Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

VP9 Codec Now Enabled By Default In Chrome

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

  • #41
    Originally posted by plonoma View Post
    What about any OpenCL decoders that use the GPU.
    They don't really exist, because OpenCL (and anything accessing the GPU hardware) doesn't work very well for single-threaded code, and a large portion of the workload for modern codecs is single threaded.

    You can offload some of the later stages of decoding onto the GPU, but if you've got dedicated hardware for the early stages it makes sense to just do it all at once to save power anyway.

    Comment


    • #42
      Originally posted by dee. View Post
      we're going to have each content producer producing their own system
      I think they'll likely all settle on a single system, which will be part of the OS.

      That's a defeatist attitude. Of course what you think matters. Not very much, but some anyway. If enough people are tell Google, Microsoft &co. that we don't want this shit in our internet, they'll have to back down.
      No. They don't care what you say, it's what you DO that matters. If enough people boycott them and their services, they'll change it. No ones actually going to do that. It will just come down to a bunch of people yelling on the internet, and that's certainly nothing new, and nothing that will change anything.

      For the record, I DO blame Google, and I DO blame the W3C. They could stop this idiocy, if Microsoft and Netflix alone tried to implement this, it wouldn't go far, but Google has lots of influence on web standards now that they have their own browser which has huge market share...
      The only way to stop it is to keep Flash around, and it was clear when Apple banned it from iOS that Flash wasn't going to be a long term solution.

      Therefore, you've got Flash still hanging around on the desktop, while all the mobile sites have switched to custom apps.

      Dreaming that DRM will suddenly go away if Google just avoids it is just that - a dream. There's nothing to suggest there's even a tiny possibility this might happen. All signs point in the opposite direction.

      Sorry.

      Comment


      • #43
        Originally posted by JohnAStebbins View Post
        Hrm

        Resulting encode speed 1 minute per frame.

        Did I do something wrong?
        Nope, as is the case with the current h265 reference encoder from franhofer, the VP9 encoder is pretty much unoptimized at this point (not surprising as one would likely wait with large optimizations until the codec is finalized as it wasn't until two days ago) and as such the current encoders are insanely slow.

        That said, now that the codecs are finalized, heavy optimization of their implementations will likely commence.

        Comment


        • #44
          Originally posted by dee. View Post
          That's a defeatist attitude. Of course what you think matters. Not very much, but some anyway. If enough people are tell Google, Microsoft &co. that we don't want this shit in our internet, they'll have to back down.
          Of course it's going to happen, like Smitty said, the only way we can vote is with our wallets and feets, and we're not, just look at the huge success of Netflix.

          As long as Hollywood will distribute content on the web, and as long as users will flock around that content, we will have DRM.

          Now all video providers wants a piece of the Netflix cake, which is obviously the future as far as Hollywood style content distribution goes, and as such there is a desire to provide at 'standard' DRM mechanism through HTML5 through which this commercial content can be distributed.

          I don't see why you think this somehow changes the situation, Hollywood will never allow their content to be distributed DRM free, no one can make them change their minds, that includes Google.

          That doesn't mean that there won't be DRM free options for non-Hollywood/commercial content, like user videos on Youtube.

          Your scaremongering of Google putting DRM on ALL youtube videos because of DRM in HTML5 makes no sense, they could already have done that ages ago through the flash container. If they do, I will be right there screaming along with you.

          Google not fighting commercial content DRM is hardly 'murder', they have no say in the matter, they can go along or be excluded from the Hollywood content 'pie'.

          Commercial content DRM is an unfortunate fact, and will continue to be so, until the day people stop watching DRM laden Hollywood content. But again as we see with the popularity of sites like Netflix, that's not going to happen anytime soon, if ever.

          And this is the crux of the matter, people want this content, video service providers wants to sell this content to people, and Hollywood will only allow this distribution to happen if it's enladen with DRM.

          If HTML5 doesn't support DRM, then the only outcome will be that commercial content will continue to be distributed using other DRM mechanisms, it won't suddenly 'force' Hollywood to distribute their content DRM free.

          That won't really make it a lick better for the alternative operating systems, (and to make this clear, I'm a full-time Linux and Haiku user), meanwhile standarizing HTML5 video atleast means 'we' (alternative OS users) won't need proprietary plugins for non-DRM laden video content, which is what is really the important thing for me.

          Originally posted by dee. View Post
          but Google has lots of influence on web standards now that they have their own browser which has huge market share...
          Which would just dwindle should they not support DRM and allow it's users to access commercial content sites, again the problem here is that people WANT this content, a message saying 'this doesn't work on your browser because we don't support HTML5 DRM' will simply mean that the user switches browser, rather than saying: -'gee, I will forego this content I wanted because DRM is really not in my best interests, thanks Google'.

          Again the problem is with Hollywood's non-wavering demands on DRM, I guess the 'best' thing you could do to get your point across if you can't live without the content is to pirate it (not that it's likely they'll get the message anyway, their response is probably STRONGER DRM!).

          Comment


          • #45
            Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
            I think they'll likely all settle on a single system, which will be part of the OS.
            No, because the EME (the HTML5 DRM scheme) doesn't work that way. It doesn't define any particular DRM scheme or even a protocol for one. It only defines a way to load arbitrary plugins on the fly to the browser. These plugins are basically black boxes, closed source modules that your browser loads to your computer from the webpage you're visiting. Due to being black boxes, they can pretty much do anything - but hey, don't worry, it's not like the DRM folks would ever do anything shady on your computer, such as install rootkits. Oh wait...

            So then, there will be several competing content protection rackets, with each content service probably coming up with their own solution. Microsoft-owned services will likely only support Microsoft OS's and devices, Apple services will only support apple OS/hardware, etc.

            The misguided sheep are bleating, "oh, EME is good! It allows us to get rid of the proprietary, closed plugins, and settle for a common standard!" Wrong. The plugins won't go anywhere, the incompatibility and closedness won't go anywhere. The only thing that happens is that there will be an API for the plugins to be loaded to your browser on the fly. The whole problem with incompatibility and platform dependence will stay.

            No. They don't care what you say, it's what you DO that matters. If enough people boycott them and their services, they'll change it. No ones actually going to do that. It will just come down to a bunch of people yelling on the internet, and that's certainly nothing new, and nothing that will change anything.
            Enough people yelling on the internet has changed things before. Why do you think corporations put huge sums in PR and image development? Because when you're a large corporation, reputation is money. The way people talk about you on the internet directly affets your bottom line. Google doesn't want any bad publicity, anymore than any other large corporation who sells products wants it.

            The only way to stop it is to keep Flash around, and it was clear when Apple banned it from iOS that Flash wasn't going to be a long term solution.
            No, there's another way - forget DRM. Let the content producers die if they're unable to adapt to the future, we don't have to pander to them. DRM is pointless anyway, it only harms users and encourages piracy (which would you choose: watch that video streamed on a DRM-riddled website, or just torrent it as a DRM-free video file and watch it with your favorite video player?)

            Therefore, you've got Flash still hanging around on the desktop, while all the mobile sites have switched to custom apps.
            And do you think EME is going to make that better, and if so, how?

            Dreaming that DRM will suddenly go away if Google just avoids it is just that - a dream. There's nothing to suggest there's even a tiny possibility this might happen. All signs point in the opposite direction.

            Sorry.
            Didn't you hear what I said? There's very little chance that Microsoft & Netflix alone could bring up this DRM thing without the help of Google. If Google refused to support the standard on any of their platforms, then it'd just be another quirky thing IE does...

            DRM will go away eventually. Right now we have DRM because the big media empires (hollywood &c.) don't understand internet and want to control it. But Google is now officially part of the problem, not the solution.

            Comment


            • #46
              Originally posted by XorEaxEax View Post
              That won't really make it a lick better for the alternative operating systems, (and to make this clear, I'm a full-time Linux and Haiku user), meanwhile standarizing HTML5 video atleast means 'we' (alternative OS users) won't need proprietary plugins for non-DRM laden video content, which is what is really the important thing for me.
              You're mistaken. EME will not make DRM platform-independent. You will still need plugins, it's just that they will be loaded on your browser on the fly from the DRM'ed webpages. These plugins will still be 100% proprietary and closed, you will have no idea what they do on your computer.

              Which would just dwindle should they not support DRM and allow it's users to access commercial content sites
              NO, because this thing wouldn't even become a standard without Google's cooperation. Websites wouldn't start using it if only Microsoft browsers supported it - not at this day and age, we're not in the 90s anymore.

              Again the problem is with Hollywood's non-wavering demands on DRM, I guess the 'best' thing you could do to get your point across if you can't live without the content is to pirate it (not that it's likely they'll get the message anyway, their response is probably STRONGER DRM!).
              Yeah. And Google is now officially part of that problem.

              Comment


              • #47
                Originally posted by dee. View Post
                No, there's another way - forget DRM. Let the content producers die if they're unable to adapt to the future, we don't have to pander to them.
                LOL. You've nicely ignored everything I've said, and it's clear this conversation is going nowhere. Anyway... VP9 looks cool, doesn't it?

                Comment


                • #48
                  Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
                  LOL. You've nicely ignored everything I've said,
                  No, it actually looks like you're ignoring everything I've said. Oh well

                  Comment


                  • #49
                    Originally posted by dee. View Post
                    You're mistaken. EME will not make DRM platform-independent.
                    I never said that it would make DRM platform-independant, I stated that we won't need plugins for 'non-DRM' content (read what you quoted), particularly if HTML5 standarizes around a royalty free open codec like VP9, which can be shipped in any browser, foss product, alternative operating system etc, free of charge.

                    Originally posted by dee. View Post
                    Websites wouldn't start using it if only Microsoft browsers supported it - not at this day and age, we're not in the 90s anymore.
                    Websites would then just use the existing proprietary plugins to deliver DRM content, which would then also be used to deliver non-DRM laden content, thus keeping us in the proprietary plugin (flash, hello!) dark ages even for content which doesn't use DRM.

                    So I see no practical win in your scenario. As it is now, atleast with a HTML5 video standard we can get non-DRM encumbered online video on ALL platforms without the need of proprietary plugins like flash being 'de facto' standards for online video distribution.

                    Yes, DRM content will require proprietary plugins, as always, and it will only be supported on mainstream systems which Hollywood see fit to target, as always. Nothing new here, and certainly nothing which would have changed if W3C would have refused DRM mechanisms in the HTML5 standard.

                    Again, what is instead good with HTML5 is that a proprietary plugin won't be needed to access non-DRM encumbered video anymore. That's what we (as alternate OS users) gain, getting access to Hollywood content (which always uses DRM) was never on the table to begin with.

                    Comment


                    • #50
                      Originally posted by XorEaxEax View Post
                      I never said that it would make DRM platform-independant, I stated that we won't need plugins for 'non-DRM' content (read what you quoted), particularly if HTML5 standarizes around a royalty free open codec like VP9, which can be shipped in any browser, foss product, alternative operating system etc, free of charge.
                      Sorry, too much text, skimming through, my bad.

                      HTML5-video is obviously a good thing, but we don't need EME for that to happen. Non-DRM content can be shown as HTML5-video without it. It already is, in many places. I don't see how EME has any effect on non-DRM content? All it will do is make things worse.

                      Websites would then just use the existing proprietary plugins to deliver DRM content, which would then also be used to deliver non-DRM laden content, thus keeping us in the proprietary plugin (flash, hello!) dark ages even for content which doesn't use DRM.
                      Why do you think that would be any better with EME?

                      So I see no practical win in your scenario. As it is now, atleast with a HTML5 video standard we can get non-DRM encumbered online video on ALL platforms without the need of proprietary plugins like flash being 'de facto' standards for online video distribution.
                      What practical win do you see with EME? Why do you think it would make content producers more likely to offer non-DRM content via HTML5? EME doesn't suddenly remove flash from existence, it only gives websites a way to insert black box plugins in your browser that you have no way of controlling, no way of auditing or figuring out what they really do. Websites that offer DRM content will still use proprietary plugins to stream video, only these plugins will be loaded to your browser on the fly. Why do you think they won't just save time and use those same plugins to show non-DRM content as well? If EME becomes a standard, why wouldn't they?

                      Yes, DRM content will require proprietary plugins, as always, and it will only be supported on mainstream systems which Hollywood see fit to target, as always. Nothing new here, and certainly nothing which would have changed if W3C would have refused DRM mechanisms in the HTML5 standard.
                      But at least we wouldn't have black box plugins in our browsers.

                      Again, what is instead good with HTML5 is that a proprietary plugin won't be needed to access non-DRM encumbered video anymore. That's what we (as alternate OS users) gain, getting access to Hollywood content (which always uses DRM) was never on the table to begin with.
                      I've never had any problem with HTML5, I think HTML5 is great. EME is not however, it threatens the security and freedom of the entire internet. It threatens to divide the internet to platform-dependent portions. More than it already has been...

                      Right now, flash content at least can be viewed on Linux. You can bet that any EME plugin will not run on any OS that doesn't implement some form of draconian "trusted computing" to prevent screen recordings and such. I'm sure Canonical will be happy to jump through that hoop, though...

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X