Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Netflix Now Exploring AVIF For Image Compression

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

  • Kerisun
    replied
    It can be both at the same time, can it?

    Leave a comment:


  • bug77
    replied
    Originally posted by MadeUpName View Post
    Is there actually any thing in a container that is patentable? As far as I know a container is just cutting up a file space. Bits 0 - 20 contain X, bits 21-45 contain Y etc. If that is all it is, it isn't patentable material even in a country with as F'd up of a patent system as the US.
    Some managed to patent the design of a rectangular device, so who knows?

    Leave a comment:


  • shmerl
    replied
    All it says it that Nokia allow using their patents for free with this implementation, but that doesn't mean those are the only patents attached? Given MPEG history, I'm not sure this is enough.

    Leave a comment:


  • skierpage
    replied
    Originally posted by MadeUpName View Post
    Is there actually any thing in a container that is patentable? As far as I know a container is just cutting up a file space. Bits 0 - 20 contain X, bits 21-45 contain Y etc. If that is all it is, it isn't patentable material even in a country with as F'd up of a patent system as the US.
    The HEIF site links to Nokia Tech's GitHub repository for an implementation of HEIF reader/writer, whose LICENSE.txt says

    Nokia Technologies Ltd (“Nokia”) hereby grants to you a non-sublicensable, perpetual, worldwide,
    non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in this license) license,
    under its copyrights and Licensed Patents only to, use, run, modify (in a way that still complies
    with the Specification), and copy the Software within the Licensed Field. For the avoidance of
    doubt the Licensed Patents shall not include Codec Patents.
    So again it sounds like there's no patents involved in reading or writing the HEIF container format. It's really unfortunate that nobody clearly comes out and says this!!!

    Leave a comment:


  • shmerl
    replied
    Well, Netflix alone isn't enough to adapt a JPEG replacement. So hopefully some truly free format will emerge.

    Leave a comment:


  • quikee
    replied
    Originally posted by shmerl View Post
    Yeah, I know the difference. I'm not talking about MPEG-LA trolls, but about MPEG itself. They aren't simply accidentally pro-patenting. It's their core approach. One of their reps even complained, how he doesn't like the whole AOM development and movement to make video codecs royalty free.
    Sure, because all the companies that are flocking to MPEG, to get their patented tech into the standard and MPEG membership is not free, so that is beneficial to MPEG.

    If AOM succeeds it will show to everyone that MPEG isn't even necessary, that's why they are opposed to everything AOM stands for. Still MPEG saw that HEVC patent situation is something that can't happen again, so they are trying some different approaches regarding patents for VVC (forming an independent group of companies discussing patents before standard is finalized).

    Originally posted by shmerl View Post
    Anyway, if HEIF is indeed free to use now, then great, but again, why even bother with MPEG formats which are always a suspect, let them take something from WebM like WebP did and etc.
    Good question. Probably just to not duplicate something they can freely use (so they can concentrate on the AV1 codec instead). HEIF is overly complex, but there are free open source libraries already available, which they can just take. HEIF was also designed to be codec agnostic (thus container) so putting AV1 in wasn't a problem. Netflix also has the infrastructure based around MP4, that's why you can get AV1 and VP9 in MP4 already, and they the one that are pushing AVIF currently.

    Regarding WebM and WebP - WebM is based on Matroska, but WebP is a simple RIFF container, so they can't just take what WebP has. Would be interesting if they extended Matroska, but I don't think it's too bad that they took HEIF. Generally I must say AV1 developers seem to me to have quite low interest in AVIF.

    Leave a comment:


  • MadeUpName
    replied
    Is there actually any thing in a container that is patentable? As far as I know a container is just cutting up a file space. Bits 0 - 20 contain X, bits 21-45 contain Y etc. If that is all it is, it isn't patentable material even in a country with as F'd up of a patent system as the US.

    Leave a comment:


  • shmerl
    replied
    Originally posted by quikee View Post
    It's not MPEG that slaps patents everywhere. Generally MPEG is just a engineering group, under which everybody is free to participate. The problem are the ISO rules under which they operate, prohibits them to dismiss something on any other than technological ground, so they can't dismiss something because it is patented and take something else. So a lot of companies send engineers to promote their patented technologies to the MPEG workshops, and the result is a standard which is heavily patented from a big bunch of companies.

    MPEG-LA is then a separate thing - just a patent pool, which has no connection to MPEG except from the name and that the purpose is to pool patents from MPEG standards, but they aren't the only one.

    Yeah, I know the difference. I'm not talking about MPEG-LA trolls, but about MPEG itself. They aren't simply accidentally pro-patenting. It's their core approach. One of their reps even complained, how he doesn't like the whole AOM development and movement to make video codecs royalty free.

    Anyway, if HEIF is indeed free to use now, then great, but again, why even bother with MPEG formats which are always a suspect, let them take something from WebM like WebP did and etc.
    Last edited by shmerl; 02-16-2020, 03:38 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • quikee
    replied
    Originally posted by shmerl View Post
    I don't think that's correct though. Knowing MPEG, they slap patents on everything, including containers. So why even bother using theirs?
    HEIF container is pretty much the same as MP4 (uses the same ISOBMFF byte stream format), which is practically the same than Apple's QT container. Apple waived all the patents and made the container royalty-free, when they contributed the specs to MPEG, so the container at least shouldn't be the problem. QT is also now a rather old thing, which I don't think has any valid patents left...

    It's not MPEG that slaps patents everywhere. Generally MPEG is just a engineering group, under which everybody is free to participate. The problem are the ISO rules under which they operate, prohibits them to dismiss something on any other than technological ground, so they can't dismiss something because it is patented and take something else. So a lot of companies send engineers to promote their patented technologies to the MPEG workshops, and the result is a standard which is heavily patented from a big bunch of companies.

    MPEG-LA is then a separate thing - just a patent pool, which has no connection to MPEG except from the name and that the purpose is to pool patents from MPEG standards, but they aren't the only one.

    Leave a comment:


  • shmerl
    replied
    Originally posted by skierpage View Post
    From that Wikpedia article: "HEIF itself is a container, and when containing images and image sequences encoded in a particular format (e.g., HEVC or H.264/AVC) its use becomes subject to the licensing of patents on the coding format". The implication is the container format itself isn't patented.
    I don't think that's correct though. Knowing MPEG, they slap patents on everything, including containers. So why even bother using theirs?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X