Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Sun Developing Open Media Stack

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 6 years ago | from the shine-it-up-and-call-it-new dept.

Sun Microsystems 99

Graftweed writes to share that Sun is working on a new open video codec called Open Media Stack (OMS). OMS video will be based on H.26x technology and promises to deliver royalty-free open video. This certainly isn't the first attempt at an open codec, hopefully Sun will decide to add something to the table beyond just their name.

cancel ×

99 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Alas, another flavour (1)

dlanod (979538) | more than 6 years ago | (#23070876)

I think it's great that this is being created, but surely I can't be the only person thinking that there is no way this is going to get any sort of traction outside of niche markets with the other codecs being so entrenched already unless there is some insanely good reason to switch (twice the compression with no noticeable quality changes or something similar)?

Re:Alas, another flavour (1)

ChrisMounce (1096567) | more than 6 years ago | (#23070990)

I fully agree (though I also fully support open formats).

What I'm wondering is what will set this apart from Theora (which was linked to in the Slashdot post). Don't we already have royalty-free video, or is what Sun working on significantly more advanced than the Theora codec?

Re:Alas, another flavour (2, Funny)

mrsteveman1 (1010381) | more than 6 years ago | (#23071574)

Probably that whole "actually being used" part that tends to cause problems

Re:Alas, another flavour (4, Informative)

Sancho (17056) | more than 6 years ago | (#23072048)

Theora is a last-generation codec. It's pretty good, but quality/compression-wise, it's comparable to DivX.

What we really want is something which is comparable to h.264.

Re:Alas, another flavour (5, Informative)

setagllib (753300) | more than 6 years ago | (#23072712)

Except that Sun's work is based on h261, because it's so old that no patents can possibly apply to it any more. Dirac is a current/next-generation codec that's also royalty free, and certainly a lot closer to completion than Sun's offering. The FAQ for OMS considers Theora and Dirac as friendly competition, which is fair enough, but really, why not just put more talent into Dirac?

Re:Alas, another flavour (1)

makomk (752139) | more than 6 years ago | (#23074976)

Dirac is based on wavelets, and I think the entire area of wavelets (being relatively new and shiny) is a total patent minefield. Sure, it's royalty-free now, but if it ever catches on the patent trolls will all come out of the woodwork and it won't stay that way for long.

Re:Alas, another flavour (1)

jd (1658) | more than 6 years ago | (#23071206)

I'm not convinced it'll go that far, for exactly that reason, unless Sun does something really spectacular. Getting it into web browsers and having Youtube switch, for example. The BBC's Dirac codec is brilliant, but they don't even use their own codec on their own website. They could. They already offer a choice of codecs, one more wouldn't break the bank. They have obviously decided that Dirac just isn't used enough to be worth offering. I don't know what they use on their iPlayer, but I don't think they even use it there, where they have control over the entire process.

Or look at images. When was the last time you saw a website where the pictures were in OpenEXR or JPEG2000 format? They're regular JPEGs, for the most part, PNGs if you're very lucky.

This isn't to denigrate the developers in the least. Most of these new formats are superb and should be written. Part of the problem is that older formats are heavily entrenched, and the other part is that the companies/groups producing this software aren't being aggressive enough. Fine, you've a new codec for stills, video or audio. You've even got a reference implementation. But how many mainstream applications can use it? What incentives are being offered to the major websites to switch? If it's audio or video, are DVD or Blu-Ray vendors being approached? Chances are the answers are 'almost none, other than firefox', 'none at all' and 'none at all'. I'm not keen on marketroids, but they have value beyond decoration, in that they can produce the initial momentum needed to start things moving.

Re:Alas, another flavour (1)

ardor (673957) | more than 6 years ago | (#23071338)

OpenEXR isnt intended for use in the web. Its a HDR format for CG, commonly used for light probes among others. But for the web?

Multimedia (2)

jd (1658) | more than 6 years ago | (#23072582)

If the web is heading in the direction of being an online virtual library and multimedia service, then yes, you want HDR. You want online photographs and mediascapes to be every bit as good as they are in other formats. Web 3.x (or whatever the latest version is under cvs) has chosen to compete with physical publishing, television and cinema. Those are tough fields to compete with, if you're operating at a significantly lower grade.

Re:Multimedia (1)

jZnat (793348) | more than 6 years ago | (#23073678)

You need to update your working copy of the Web as it is currently under git version control. Use of cvs is so Web 1.0. ;)

Re:Multimedia (1)

ardor (673957) | more than 6 years ago | (#23075084)

Photographs, sometimes. But the .hdr Format is already popular there, as are several raw formats. These are master copies, and its senseless to display them directly. Use a PNG/JPEG preview instead.

Outside these special cases, HDR has little use. PNG is perfectly ok for diagrams and other synthetic images, JPEG(2000) is perfectly ok for photograph previews and magazine scans.

Re:Alas, another flavour (2, Informative)

Skinkie (815924) | more than 6 years ago | (#23072140)

The problem with dirac was that it was to slow. At least two implementations Schrodinger and the partial not yet finished one in FFMPEG (last SoC) can offer the performance users want to have. Since there is there are now hardware (GPU and FGPA) decoders and encoders for Dirac, a browser plugin going to developed, chances are that this can be a next step in a better codec and free for all. Now I always wondered what will be the audio equivalent of Dirac ;)

Re:Alas, another flavour (3, Insightful)

atamido (1020905) | more than 6 years ago | (#23073370)

First of all, the specification and the reference implementation to produce and read back a valid stream were just finished. A month ago. After a few years of development. And it still doesn't even use all of the features, let alone efficiently.

The reason the BBC isn't using Dirac yet is that it isn't anywhere close to being ready, so it isn't actually usable in any meaningful way. Give it another year of development to get the obvious optimizations done and then the BBC may have a reason to switch to it entirely in the iPlayer. And once the millions of people that use the iPlayer to watch BBC's content prove the value of Dirac, other companies will have an incentive to use it.

Chances are that it will be used in many ways that people won't realize. For instance, Vorbis isn't well known at all in the public, but many game developers use it for audio in games. Game developers love having an open source and royalty free audio decoder with top of the line performance. When Dirac matures, they will love having an open source and royalty free video decoder with top of the line performance too.

Re:Alas, another flavour (2)

jd (1658) | more than 6 years ago | (#23074110)

The Japanese were looking at a format 30x high-definition, according to a story on Slashdot not too long ago. Dirac might be a reasonable competitor for storing or transmitting a video signal of that magnitude. Another possibility would be to have an all-digital IMAX - regular codecs aren't really up to the job of storing or delivering data of that quality and resolution. A third would be for transmitting video to hand-held devices. I'm not sure ultra-low-power buys you much after a while, but bandwidth to mobile devices is always at a premium, as is memory on the device itself. Any of these could be markets for Dirac, if sufficient research and development is put into the format and at least one implementation.

Re:Alas, another flavour (1)

tonyr60 (32153) | more than 6 years ago | (#23074062)

At least two implementations Schrodinger ....
Presumably the cat is alive in one of the implementations and dead in the other....

Re:Alas, another flavour (1)

aproposofwhat (1019098) | more than 6 years ago | (#23075264)

And once the codebases are merged?

Re:Alas, another flavour (1)

orasio (188021) | more than 6 years ago | (#23084052)

You got it all wrong. The cat is both alive and dead in both implementations.
Only when the codebases are merged, you can know for sure.
Amateurs.

Re:Alas, another flavour (1)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 6 years ago | (#23074812)

OGG Vorbis is considered to be one of the best (if not THE best) audio codec.

Re:Alas, another flavour (1)

Per Wigren (5315) | more than 6 years ago | (#23075180)

Yes, for CD-quality audio it is. The problem is that it's VERY focused at CD/music audio.

It doesn't handle multichannel audio properly. For example it doesn't have a definition of which channel belong to which speaker except for "left" and "right", and it doesn't do multi-channel "joint stereo" (comparing the channels with each other and only keeping what differs, which often is very little) compression.

It also destroys Dolby's analogue surround encoding common in 2-channel movie audio which is used by most of the 1990s home cinema equipment, because all audio data that the human ear/brain is unlikely to notice is thrown away.

Vorbis is a FANTASTIC codec for 2-channel music but not so for video audio.

Re:Alas, another flavour (2, Informative)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 6 years ago | (#23075242)

??

http://xiph.org/vorbis/doc/stereo.html [xiph.org] - there is joint stereo support in OGG.

OGG format also has 5.1 support but I have not seen it 'in the wild'.

Re:Alas, another flavour (1)

Per Wigren (5315) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076188)

Sorry, it seems that I was outdated on the multichannel channel coupling part.

I know it can support 5.1 audio but afaik there is nothing in the spec that defines which channel is center, back left, subwoofer, etc, only front left and right. So if you encode 5.1 audio as OGG/Vorbis the player may play the center channel in the right surround speaker, or similar.

I have no time to check if the spec has been updated in the last 3 years so please correct me if I'm wrong on this topic also. :)

Re:Alas, another flavour (1)

nine-times (778537) | more than 6 years ago | (#23071548)

unless there is some insanely good reason to switch (twice the compression with no noticeable quality changes or something similar)?

IMHO, it's probably a mistake to think that formats really rise or fall on technical merits. It has a lot to do with politics and trust. The two questions are: Does Sun have enough influence to get others to support this format? -and- Do people trust Sun enough to believe that this format will be around for the long haul?

If this new format were suddenly supported out-of-the-box by Windows, OSX, and major Linux distros, it would have a pretty good chance. But I don't think Sun has the clout to get support on those platforms without users having to download the codec. If MPEG put out this new codec as part of the MPEG5 standard, and it had all the benefits of h264 but was completely royalty free, people would probably gobble it up.

But yeah, if you just release a royalty-free media format and give it a silly name like, "Krogg Barfus", then don't expect people to use it unless it has some serious upsides.

Re:Alas, another flavour (3, Insightful)

AndrewStephens (815287) | more than 6 years ago | (#23072742)

Actually, I think Sun is one of the only companies that could possibly do this. Java is installed on the majority of Windows desktops, and self-updates on each new version. Sun could roll this out as part of a Java update and hardly anyone would notice. Now their only problem is getting content producers to use the codec - good luck with that.

Re:Alas, another flavour (1)

tonyr60 (32153) | more than 6 years ago | (#23074076)

Actually, I think Sun is one of the only companies that could possibly do this. Java is installed on the majority of Windows desktops, and self-updates on each new version. Sun could roll this out as part of a Java update and hardly anyone would notice.
Well if Sun follow the Apple model of including Safari in an application upgrade they are likely to include Solaris in a Java upgrade.

Re:Alas, another flavour (2, Insightful)

Tom9729 (1134127) | more than 6 years ago | (#23074218)

I might be wrong, but I don't think Java updates itself autonomously on Windows. Maybe there's a setting so it will do that, but I think by default it'll only notify/annoy you about the latest version. You (as the user) still have to give it the "go ahead" before it will install anything.

Feel free to mod me down if I'm wrong though.

Re:Alas, another flavour (1)

AndrewStephens (815287) | more than 6 years ago | (#23074356)

No, you are correct - but I guess most people just click "OK - update" and get on with their lives.

There are very few companies that actually have the power to deploy ubiquitous software - Microsoft (with Widows update), Apple (with iTunes/Quicktime), Sun (with Java update) and maybe Shockwave. Nobody else has the ability to even attempt it.

Re:Alas, another flavour (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23074410)

I seriously doubt that Java is installed on the majority of Windows desktops. That definitely hasn't been my experience. There's simply no reason for most people to install Java.

Re:Alas, another flavour (1)

AndrewStephens (815287) | more than 6 years ago | (#23075266)

Actually, you would be wrong. Java is installed by the big OEMs, and lots of people install it themselves. Sun used to claim 85-90% or something, which I am not sure I quite believe, but it is at least three quarters in my experience.

Maybe corporate desktops don't have it installed (although they would if the IT department just left the OEM base install on the hard drive), but corporate users aren't going to be downloading a new video codec not matter what anyway.

Re:Alas, another flavour (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23071612)

All they have to do is include it with the various java distributions and suddenly a billion lazy programmers have a free, well documented, easy to use, cross-platform codec that requires no additional tooling. There are libraries out there for using other codecs, but the 2 steps it takes to develop for them (download, then add library to build path) is such a huge barrier to entry they might as well not exist.

Of course they could have just supported one of the other open formats, but why would you blow tons of cash on someone else's failed format when you can have your very own stillborn one? The grief is just so much more personal that way.

Open source? (-1, Troll)

billy901 (1158761) | more than 6 years ago | (#23070950)

I wonder if this codec will be usable on other OS's or if Sun is just going to hog it to themselves, like their "open source" operating system which is not actually open source.

Re:Open source? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23071060)

... like their "open source" operating system which is not actually open source.
OpenSolaris is certified Open Source [opensolaris.org] and there are already a half-dozen distributions based on OpenSolaris such as Nexenta [nexenta.org] and Schillix [berlios.de] . If you don't like Sun's management, fork the code and roll your own distro.

Re:Open source? (-1, Troll)

fimbulvetr (598306) | more than 6 years ago | (#23071126)

LOL, "Certified open source".

Much like how you can buy "Official" gold eagle dollars from those infomercials. By "Official" they mean minted by the govn't of liberia.

Re:Open source? (2, Informative)

Sancho (17056) | more than 6 years ago | (#23072066)

Oh, to have mod points for you.

Some people just don't understand that "Open Source" doesn't mean "license-compatible with my license of choice."

SLASHDOT SUX0RZ (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23070986)

_0_
\''\
'=o='
.|!|
.| |
open media [goatse.ch]

Just their name (5, Funny)

DennisZeMenace (131127) | more than 6 years ago | (#23071064)

> hopefully Sun will decide to add something to
> the table beyond just their name.

The *Java* Sun Open Media Stack ?

Re:Just their name (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23071482)

Does Sun do anything these days other than create new initiatives / JSRs / frameworks, that never actually reach a usable stage? They're worse than Apache about creating and abandoning projects. With all the layoffs they've done, I can't believe they have enough developers to maintain the stuff they have now, much less pile on more work.

Re:Just their name (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23073360)

Does Sun do anything these days other than create new initiatives / JSRs / frameworks, that never actually reach a usable stage? They're worse than Apache about creating and abandoning projects. With all the layoffs they've done, I can't believe they have enough developers to maintain the stuff they have now, much less pile on more work.
They also do revenue-negative stuff like create ISO office file formats and working on GNOME.

Basically they've got a huge hardon for Microsoft that's not going away until they go bankrupt.

Re:Just their name (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23071608)

All the speed and efficiency of Java, in a video format!

dumb question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23071758)

Sorry if this is a dumb question (I'm an EE, not a CS). The stacks I know of in CS are push-down stacks in various contexts.But why would they call a codec a "stack" instead of, well, a codec? What kind of stack are they talking about?

Re:dumb question (2, Informative)

_merlin (160982) | more than 6 years ago | (#23071862)

Different context for the word stack: in this case it's a stack of components, like video and audio codecs sitting on top of some stream format sitting on a container file format. You know - like when they talk about a protocol stack (HTTP on top of TCP on top of IP on top of Ethernet, etc.).

Those of us in EE call it a "system" (1)

Theatetus (521747) | more than 6 years ago | (#23071956)

like, R(s) -> E(s)G(s) -> Y(s) kind of "system".

Re:Just their name (1)

surfingmarmot (858550) | more than 6 years ago | (#23071944)

> hopefully Sun will decide to add something to > the table beyond just their name. The *Java* Sun Open Media Stack ?
Erm, That's "the Sun *Java* Open Media Stack". Let's keep those priorities straight. There ain't no Java without the Sun.

I to wanted to say JAVA (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 6 years ago | (#23072378)

Yeah, this surprised me to, so I searched for JAVA and look what I found!

Anyway.

JAVA short for JAva Video & Audio.

I thought h.26x was patented (3, Interesting)

tepples (727027) | more than 6 years ago | (#23071090)

I thought there were essential patents without Free licenses [wikipedia.org] on the H.26x technologies, such as the H.264 Advanced Video Coding used in MPEG-4 part 10.

Re:I thought h.26x was patented (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 6 years ago | (#23072382)

That's nothing. I thought OMS [wikipedia.org] was trademarked.... Maybe Gibson hasn't kept up the registration....

Re:I thought h.26x was patented (1)

trawg (308495) | more than 6 years ago | (#23072434)

I just assumed they meant an earlier version than h.264, like h.263 - though Wikipedia tells me US patent law lasts 20 years and h.263 still has a few years left to go, by the looks. Maybe there's another h.26x on which patent has expired, or patent owners have given up rights to it or something.

This is sort of a good example of why Sun's announcement is good news, assuming they're actually going to make it open and not get sued into oblivion for patent infringement. It's such a pain in the ass trying to figure out what is what in the video world due to all the patent issues surrounding various codecs.

Huh? (3, Insightful)

Watson Ladd (955755) | more than 6 years ago | (#23071114)

Isn't there already a gpl'd alternative to .flv [flumotion.net] ? What advantages are there in sun's offering? And given that the patent fees on .mp4 are so low, is that really needed?

Re:Huh? (1)

Tom9729 (1134127) | more than 6 years ago | (#23074230)

I think one of the main advantages will be Sun's name behind it.

Re:Huh? (1)

dave420 (699308) | more than 6 years ago | (#23075516)

That seems to be a gpl'd alternative to Flash Media Server, not FLV. FLVs use H263, VP6, and (in beta) H264 as their video codecs.

AT LAST! (1)

skeldoy (831110) | more than 6 years ago | (#23071152)

I have been wondering when this could happen. I didn't hold my breath exactly, but I was hoping for someone to make some kind of initiative that could unite people in the (relativly) simple task of writing a new video standard. Video is probably the most sought after media-content on the web right now but there is a really big gap between what the users want and what kind of initiatives that are being put forth.. Good going Sun!

I only hope it can run on a beowulf cluster of princess amidalas in soviet russia ;)

Xvid (5, Informative)

TheGreatOrangePeel (618581) | more than 6 years ago | (#23071222)

...uhm. not only is Xvid [wikipedia.org] an "attempt" at an open codec, it's arguably a success. I use it for just about all of my encoding, andyway and it's certainly more of a success than Theora.

Re:Xvid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23071354)

...uhm. not only is Xvid [wikipedia.org] an "attempt" at an open codec, it's arguably a success. I use it for just about all of my encoding, andyway and it's certainly more of a success than Theora.
Umm, Xvid is an implementation of MPEG-4 ASP which is a patent-encumbered format. Comparing it to Theora would be like Apple to umm... never mind I'll spare you the pun ;-)

Re:Xvid (5, Insightful)

Cajun Hell (725246) | more than 6 years ago | (#23071602)

It's only successful from a technical perspective. The patents keep it underground. If anyone with money tries to use Xvid, they'll either have to license the patents, or they'll be in court. Xvid is useless to Sun and their customers.

Re:Xvid (1)

ne0n (884282) | more than 6 years ago | (#23072732)

XviD is technically open source, but not "open" in the ways that matter to Sun's target audience. Same thing with x264 - an incredibly popular codec that's unusable for enterprises unless you license the patents.

The reason Theora exists: it's the least horrible fully-open (beer, speech) codec available.
Keep your eyes on Dirac, someday you'll be able to play Dirac-encoded stuff on a home computer.

Seriously? Why? (5, Interesting)

rmdir -r * (716956) | more than 6 years ago | (#23071228)

What's wrong with existing solutions? Xiph [xiph.org] has a pretty good container format, and a codec comparable divx/xvid, while the BBC has recently finished Dirac [sourceforge.net] , which is not quite ready, but which has the advantage of being:
  • Patent and royalty free (the BBC worked very hard at this)
  • GPLv2, LGPL, MIT or MPL licensed reference implementation
  • Finished: the bitstream has been frozen, etc. Integration with container formats isn't quite there though.
  • Better than h.264
So why is trying making a patent-free h.264 clone worth the time? You are certainly duplicating effort, and we already have solutions.

NIH, perhaps? Too many bored engineers?

Re:Seriously? Why? (1)

fm6 (162816) | more than 6 years ago | (#23071474)

What you're really asking is why use H.264 at all? Obviously all the folks who use H.264 have looked at the alternatives you mention and rejected them. I dunno why, but it's not to keep their engineers from getting bored. There a more cost effective solution [opm.gov] .

Re:Seriously? Why? (4, Insightful)

Jherek Carnelian (831679) | more than 6 years ago | (#23071622)

Obviously all the folks who use H.264 have looked at the alternatives you mention and rejected them.
That's an awfully big assumption. From my experience within the corporate world, I'd feel reasonably confident in saying that not even half of the folks who use h.264 even know that dirac exists, much less have looked at it as an alternative to h.264.

Re:Seriously? Why? (3, Informative)

rmdir -r * (716956) | more than 6 years ago | (#23072902)

That's an awfully big assumption. From my experience within the corporate world, I'd feel reasonably confident in saying that not even half of the folks who use h.264 even know that dirac exists, much less have looked at it as an alternative to h.264.
It is important to note that Dirac was only finished this year.

Re:Seriously? Why? (1)

Wavebreak (1256876) | more than 6 years ago | (#23078822)

I don't have experience in the corporate world, but I do have personal experience, and I believe you're quite right when it comes to people not having heard about dirac. I personally did hear about it a few years ago, but had no clue that there was an actual implementation out by now, and didn't even remember the name. And, while no pro or even much of an ethusiast, I am generally reasonably well-informed about new codecs and such. While not a representative sample by any means, I'd belive that it'd be fair, based on that fact, to make the assumption that Dirac simply doesn't have much public awareness going for it. Just my two cents.

Re:Seriously? Why? (4, Interesting)

trawg (308495) | more than 6 years ago | (#23071776)

Xiph has a pretty good container format, and a codec comparable divx/xvid
Last time I checked the open source Xiph stuff wasn't really comparable to DivX/Xvid - that was a while ago so maybe they've made advances since then, but the last benchmarks I saw showed it was not as good for quality/bitrate.

I have been posting about Dirac in almost every thread on video codecs on Slashdot hoping to raise awareness; the fact that it is truly free and (hopefully) not going to be encumbered by patent rubbish means we might stand a chance of freeing Internet video from the clutches of Adobe/Flash and all the h264/other codec patent holders.

So why is trying making a patent-free h.264 clone worth the time? You are certainly duplicating effort, and we already have solutions.

NIH, perhaps? Too many bored engineers?
My first reaction on reading this was "this is awesome news because the more options the better", which is typically my attitude towards most software. That said, the more people working on Dirac, the better - the BBC have done the hard yards and having a pool of awesome Sun engineers working on it and improving it would certainly help matters.

Re:Seriously? Why? (1)

laddiebuck (868690) | more than 6 years ago | (#23072390)

The same can pretty much be said for xvid. Sure it's patent-encumbered: but so is this. On the other hand, it is GPLv2, so it is also definitely open. I don't see what's novel about Sun's idea -- though I definitely share your sentiment that the more players, the better.

Re:Seriously? Why? (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 6 years ago | (#23072610)

How do you unseat Flash? Unless the codec is efficient enough to be decoded by Javascript, you won't have anything more commonly installed available.

It's not like people use Flash for the quality, performance, or efficiency! :)

Re:Seriously? Why? (4, Insightful)

trawg (308495) | more than 6 years ago | (#23073054)

How do you unseat Flash? Unless the codec is efficient enough to be decoded by Javascript, you won't have anything more commonly installed available.
If I had unlimited resources and was hugely philanthropic (and/or just wanted to destroy Flash as the de facto standard for web video), I'd do it like this:

1) develop an open source video codec that is a) comparable in quality/bitrate to mpeg4/h264) and b) not encumbered by patents and does not conflict with existing patents (this is almost certainly the hardest part - even starting from scratch chances are you're going to step on someone's patent portfolio)

2) create an open source player plugin for as many browsers on as many platforms as I could find, with some nice basic functionality and published specs so anyone else could create one for their browser/platform of choice.

3) create open source tools for easy encoding/transcoding of existing content to your content (note that this step might require your transcoding tool to be commercial - in order to do this legitimately I'd say you'd need to buy a license to decode things like mpeg4 into a new format). Publish the shit out of your encoding process and let the open source community make free tools. (This step is, I feel, ridiculously important. Video creation is still a bit of a pain in the ass and unless you can make it easy for people to use it, it'll never take off.)

4) create open source DirectShow filters and all the other crap needed to make your video codec work seamlessly on Windows, and distribute as a simple Windows installer. Make sure they're explicitly redistributable as part of the license and let all those codec pack creators help spread the word.

5) parter with, or create, a site with a bunch of video to a) demonstrate how well it works and b) promote it and help foster adoption. There is an assload of excellent Creative Commons content out there to start with.

(Optional) 6) Create a new company providing commercial services for all of the above for companies that want to go the extra mile (bulk encoding services, streaming and distribution, hosting, etc).

All non-trivial steps!

Re:Seriously? Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23073836)

(7) Trick Microsoft and Apple into including it with their OS installs so that 98% of systems already have it.

That's the real reason Flash video took off. Universality.

Re:Seriously? Why? (1)

trawg (308495) | more than 6 years ago | (#23074026)

None of my systems have ever come with Flash pre-installed. It's always been an add-on (maybe if you buy a Dell or something with a pre-packaged OS it has Flash in it).

Re:Seriously? Why? (1)

xenocide2 (231786) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076738)

A few months ago, I would have agreed that better codecs / plugins provided by browsers by default would be a death blow to flash. Now, I'm inclined to disagree with my previous self. Flash is important for more reasons than just because it can display video poorly. It also provides a way to serve advertisements. Instead of mixing streams or rendering ad overlays into the video, flash can render advertising overlays to the video in real time. It's a wonderful technology for them; it serves ads and is nearly immune to adblock. It's also highly annoying.

So even if you take all these steps, video hosting sites want flash. And I'm fairly certain they've always wanted it, I was just too stupid to see that until it was too late.

Re:Seriously? Why? (1)

trawg (308495) | more than 6 years ago | (#23084568)

Definitely true - but I would argue that rendering text over the top of video in a web-based player is several orders of magnitude easier than creating a new patent-free video codec, so that sort of functionality would be pretty easy to add in - in fact, I'd say that once you had the groundwork of video created, getting people to add in features like that would follow pretty quickly, and you'd possibly have a complete and open Flash competitor in the market even sooner!

Re:Seriously? Why? (1)

xenocide2 (231786) | more than 6 years ago | (#23094302)

A video codec is different than a programmable canvas plugin to a web browser. I'm not sure it's easier, and even if you did have an open flash competitor, have you really won anything significant? Dumb programmers can still make CPU hungry modules, and ads are still in your video. DOH!

Re:Seriously? Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23072932)

Right now Dirac's performance requirements will make it mainstream by the time they actually finish working on it in 10 years. The thing is a beast. Many people still can't run h264 full resolution, and the prototype Dirac codec takes it to a new level.

Hopefully Sun makes something practical that has a lower decoding overhead so it can be used in embedded devices and older hardware. I know it's crazy, but a Core 4 Octo 8ghz in your cell phone to play videos is a little ridiculous.

Re:Seriously? Why? (1)

Fweeky (41046) | more than 6 years ago | (#23073274)

And let's not forget Matroska [wikipedia.org] , which has done considerably better than Ogg when it comes to video.

Re:Seriously? Why? (1)

arose (644256) | more than 6 years ago | (#23074878)

Matroska is a container format, not a video codec.

Re:Seriously? Why? (1)

xenocide2 (231786) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076872)

Isn't ogg also a container format?

Re:Seriously? Why? (1)

Fweeky (41046) | more than 6 years ago | (#23077004)

Yes, and I was replying to "Xiph [xiph.org] has a pretty good container format", hence comparing it to Ogg. I've seen way more .mkv's than I have .ogv and .ogm's, and those I have seen have tended to be more akward to make work than a mkv.

Re:Seriously? Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23075012)

> Xiph [xiph.org] has a pretty good container format

Please, never ever again call it a "pretty good container format". Or at least think of some arguments why you think it is so, because from my personal experience in implementing it I tend to call it "the worst container format since a looong time".
And then going on and leave the two things from Xiph that are _really_ good out, namely Vorbis and Speex...

Re:Seriously? Why? (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 6 years ago | (#23075760)

Theora is based on VP3, which is very old. It's roughly equivalent in terms of quality to H.261. It's completely patent-free, but is still officially in beta (I think - it was at the end of last year) which frightens off a lot of companies. It is also not playable by default for most users.

Dirac is a next-generation CODEC, which aims to be patent-free and is only just nearing a useable state. The processing requirements for Dirac are huge. Encoding it can't be done in anything like real time and decoding requires more CPU than H.264, which limits it to very modern desktops - you won't be seeing it in something like an iPhone for a few years.

H.264 scales nicely from low bitrates and low CPU costs to high definition with correspondingly high CPU costs. It is patent-encumbered, however, so you need to pay for the encoder and decoder. This isn't a problem for most people, since Apple bundle both with Quicktime and most modern phones come with a hardware implementation.

Re:Seriously? Why? (1)

rmdir -r * (716956) | more than 6 years ago | (#23078248)

Dirac is a next-generation CODEC, which aims to be patent-free and is only just nearing a useable state. The processing requirements for Dirac are huge. Encoding it can't be done in anything like real time and decoding requires more CPU than H.264, which limits it to very modern desktops - you won't be seeing it in something like an iPhone for a few years.

The Dirac people claim that if you turn off some advanced features, it performs like h.264, some more, like divx, a few more, like mpeg2. I heard that from David Schleef pitching it though, so it may be a bit of an exaggeration.

Plus, it wasn't that long ago that h.264 brought brand new machines to their knees. Stuff gets optimized. People figure things out.

Oh, they'll add more than just their name (1)

RalphBNumbers (655475) | more than 6 years ago | (#23071358)

They'll add DRM!

This is "derived out of Sun's Open Media Commons initiative", which was in turn based on Project DReaM, which was Sun's attempt at an open source DRM stack.

Why this is important (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23071398)

Right now, the working drafts for the HTML 5 specification specify a <video> element, but doesn't specify a codec to go with it. Unfortunately, there's no single video codec which is acceptable to all web browser vendors. Mozilla (and Opera, I think) will not go for something patent-encumbered, while Apple and Microsoft find Theora unacceptable, because of the risk of submarine patents.

Having a modern non-proprietary codec specified which all browser vendors could interoperably implement would give a tremendous boost to video on the internet. Things have stalled on convincing the various parties to accept something which currently exists. So it's looking to me as if Sun is deciding to help move things forward by providing a new alternative.

If Sun wanted to do something smart (0, Troll)

Dracos (107777) | more than 6 years ago | (#23071406)

They'd back Xiph's codecs (Ogg Vorbis for audio, Ogg Theora for video) instead of reinventing the wheel yet again. This is how MS would play the open format game, not someone who can actually be believed when they talk about supporting open, well, anything.

But, this is Sun... they're opposed to making smart moves.

Re:If Sun wanted to do something smart (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23071732)

I thought Theora was pretty bad as far as quality - like MPEG1 bad.

Sounds familiar (1)

Rgb465 (325668) | more than 6 years ago | (#23071436)

Does this sound an aweful lot like Theora [wikipedia.org] to anyone else?

Re:Sounds familiar (1)

dave420 (699308) | more than 6 years ago | (#23075544)

Yes, in that they're both open-source video codecs. However Theora's technical abilities are stuck in the late 1990s, whereas Sun's offering hopefully won't be.

Blog entry about OMS Video (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23071568)

There is a blog entry [sun.com] for OMS Video.

Sun OMG (1)

Nushio (951488) | more than 6 years ago | (#23071786)

Personally, I'm still waiting for Sun to release their Open Media Games...

Re:Sun OMG (1)

mhall119 (1035984) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076376)

Personally, I'm still waiting for Sun to release their Open Media Games...
You mean like Wonderland [java.net] ?

Re:Sun OMG (1)

mhall119 (1035984) | more than 6 years ago | (#23076426)

Or maybe Darkstar [java.net] ?

Question (1)

fabu10u$ (839423) | more than 6 years ago | (#23071952)

How again does Sun make money these days?

Streaming Media Server (1)

Ambidisastrous (964023) | more than 6 years ago | (#23072584)

I was curious too, so I looked on Google Finance [google.com] . Most of their visible activity does seem to be dedicated to blogging and thwarting Microsoft, pretty much like IBM -- big iron and enterprisey stuff. But actually, the financial headlines do a much better job than sun.com at explaining how they make money. Here's a press release from today:
Sun Expands Sun Streaming System to Deliver Industry's Most Scalable and Flexible Video Delivery Over IP Platform [businesswire.com]

This was released today. The releases on this and OMS don't mention each other by name, but I think it's pretty clear what they're planning to do with the finished media stack.

applets (1)

slack_prad (942084) | more than 6 years ago | (#23072168)

When this is finally done, I just hope it won't need the Java plugin on the browser to view the video.

That's nice but where's the 64-bit Java plugin?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23072196)

I'm glad to hear that Sun is developing this stuff, but I wish they'd put some resources into an x86_64 Java plugin for Firefox for Linux instead...

Re:That's nice but where's the 64-bit Java plugin? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23075600)

I'm glad to hear that Sun is developing this stuff, but I wish they'd put some resources into an x86_64 Java plugin for Firefox for Linux instead...


Oh God yes, because so many MANY people use x86_64 Java on Linux Firefox. There must be, what, a hundred of you? And everyone knows that FOSS users are so ever-ready and willing to pay money for code as well, so Sun will surely recoup their investment in no time. It really does seem like a win-win, doesn't it?

PS: You're an idiot.

Java integration (1)

heroine (1220) | more than 6 years ago | (#23072324)

Wonder if Sun is firstly, actually implementing something or just traveling to meetings & specing it, and secondly, trying to write Java support for all its efforts or just acting like a standard, dysfunctional corporation. Having said that, does anyone still care about codecs?

XVID DIVX 3IVX OMS XIPH AVI MKV MOV STOP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23072496)

Does anyone remember why we have standards?

H.26x: what is it? (2, Informative)

ajs (35943) | more than 6 years ago | (#23072730)

Nice article on what H.26x is at ddj: http://www.ddj.com/201203492 [ddj.com]

I had no idea how tangled the standards were... ugh.

im not a techie... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23074056)

but it seems that when i download porn in the h.264 format or w/e my computer lags the fuck out....with .avi (xvid or divx...w/e) it works fine, no slowdowns and no issues. Lowered resolution, but it works so its alllllll good i just realised how off topic/useless this is..but im pretty baked so its all good guys. Guess i should post as an AC so my mom doesnt manage to look me up, who knows she knows a fucking lot about me man, its fucking creepy.

SUN SUCKS AT MULTIMEDIA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23079186)

This is going to flop for the same reason that everybody uses flash or the like in place of applets for media rich web content. Sun has never done an even half-way decent job of providing media libraries, and on the few occasions when they have stepped up (java sound, jmf), they then immediately back off, leaving all of the developers who got excited about the specs to rot. Seriously, JMF is insanely screwed up, java sound is idiotic in it's approach, and their libraries for RTP are asinine. Why would they get this right when they have gotten everything else so wrong? Sun needed to wake up to multimedia content 8 years ago. At this point, it's too late.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?