Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 26

Thread: Google's New VP8 Codec SDK Is Better, Faster

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,636

    Default Google's New VP8 Codec SDK Is Better, Faster

    Phoronix: Google's New VP8 Codec SDK Is Better, Faster

    Following Google opening up the VP8 video codec specification in May and launching the WebM container format, in July the developers behind FFmpeg created the ffvp8 decoder that was much faster than Google's own VP8 decoding library. Google has now, however, provided a new version of the VP8 Codec SDK that they have codenamed "Aylesbury" and it's designed to be better and much faster than their original release...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=ODc0MQ

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    60

    Default

    FFMPEGs implementation still has its pros: it does not just use x86 optimizations, but also leverages existing DSP code for other platforms. For example I don't see any mention of ARM NEON optimizations done by Google, so they do not yet care about Android phones.

    And Google has yet to prove that WebM is any better on the patent front than H.264. How comes there have been no news on this since May?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    845

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sturmflut View Post
    And Google has yet to prove that WebM is any better on the patent front than H.264. How comes there have been no news on this since May?
    What do you mean? The only way someone can PROVE there's no patent infringement is in a court of law. Obviously Google wouldn't release Webm if they thought it was a patent liability, so only way we will find out for sure is if someone (MPEGLA) tries to sue them and then having it decided in court.

    On the licencing side Webm is of course 100% better than h264 since Google gives everyone a worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free patent license to use Webm.

    Great to see they're improving on the codec, a free web video codec evens the playing field and allows video content sites without huge backing capital to compete.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    2,145

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by XorEaxEax View Post
    On the licencing side Webm is of course 100% better than h264 since Google gives everyone a worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free patent license to use Webm.
    Actually, the license was cooler than that.... it contained a single exception that overrode everything else -- if you look at it with the intention of, or use information pulled from it to attack google, then screw you, you have no right to even THINK about it and we'll sue your ass for license/copyright infringement until you're bankrupt.

    Now the real situation regarding patents and licensing is like this;
    Google it the one facing mpeg on this, effectively protecting everyone else. If mpeg attacks google, google is simply too big and no doubt has a bunch of patents in its portfolio that can PROBABLY be used to free up h.264. mpeg surely wouldn't attack google on this because if they did, google could probably force them to let h.264 out under GOOGLE'S licensing terms.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut,USA
    Posts
    980

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by droidhacker View Post
    Actually, the license was cooler than that.... it contained a single exception that overrode everything else -- if you look at it with the intention of, or use information pulled from it to attack google, then screw you, you have no right to even THINK about it and we'll sue your ass for license/copyright infringement until you're bankrupt.

    Now the real situation regarding patents and licensing is like this;
    Google it the one facing mpeg on this, effectively protecting everyone else. If mpeg attacks google, google is simply too big and no doubt has a bunch of patents in its portfolio that can PROBABLY be used to free up h.264. mpeg surely wouldn't attack google on this because if they did, google could probably force them to let h.264 out under GOOGLE'S licensing terms.
    I am also sure other companies might come to Google's aid if it was sued, if they hold other relevant patents or technology that can bolster Google's claims. In any event it's positive that MPEGLA will be thinking very hard about all the ramifications of even considering suing Google.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,587

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by droidhacker View Post
    Actually, the license was cooler than that.... it contained a single exception that overrode everything else -- if you look at it with the intention of, or use information pulled from it to attack google, then screw you, you have no right to even THINK about it and we'll sue your ass for license/copyright infringement until you're bankrupt.
    Where do you see this nonsense?

    Here is the IP exception:

    "This implementation" means the copyrightable works distributed by Google as part of the WebM Project.
    Google hereby grants to you a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in this section) patent license to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell, import, transfer, and otherwise run, modify and propagate the contents of this implementation of VP8, where such license applies only to those patent claims, both currently owned by Google and acquired in the future, licensable by Google that are necessarily infringed by this implementation of VP8. This grant does not include claims that would be infringed only as a consequence of further modification of this implementation. If you or your agent or exclusive licensee institute or order or agree to the institution of patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that this implementation of VP8 or any code incorporated within this implementation of VP8 constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, or inducement of patent infringement, then any patent rights granted to you under this License for this implementation of VP8 shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.
    All this does is simply revokes the suing parties use of patents that are part of WebM's portfolio. It does not, as you claim, "if you look at it with the intention of, or use information pulled from it to attack google, then screw you, you have no right to even THINK about it and we'll sue your ass for license/copyright infringement until you're bankrupt."

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    60

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by XorEaxEax View Post
    The only way someone can PROVE there's no patent infringement is in a court of law.
    No, it's called "patent research", and every company does either before they start developing something, or before they publish it.

    Quote Originally Posted by XorEaxEax View Post
    Obviously Google wouldn't release Webm if they thought it was a patent liability
    Google is ALWAYS acting quite naive on the patent front. That's why they're being sued by Oracle over Dalvik now. A whole patent war has started around Android.

    Nowadays it is extremely hard to develop a high-tech product which does not infringe any patents. Every major company lost at least one patent suit against somebody because they forgot/overlooked a patent. WebM is so similar to H.264, it is simply not possible that it does not infringe a whole bunch of MPEGLA patents. The FFMPEG guys showed us those similarities months ago, and Google never responded.

    Quote Originally Posted by XorEaxEax View Post
    On the licencing side Webm is of course 100% better than h264 since Google gives everyone a worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free patent license to use Webm.
    Google could only give you that kind of license if they actually owned the patents, or settled an agreement with all parties owning patents.

    The MPEGLA is IMO just keeping quiet for two reasons: They need some competition to win the monopoly law suit against Nero (how could you be a monopoly if there is another good video codec offered free of charge?), and as soon as that is over and WebM has gained some ground the patent suits will start going. Just like AMD is Intels protection against a monopoly lawsuit.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    845

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sturmflut View Post
    No, it's called "patent research", and every company does either before they start developing something, or before they publish it.
    Just because someone has been granted a patent does not mean that it will be UPHELD IN LAW. That is were a court comes in, please just look it up.

    Quote Originally Posted by sturmflut View Post
    Google is ALWAYS acting quite naive on the patent front. That's why they're being sued by Oracle over Dalvik now. A whole patent war has started around Android.
    Because someone is being sued doesn't mean they are being naive, are Microsoft naive? Apple? They are all being sued, so what's your point? Also, while Oracle mentioned patents when they first started sueing, now it seems to be about copyright violation.

    Quote Originally Posted by sturmflut View Post
    WebM is so similar to H.264, it is simply not possible that it does not infringe a whole bunch of MPEGLA patents. The FFMPEG guys showed us those similarities months ago, and Google never responded.
    Noone knows who holds the patents on those 'similarities', since ON2 which is the company Google bought has lots of patents on video encoding and they existed before MPEGLA there's no reason to think these patents belong to MPEGLA (if these techniques are even patented at all). You of course draw those conclusions because you want to, same as the original x264 author you were referring to did), despite him claiming that he had no idea if the techniques were patented or not or by whom because he by his own accord don't give a crap about patents.

    Quote Originally Posted by sturmflut View Post
    Google could only give you that kind of license if they actually owned the patents, or settled an agreement with all parties owning patents.
    They're obviously certain that they are not violating anyone else's patents, if they are or not can AGAIN only be decided in a court of LAW.

    Quote Originally Posted by sturmflut View Post
    The MPEGLA is IMO just keeping quiet for two reasons: They need some competition to win the monopoly law suit against Nero (how could you be a monopoly if there is another good video codec offered free of charge?), and as soon as that is over and WebM has gained some ground the patent suits will start going. Just like AMD is Intels protection against a monopoly lawsuit.
    I think this is just wishful thinking on your part, future will tell.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,937

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sturmflut View Post
    And Google has yet to prove that WebM is any better on the patent front than H.264. How comes there have been no news on this since May?
    I'm guessing it's because the patent trolling was just a pile of FUD.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    772

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
    I'm guessing it's because the patent trolling was just a pile of FUD.
    As far as I remember, MPEG LA never even claimed that they did have patents covering WebM, just that they were "looking into" creating a WebM patent pool. The only stronger claim I saw came from an x.264 developer who was basically just making an argument from incredulity ("VP8 is simply way too similar to H.264"), while the rest of his post made it pretty obvious that On2 was trying very hard to avoid techniques patented by others.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •