. For the very same reason I seriously dislike MS and Apple. Hopefully they will die by horrible death. Together with mpeg la.
              2) DRM? Are you kidding? That's for those moron dinosaurs who still can't get idea their work on content copying costs nothing as of 2013. If you have to resort to DRM, this implies your business model is screwed up and about to die. It's like forcing someone to buy your wares using a gun to make your wares more attractive. It's not going to work well in long term anyway. You see, those who really want to pirate something never had any troubles with DRM. It only screws up legal users. And increases temption to use pirated content which is never comes with DRM. So pirated content not just cheaper. It also haves better quality due to lack of DRM. Then those idiots complain about piracy. Hey, maye you just show your face to your customers? Showing your butt to your customers would result in getting some painful kicks, lol. There is fairly simple way to kill piracy: make content cheap and convenient to use. Piracy would decline on it's own. If you screw up, there is demand to unscrew. Pirates just serve this demand, nothing more, nothing less.
              Last edited by 0xBADCODE; 01-27-2013, 09:32 AM.

              Comment


              • #17
                Originally posted by liam View Post
                Microsoft is only relevant on the desktop, now.
                And Valve seems to have some good "gifts" for these stubborn nuts from redmond. Seriously, how many times you think you can screw up your customers before they'll give you a boot? MS seems to perform their self-destruction plan really well at this point. It's just amazing how many people became unhappy with their products recently.

                Comment


                • #18
                  Why do we care what the ITU does or doesn't approve?

                  Isn't this the same ITU that just tried to take over the internet, because they're afraid of losing their oversized profits? Shouldn't we all just ignore it and let it sink to irrelevance like it deserves?

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Originally posted by dee. View Post
                    Why do we care what the ITU does or doesn't approve?

                    Isn't this the same ITU that just tried to take over the internet, because they're afraid of losing their oversized profits? Shouldn't we all just ignore it and let it sink to irrelevance like it deserves?
                    Yeah, screw the statists at the ITU. The internet's thriving because of the lack of government interference. The areas where it is suffering is mainly from copyrights and patents like with codecs and media content (aka, government intervention). Naturally, they wanted to ruin a great thing.

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      Originally posted by Prescience500 View Post
                      Yeah, screw the statists at the ITU. The internet's thriving because of the lack of government interference. The areas where it is suffering is mainly from copyrights and patents like with codecs and media content (aka, government intervention). Naturally, they wanted to ruin a great thing.
                      Ok, so I guess we should just ignore that it was partially thanks to government intervention that ITU's (which is not a part of any particular government) plans were foiled, but ok.

                      So anyway. Yeah. Patents are bad.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X