FFmpeg 7.0 Released With Native VVC Decoding & Multi-Threaded CLI

[ssokolow]

If you think more people are needing and actually buying and using Adobe premiere compared to people using VLC, you really must have lost touch with reality.

Unless VLC has become much more bloated than I remember it already being, that's about as nonsensical as the joke from the Where The Hell Is Matt "my fake TED talk was fake. I didn't really fake my travel." interview where he says he did all the VFX in photoshop and then he and the interviewer escalate the joke to doing VFX in Excel. It's like calling WinAMP a VFX tool just because it can be used as the playlist source for a Shoutcast/Icecast server.

There isn't and never has been. Why are you so desperate, spreading such obvious lies? Sure, the h264 encoder on the Raspberries has always been abysmal, that's why they removed it from the Pi 5. But at no point was there ever firmware enforcing DRM (as in digital rights management, not direct rendering manager!) and never where you required to connect anything to your Pi to use the hardware encoders. Jesus, you are desperate.

I don't know if the newest versions still have it, but the official schematics show the ATSHA204A crypto chip used analogously to a SNES CIC lockout chip and people talk about it.

[qarium]

Copyright, patents, and trademarks are completely independent systems. x264 is good on the copyright front, but not the patent front.
(Originally, copyright was for books and maps and patents were for machine designs. The overlap happened when copyright lobbyists and patent lobbyists both convinced the U.S. government that their scopes should be expanded to cover software, but they're still independent systems.)
Basically, you can legally redistribute the plans for "the x264 machine" (the source code) but, because the "mechanical mechanisms it incorporates" (the ones listed by sophisticles) are patented, you need a license to legally be able to manufacture physical machines from those plans... given the nature of open-source software, that means "you'd better have a license if you do anything where the MPEG-LA will notice".
That's actually sort of the original vision for patents. Inventors are incentivized to make their trade secrets public for anyone to read in exchange for a time-limited monopoly where even people who come up with the same thing independently still have to pay them to use it.

what people don't get here and Artim does right is the point that x264 to h264 is the same as S2TC to S3TC

and the S2TC vs S3TC is the proofen fact that something patented can be used patent free and 100% compatible at the same time.

S2TC performs this task by using different algorithms als less accurate quality means S2TC does not use any patented function but still you can put S3TC textures in a S2TC engine and render the picture and the only side effect is a little less quality of the output.

x264 does exactly this it use non-patented algorithms and metods with less accurate quality or in case of x264 even higher quality non-patented metods and the result is you can decode the result with a h264 decoder but x264 does not touch any patent at all.

of course people who do not know cases like S2TC vs S3TC could wrongfully believe X264 is patented but it is clearly not the case.

now the problem a end-user watch videos made with x264 but also made with h264 and because of this possibility of playing h264 videos instea of x264 videos they would still be forced to pay for the patents.

I am 100% sure that someone could use x264 and the fact that most h264 patent did already expire to develop something that could play the most videos and would fully legal without pay patent fees but this would be a not so easy task.

REDHAT/IBM/FEDORA plain and simple do not want to invest money into that because for basic use OpenH264 from cisco already does the task and this much cheaper...

it would be a big surprise if MPEG-LA could win any court case if such a S2TC/X264 a mixture of free methods and algorithms and expired patents solution would emerge.

it is plain and simple legal to do so. but its also not an easy task to develop such a software with free methods and free algorithms and expired patents

[qarium]

Sure, that must be the reason why everyone except a few distros run by paranoids ships x264 binaries, yet nobody sued them. You can bet your ass, if MPEG LA can make money out of anything, they will try. See Broadcom vs Netflix and dozens of other examples.

these people plain and simple do not understand the S2TC vs S3TC case
S2TC was never patented and always free to use and the only downside to use S2TC with S3TC Textures was lower optical quality of the output.

if S2TC is legal then a software developed out of a mixture of free methods and free algorithms and expired patents is also legal.

[qarium]

It's because MPEG-LA has decided to take a "Microsoft turns a blind eye to most Windows piracy for 'opium for China' reasons" or "WinRAR's perpetual free trial" strategy. Make it the end-user's responsibility to pay for licensing for open-source implementations, and get the individuals hooked on it to build up network effects that force valuable corporate users to use H.264, which are much more cost-effective to send legal threats to.

you miss the point what is his argument he more or less claim x264 is S2TC

and S2TC was always a Patent free version of S3TC-...

most people in this thread do not understand what x264 does. x264 does reimplement h264 in a way with "free methods and free algorithms and expired patents" that is is free and not closed as the orginal h264 ...

[Artim]

Not what I said.

I said that x264, like all AVC encoders, and in fact any encoder that uses B frames or AQ or trellis or RDO is using patented technologies and you have all the proof right in front of you.

I also posted the schedule of fees as to what conditions trigger fees.

You are either trolling, in which case congratulations, you got me, i fell for your ploy or you are not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

Which is it?

You really need to catch up to reality. You are getting more and more ridiculous. x264 does not infringe any patents as it only uses free algorithms. Of course, you can try to find a court ruling that proves otherwise, but you'll be dead before you find one. But at least you wouldn't waste other people's time because you do not understand a thing.

[Artim]

The MPEG-LA, like all patent pools don't want to prohibit people from using their patents, they want to make it easy for people to use their patents so they can monetize those rights.

Thanks, this one sentence proves anything I need to know. You are naive beyond belief. The MPEG LA doesn't "want you to use their patents". All they want is money and lots of them. It goes as far as attacking any patent free codec and reimplementation of their codecs because there is a slight chance that judge/jury won't be able to understand the details and thus rule in favor of them. Or in the least, they can cause enough damage even when losing the case. If it were up to them, every human being would only use codecs they own the patents for, so they get the fees times (roughly) 8 billion. So they don't just want you to use their patents, they need you to use their patents. But that doesn't make any of their ridiculous claims less false.

Also, not every (ex) member wants to make licensing easy. I think by now there are three patent pools you'd need to make contracts with if you wanted to build a capable h265 codec: MPEG LA, Access Advance (formerly known as HEVC Advance) and Velos Media. And allegedly some major companies that you need patents from aren't in any of them, so you need even more contracts. Does this look easy to you? I think not. And no idea how bad the sittuation with h266 is. But in the end, only their own members will ever use that. They lost everyone else with their greed with h265 and their ridiculous lawsuits so there is no way in hell any company that's not part of this will ever get a license from them

[Artim]

Unless VLC has become much more bloated than I remember it already being, that's about as nonsensical as the joke from the Where The Hell Is Matt "my fake TED talk was fake. I didn't really fake my travel." interview where he says he did all the VFX in photoshop and then he and the interviewer escalate the joke to doing VFX in Excel. It's like calling WinAMP a VFX tool just because it can be used as the playlist source for a Shoutcast/Icecast server.

q.e.d. You are incapable of understanding what you read

I don't know if the newest versions still have it, but the official schematics show the ATSHA204A crypto chip used analogously to a SNES CIC lockout chip and people talk about it.

Wow, you really are that lazy so that reading the word DRM makes you not find out what exactly is DRM'd but just make up some bs? The Pi doesn't have any DRM whatsoever. But the Camera Module (maybe even only v2 onwards) does have DRM. But it has nothing to do with h264. It merely is supposed to prevent clones of their camera module to use the same sensor as they do. But this only applies to camera modules using the GPIO pins. USB cameras can do whatever the hell they want: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34316386
Also, if you wheren't that lazy, you could even have seen that in the very thread you linked: https://www.reddit.com/r/raspberry_p...mment/gs3htfp/

[ssokolow]

q.e.d. You are incapable of understanding what you read

Believe what you will. I know I'm right (Premiere is an NLE video editing package, while VLC is a media player and streaming server), and I also know that I don't care about the opinion of anyone too blind, deluded, or trollish to recognize that. Let's stop here (you can have the last word if it'll make you feel better) and leave it up to the bystanders to know who's right.

Wow, you really are that lazy so that reading the word DRM makes you not find out what exactly is DRM'd but just make up some bs? The Pi doesn't have any DRM whatsoever. But the Camera Module (maybe even only v2 onwards) does have DRM. But it has nothing to do with h264. It merely is supposed to prevent clones of their camera module to use the same sensor as they do. But this only applies to camera modules using the GPIO pins. USB cameras can do whatever the hell they want: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34316386
Also, if you wheren't that lazy, you could even have seen that in the very thread you linked: https://www.reddit.com/r/raspberry_p...mment/gs3htfp/

I'll readily admit that I forgot what the DRM did and, having not slept well in the last few days, I was negligent in re-familiarizing myself with it. That said, I think that, for most people and most cases, it's an irrelevant distinction akin to knowing the capital cities of countries you'll never have reason to care about. ...something morally good to know, but which only gets latched onto by people looking to "score points" rather than achieve concord.

[Artim]

Believe what you will. I know I'm right (Premiere is an NLE video editing package, while VLC is a media player and streaming server), and I also know that I don't care about the opinion of anyone too blind, deluded, or trollish to recognize that. Let's stop here (you can have the last word if it'll make you feel better) and leave it up to the bystanders to know who's right.

Just further proving my point that you are incapable of understanding what you read. You are completely missing the point.

I'll readily admit that I forgot what the DRM did and, having not slept well in the last few days, I was negligent in re-familiarizing myself with it. That said, I think that, for most people and most cases, it's an irrelevant distinction akin to knowing the capital cities of countries you'll never have reason to care about. ...something morally good to know, but which only gets latched onto by people looking to "score points" rather than achieve concord.

It is a very relevant distinction because it has absolutely nothing to do with this topic. Not in the slightest.

[qarium]

You really need to catch up to reality. You are getting more and more ridiculous. x264 does not infringe any patents as it only uses free algorithms. Of course, you can try to find a court ruling that proves otherwise, but you'll be dead before you find one. But at least you wouldn't waste other people's time because you do not understand a thing.

you just should tell them that x264 to h264 is the same as S2TC to S3TC its exactly the same S2TC only used free algorithms to reimplement S3TC

in case of S2TC vs S3TC the downside was lower rendering quality but in case of x264 vs h264 the rendering quality is even higher to my knowledge.