Printable View
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by deanjo
Copyright is a form of ownership.
A license is a contract between the copyright owner and a third party, allowing the third party to use a certain work in a way which is usually prohibited by copyright.
Copyright prevents you from doing thing, a license (like the name implies) allows you to do things.
No. Algorithms are mathematics. There is no conceptual difference between "inventing" FFT or LZW compression and "inventing" calculus or that 2+2 = 4.Quote:
Originally Posted by RealNC
They both boil down to turning numbers into numbers through some mathematical operations. You don't invent this, because you don't invent numbers. You simply observe what happens to them.
Ok, maybe you've a valid point here. And I'll respect it.Quote:
Video codecs don't protect anything, they compress digital video. H264 is as (in)secure as WebM.
I've a svn revision from ffmpeg I compiled yesterday afternoon, along with vpx-git and h264-git (13-1-2010), and so far, the performance of the ffmpeg's h264 decoder/encoder still seems much better to me than vp8.Quote:
I don't think you tried any recent ffmpeg build including ffvp8. Exact comparisons are hard for it's difficult to find two video samples that could be considered equivalent, but in general terms there are no big differences. The same x264 developer you no doubt took your comments about visual quality from (at least indirectly), could also tell you that "While there [is] no particular reason that [WebM] should be much faster than a good H.264 decoder, it shouldn’t have been that much slower either!". Google's official implementation also got quicker lately (it actually is an ongoing process), and the next (current?) release of libvp8 will focus on encoding speed.
So, why to use an inferior solution if you already have one already proven? In the future, Internet will also stream high quality HD content to your PC, and that future isn't just too far.Quote:
As for visual quality, it's not like there's a limit on how good a video can look like, you just throw more bits at it. So yes, WebM is no better than x264 at the same bit rate (although it probably is superior to the worse H264 implementations), but that's not the point. Obviously Google considers the codec to be good enough such as to not care having to deal with the little overhead its use represents over the best H264 implementation in the universe. I'd like to know whether all those people repeating what DS said in his infamous analysis actually did any tests of their own. I know I did, and the codec rocks. Sure it encodes slow, sure it doesn't surpass x264, but it really is good. Actually, if you don't use presets it's quite easy to screw up your x264 encoding and end up with a less-than-optimal size; why is everybody so concerned about this when most of the time the video content found in the web are nothing more than horrible encodings?
If you don't understand me, like the Spanish king said: "Porque no te callas?".Quote:
I can't understand you, sorry. I think you're arguing something around the lines of "everybody uses H264, so everybody must use it", or something. Be it as it may, I don't think this battle is lost, and Google people, with all the data they have available regarding browser market share and net usage, apparently agree.
And like I said before, respect others' opinions.
My final answer to this thread: Google for me is almost as _EVIL_ as Apple of Microsoft; the only difference is they are better influencing people to use their things than rivals. And VP8 also doesn't convince me in terms of patents and other things, because it's made by Google, and someday, if they change their minds (like they did with privacy some time ago)... I believe Google is going to start to charge their codec in a way similar to what MPEG-LA is doing with H264 (but that's just my personal opinion).
Finnaly, I'm getting sick this thread is turning into a "flame war".
Cheers
p.s. If you're going to answer me Google is not _EVIL_ and why I use Google software:
1- You didn't read their privacy policy.
2- ATM, is the best browser I can use on Linux.
First, you have to consider encoding and decoding separately. Perhaps you may want to put numbers to your assertions and explain why current decoding performance differences between VP8 and x264 are significant to the topic at hand. Encoding is slower, yes, but you should only expect improvements with time. Another issue is that somehow the only encoding implementation of WebM available so far is being compared to the absolute best H264 implementation. I'm not sure how fair that is.Quote:
Originally Posted by evolution
Because this isn't just a technical issue. I guess you can find a lot of examples in the choices you make daily where technical merit is not the only variable under consideration. Cost comes to mind, for instance. Why don't you have the best desktop computer available in the market? Best laptop? Best HD TV? This is not entirely different.Quote:
Originally Posted by evolution
See, I was only being polite when I said I hadn't understood you. Another way to put it would be saying that what you wrote is an incoherent mass of words. You had, twice, the opportunity to explain yourself properly. Instead, you decided to play the victim of some attack that did never take place.Quote:
Originally Posted by evolution
As for your question, basically I won't shut up because this is a public forum. Deal with it.
1. I agree that most user video on the web is junky. Finally, though, webcams are getting better and using better optics (Zeiss, Schneider, etc.). It's way past time--we needed that for years! Still, we have USB2 tech (at best)--never very good for video.
2. I can't believe that H.264, a very complex format, has that great a footprint on the web yet. The format does need quite a PC or Mac to edit or burn to Blu-Ray. Even then, at the consumer level, video and audio may prove to be out of sync. (Perhaps that has improved.)
My point: Thus, don't "artistes," funded by the DRM-lovin' media industry, now create virtually all of that footprint? H.264 isn't really ready for "prime time" at the consumer level. (It's somewhat usable without editing and simply burning the H.264 (AVCHD) file to DVD.)
3. Laptops, very hobbled by limited video, generally can't easily allow editing of H.264. After all, people nowadays generally desire to use laptops as a "Swiss Army Knife" computer. (The public tends to believe that laptops should now be able to do anything a PC can. Generally, though, aren't laptops intended for businesspeople?) I have a friend who struggled with this and H.264: The laptop froze.
(An aside: HDV (High-def tape) doesn't require a really great PC to edit. Basically, it transfers with firewire, etc.--as before. HDV and its formats are very similar to DV and such cameras can even use miniDV tapes. Time proven and relatively easy to process, tape still provides the best image, also: Tape still is King!)
I have to throw in with those here in favor of Google. Don't we still desire output on the web from ordinary people--some actually offering good (though perhaps not great) quality in video and audio--as well as the slick sophistication and "bling" from the media industry? Do we really want what (always) we generally get from movies, TV, and radio?: Media pretty much devoid of individuals' voices and images? Media, at the very least, "shepherded" by media bigwigs and image pros? I'm very afraid that accepting H.264 and other difficult formats as unquestioned HD standards reinforces big media hegemony--yet again. Thanks! :rolleyes:
Ups.. Sorry :p. Burst of emotion, or, mad. I just find it unbearable, stuff relating about patents and the like.Quote:
Originally Posted by evolution
And I agree with your point #4: patents stop technology progress.
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by yotambien
Yep. Like I can't use Java, C, Ruby or whatever language to write code with that thingy-wingy-patented thing, right, right?? Heck, even can use my 'ballpoint on a blank paper', heh.Quote:
Originally Posted by yotambien
opt into the html5 beta.Quote:
Originally Posted by evolution
youtube html5
that will remove the need for flash.
closed source propriatary codecs only do one thing, they hobble everyone but the people who can afford the liscense. Plus It completely stiffles inovation and shove content creation in the hands of to few people.
since google is basically giving the codec its using away forever in the liscensing.
Its pretty much going to become the defacto stanard and soon.
Get over it.
I believe this is a fallacy. First of all, an algorithm is not the same as an abstract mathematical expression. It is effectively the design plan of a computing machine. Now, the designs of machines can be patented, and this is a perfectly reasonable state of affairs. If they could not, it would be difficult to justify inventing many of them, and harder still to justify the publication of their workings to all and sundry. The patent system is intended to promote the publishing of design plans so people can study how they work, and it is very good at this. The inventor is given a monopoly on their invention to recoup the investment they made in building it, which provides the incentive. This is fair, and the world is better off overall for having the patent system.Quote:
Originally Posted by pingufunkybeat
The fact that people (mostly free software zealots, it appears) want corporations to spend huge sums of money developing these things and then to just give them away for free is unreasonable and illogical. Just because software is not a physical good does not mean it did not cost money to make, or that the inventors don't need/deserve to recoup their investment.
Second of all, the argument that "software == mathematics" is getting very tired. Almost anything (including things which are, and should be, patentable) could be conceptually reduced to a series of logical statements if you think about it the right way, so there is no real relevance. Mathematics is the statement of abstract truth, whereas software is a machine which produces a specific result. From this point of view there is very little similarity.