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!

Working With Ogg Theora and the Video Tag

samzenpus posted about 5 years ago | from the fighting-the-good-fight dept.

Graphics 187

An anonymous reader writes "The Free Software Foundation's Holmes Wilson is just back from Berlin, where he participated in the Ogg Theora book sprint put on by FLOSS Manuals. Here is a broad look at Ogg Theora and how it fits into the push for free formats: where we're winning, what works, and what could be improved."

cancel ×

187 comments

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

Theora (4, Insightful)

ardor (673957) | about 5 years ago | (#29153677)

Unfortunately, Theora will stay irrelevant where it matters most. In sites like Youtube, h264 will prevail. And this time, h264 is the (much) better tech as well.
To get the same quality as h264 video, Theora video needs higher bit rates, which translates to higher traffic, and in the end costs more money. The much higher popularity of h264 compared to Theora doesn't help, either.

Re:Theora (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29153715)

Agreed. And the OP linked article has a joke-of-a-comparison. I encoded the same video, same dimensions, same frame rate, and was able to widdle h264+AAC bandwidth down to 260 kbps and it still looked better than Ogg/Theora+Vorbis especially where the scene zooms towards the dark cave with sleeping bunny.

Re:Theora (5, Interesting)

hairyfeet (841228) | about 5 years ago | (#29153841)

Not to mention the lack of hardware acceleration makes it pretty much a non starter. My graphics card that cost a whole $50 (a 4650) came with H264, WMV9, DivX, and MPEG 2 & 4 out of the box. And with the rise of netbooks/nettops, green computing, mobile devices and high def video now more than ever hardware acceleration is the way to go. Is there even a beta driver for Theora that gives ANY acceleration?

Without hardware acceleration, preferably given to the big three (AMD, Intel, Nvidia) so they can integrate it into their drivers so users can get full acceleration easily and out of the box, I just don't see Theora gaining any ground. I know that those that support FOSS find this hard to accept, but Joe user really doesn't care if a codec is free or not, hell most don't even know what a codec is, they just want easy to use and simple. Theora need hardware support like yesterday if they want to gain traction. Although ultimately I think it will be like Vorbis VS MP3. Vorbis might work fine, but my MP3 player doesn't play Vorbis, in fact the majority don't. Folks don't care that MP3 is encumbered because it works for them. So while I wish the Theora guys luck it looks like a seriously uphill battle from where I'm sitting.

Re:Theora (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29153865)

And staying with that kind of thought process, one wonders why anybody bothered with Linux development from the mide 90's.

Re:Theora (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | about 5 years ago | (#29153957)

What does Linux development have to do with the obvious advantages of hardware acceleration?

Re:Theora (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29154199)

That post has more to do with the fact that the state of Ogg-Theora TODAY isn't what it's likely to be in the FUTURE. On the subject of hardware accel, Linux binary blobs didn't always support hardware decode of codecs. Maybe this could change with respect to Theora. Could be implemented via sharders like mpeg was at one stage perhaps.

Re:Theora (1)

skribble (98873) | more than 4 years ago | (#29154463)

I'm so sick of that argument... "Well just wait... Ogg-Theora will get so much better in the future"... Guess what... h.264 also exist in the that timeline and encoders will improve, hardware acceleration will improve, and by the time OT is where h.264 is today (and it has a long way to go with higher bit rate content), there will be even more reasons to use h.264.

Re:Theora (1)

mugginz (1157101) | more than 4 years ago | (#29154493)

You don't think the optimizations for h.264 will reach the point of diminishing returns before Theora?

Re:Theora (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29154253)

You're right. Linux suffered from lack of hardware support, and still suffers from lack of hardware support. Windows, like MP3, is an accepted standard that the hardware developers cater to.

But with both examples, Google has achieved the critical mass of userbase necessary to shake up the accepted standards. With Theora, they could do it for sure. Everybody loves their YouTube, if Google wants to switch codecs the browsers will all add support for fear of losing ground to Chrome. With Chrome OS, we'll finally have the OS war we've all been waiting for. Maybe.

Re:Theora (-1, Troll)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 4 years ago | (#29155019)

You missed something.

The h264 support goes well beyond Windows, Linux, and OSX. Well beyond Firefox, Safari, Chrome, and Opera. Well beyond Flash and Silverlight. It doesnt matter what Google does. You can't give the millions of existing iPhones acceptable Theora support. You can't give the millions of existing netbooks acceptable Theora support. They *do* have accepable h264 support.

The hardware support for h264 is already cheap, low powered, and mass produced for these segments.

Oh, and Linux is still a novely..

Re:Theora (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29154231)

Theora doesn't need to "win" to be a useful format. My music player plays vorbis, so it doesn't affect me much that others don't. The same principle applies if several devices on the market support theora.

Re:Theora (2, Insightful)

moogord (904702) | more than 4 years ago | (#29154275)

well. once opencl is more previlant, opencl decoding of anything is perfectly viable.

even then, the end user doesn't care if its accelerated decoding or not, they just care that it plays smooth

Re:Theora (4, Informative)

FrostedWheat (172733) | more than 4 years ago | (#29154421)

Not to mention the lack of hardware acceleration makes it pretty much a non starter

You say this, but nowhere do you say why it needs hardware acceleration. Have you even tried it? My fairly old machine plays a 1080p Theora video just fine. A completely unscientific test with top shows about 33% CPU usage, peeking at about 40%. The same machine cannot decode 1080p H.264 video in real time.

Theora just isn't as CPU greedy as H.264 -- it doesn't need hardware acceleration. Although it wouldn't hurt ;-)

Re:Theora (3, Insightful)

skribble (98873) | more than 4 years ago | (#29154507)

Hardware acceleration (and dedicated hardware in general) is much more efficient (and for manufacturers, much less expensive) then general purpose processing. So while your computer may have a processor that can handle this, many smaller consumer devices don't... additionally, for portable content you need energy efficiency... how long would you computer processor run on a cell phone battery? Also... hardware acceleration isn't just for play back. It's also for video creation/production. Many pro video systems take raw video and encode it to h.264 on the fly in real time (For SD/HD streaming and well as broadcast distribution). And then there's other studio productions where hardware acceleration allows working with real time effects... etc. The reality is that playback is a very small part of the puzzle... If you want to push Ogg-Theroa as a standard then you need the product creators to use this, and... there is no compelling reason to do so. I support much Open-Source software (both with my time & contributions and direct financial support)... that said, in the real world you pick the best solution for the problem, and in this case Ogg-Theroa is not it. And this is no disrespect to the development of this... this is hard stuff to do and it's really incredible that Ogg-Theora is where it is today, unfortunately it falls short of h.264. Also... pushing an inferior standard down the throats of a web viewing public, isn't going to win the open source model any friends.

Re:Theora (1)

mugginz (1157101) | more than 4 years ago | (#29154591)

You may have a point with respect to some portable devices, but I would think that with it comes to editing of video by studios, etc. any lossy format wouldn't be what they'd want to be using until after there finished, and then render the results to various formats.

Re:Theora (2, Insightful)

skyride (1436439) | more than 4 years ago | (#29154687)

"So while your computer may have a processor that can handle this, many smaller consumer devices don't..."

Ok im sorry, but I keep hearing this arguement and it is pure and utter crap. Nobody, and i mean like, NOBODY, is ever going to want to run 1080p on a tiny little 3" screen. I know we'll the get the arguement of "but what if they want to hook it up to a TV", but in the real world, people don't do that. Heck, most people are amazed at the fact you can plug a computer into a TV. So seriously, yes H.264 is a better standard but stop this arguement for why because its just wrong.

Re:Theora (2, Interesting)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 4 years ago | (#29154791)

I'm afraid you are the one who is wrong on this one. While you are correct about high def I have found that the vast majority of my customers want to watch videos on their devices. With netbooks/nettops being so popular, and frankly the Atom being so shitty (I had a chance to play with a customer's Atom based netbook not to long ago. Honestly my 1.1Ghz Celeron from 2001 had more oomph than that little thing) you pretty much HAVE to have hardware acceleration to get any kind of decent framerates while keeping a decent battery life.

Think of it this way- Why does my Sandisk get 27+ hour on a dinky AAA battery, while my 3 year old Dell gets a little less than 5 on its big brick? Even with my screen and DVD disconnected? Because the hardware in the MP3 is specialized to do a single job-play MP3 files. Soon we will have ARM and AMD low power chips joining Via and Intel in the new ultra cheap mobile space. I have no doubt that AMD will pair their chip with one of their excellent low power Radeon chips, and the Ion platform looks to give us a HTPC that you can slip in your jacket pocket. But the ONLY way you are gonna get really good battery life out of these devices is to let the GPU, which is designed nowadays for decoding video as much as it is for gaming, to do what it was designed for and offload the video from the low powered CPUs.

Now why would you WANT to use a codec that is gonna use 33%+ of your CPU (in your example) while your GPU sits there twiddling its thumbs, when you could get much better performance and battery life by letting the specialized hardware do the job it was designed to do? And believe me the public does notice the difference. They can't tell you why they like it, but they do. Since switching my builds to the AMD 780v and Nvidia 8400 based boards I have had my customers raving about how smooth everything is and how nice their new machines are for watching videos while doing other tasks in the background. Having the GPU do the video heavy lifting leaves the CPU free to do whatever the customer wants and they notice the difference. So IMHO if Theora wants to really get into this game and make an impact then they need to step up and get hardware acceleration ASAP. Because Joe user don't give a crap about encumbered-they just want simple, easy, and smooth. That is what they get with today's GPUs and DivX, WMV9, H.264, and MPEG.

Re:Theora (3, Insightful)

mugginz (1157101) | more than 4 years ago | (#29154993)

One thing for sure, hardware accel for Theora will only come after (if) there is wide adoption of the format. The only likely caveat to this that I can see would be Theora decode via OpenCL produced by the community.

Re:Theora (1)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 4 years ago | (#29154589)

What about your phone? Or your new, and as yet unseen tablet PC that needs 8 hour battery life? Those may not be important to you personally as a consumer, but they are in the bigger picture. Battery life, low power, minimising the energy cost to do any particular task is going to be even more important as time goes on. Your desktop machine has power and cycles to spare, the next "latest and greatest" portable thingermajigger will not.

Re:Theora (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29154739)

Well, in my machine, since it has hardware-accelerated h.264 decoding (as have all the machines shipping now - even those with Intel "graphic cards"), h.264 takes 5% of the CPU for 1080p, whereas Theora takes 40%.

It might not need hardware acceleration, but I do sure prefer the low CPU usage, which ironically I get with the most complex codec. Best of two worlds, really.

Re:Theora (1)

RalphBNumbers (655475) | more than 4 years ago | (#29154913)

Even more than on "the big three" and desktops/laptops, hardware decoders are essential on mobile hardware.

Apparently an iPhone 3GS can unofficially decode 1080p30 h264 [engadget.com] , and the ZuneHD can do 720p (and even officially supports it). That's just insane; some modern non-hardware accelerated, or even partially accelerated, desktops and laptops still have trouble playing back 1080p smoothly. Being able to do so on a cell phone, and to do so without killing the battery within seconds, is a big deal.

Lack of hardware decoders on the desktop is a minor annoyance, but for mobile hardware it's a deal breaker. And mobile is a big and rapidly expanding market.
If open source codecs are going to get widespread adoption going forward, they're going to need to get built into hardware codecs.

I actually have some hopes that Google is moving in the direction of radically improving OSS codec quality and providing hardware support via their recent purchase of ON2. If they can release VP8 as open source, along with finishing and releasing a good hardware decoder for it, they'll have put OSS codecs within spitting distance of h264 on most issues.

VP6 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29155283)

VP6 (the current youtube codec) isn't hardware accelerated and it's doing just fine. YMMV.

Re:Theora (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29153917)

LOL. I think you mean "whittled" not "widdled". Whittling is shaving something down in size. You know, to make it widdler than a big one.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/widdle [wiktionary.org]

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=widdle [urbandictionary.com]

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/whittle [wiktionary.org]

I'm sorry for being a grammar cop but I couldn't resist.

Vorbis (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29153737)

To stay irrelevant wouldn't Theora need to be removed from browsers that natively implement it? Please provide the references for such plans by Mozilla or Google.
Also, why do people always leave out any comparison of the Vorbis audio? Is it just as irrelevant? The tag is still in the specs.

Re:Theora (1)

gaspyy (514539) | about 5 years ago | (#29154071)

Unfortunately until MS includes video tag support in IE, nothing will matter.
Even if IE share drops to 40-50%, no content provider will be able to say "screw 'em".
And then we can only hope that MS will support H264 and not just VMW or whatever they want to push.

Whether you like it or not, we'll still need to use Flash for video for the foreseeable future (which, by the way, supports H264).

Re:Theora (1)

0100010001010011 (652467) | about 5 years ago | (#29154177)

If google wants the video tag, which Chrome supports, they'll damn well implement the video tag on youtube.

The second something as popular as google, you tube or facebook implements video and leaves no other alternatives is the day that Microsoft will wake up and implement the video tag or be left in the dust.

Re:Theora (2, Informative)

Lennie (16154) | more than 4 years ago | (#29154377)

Even more likely they'll implement VP6 from On2, the company they recently bought. On2 is the company that released the source and codec-information of VP3 as Theora. Theora has been seperately improved over the years.

Maybe they'll release VP6 as open source, we'll know when we see it.

Re:Theora (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29154437)

I'm rather waiting for VP8...

Re:Theora (1)

Lennie (16154) | more than 4 years ago | (#29154481)

My mistake, VP6 in my comment should have been VP8.

Re:Theora (1)

Lennie (16154) | more than 4 years ago | (#29154361)

Why ? If Theora in the future is good (yes: IF) their is no reason you can't just say:

<video src="video.ogv">
    <object classid="classid:something--whatever-flash" >
        <param name="movie" value="ogvplayer.swf">
        <param name="file" value="video.ogv">
    </object>
</video>

Which is perfectly fine, even in IE.

Re:Theora (4, Insightful)

TheTurtlesMoves (1442727) | more than 4 years ago | (#29154567)

The relevance of Theora was and is like the relevance of ogg. Sure its not going to take over. But without it, the other codec owners (apple, MS etc) would have no "license free" completion to keep them honest. Instead of a debate about licensed and unlicensed codecs, it would have been a debate on how the hell could we afford these kind of license fees to claim any kind of standard in the first place.

As for the higher bitrates arguments. Honestly you tube and co look like such crap I can't believe people ever bother, theora dose not look worse that these bit rates. I have decided most people are in fact blind.

Where are we winning? (5, Insightful)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | about 5 years ago | (#29153705)

FTFA: Ogg Theora is becoming a big deal

I have worked at various companies, from small ventures up to well-known large corporations and have found the same thing at each. Employees think that their company is pretty well-known in their respective fields. While it may be true of some companies (IBM, Microsoft, Amazon, Johnson & Johnson, just to name a few), most third party vendors are mere gnats on the backs of those wildebeests.

This is myopia caused by too much focus on a specialized area. Yes, maybe within a very limited sector your technology may be making inroads, in general you are nothing more than a butterfly flapping its wings. Theora is not becoming a big deal. It is just another codec, and one that isn't particularly popular.

There are technical issues that need to be addressed technically, not simply (as the author of the article does) waved away as a future feature to be implemented when the codec becomes more popular. It will never become more popular until it can offer sufficient reason to switch. Relying on the negative influence of patent encumbrance to drive people towards the codec is a losing proposition. It is a reactive strategy that cannot eventually win.

What struck me most about this article was how even the FSF is not particularly behind Theora, per se. They are for "patent unencumbered" codecs, so they have no real inclination to push Theora in the marketplace. Without a proactive strategy to push Theora both in a business sense as well as technically, it will flounder.

Another codec bites the dust. Big deal.

... wait we already lost!? When did that happen? (2, Insightful)

Narcocide (102829) | about 5 years ago | (#29153783)

I dunno but I think "bites the dust" is a bit of a hyperbolic overstatement, don't you? I mean, I doubt Theora's market relevance or market saturation is on any sort of *decline* even if it clearly isn't catching up to h264 in any strategically important way either.

It sounds to me like you're saying here that just because the Ogg Theora team might be somewhat deluded about their codec's visual quality or market potential in the immediate future that it is proof they should just all give up and switch back to MJPEG.

Sure, it would take a lot more for large established companies like youtube to switch to Theora but that doesn't mean that h264 is flawless and everyone should just give up and surrender the entire market to it either. There is a value to the consumer simply in having a variety of video codecs available to choose from, especially ones that are free and tuned to conserve bandwidth.

Re:... wait we already lost!? When did that happen (2, Interesting)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | about 5 years ago | (#29153827)

Certainly we are allowed some leeway for hyperbole here on /.!

No, Theora isn't dead yet. But with no true proactive strategy to switch users away from other codecs, Theora must rely on users switching away on their own. Given that Theora is, technically, inferior in many ways to other popular codecs and has no clear industry support to improve the codec, it's not clear to me why they would expect users to accept it on a technical level.

Yes, it has the benefit of being patent-unencumbered. However, this isn't as big a deal to users seeking higher quality with better compression, better streaming ability, and wide end-user support.

Please note that "user" encompasses anyone who would use the codec, including companies like Youtube as well as end users.

Re:... wait we already lost!? When did that happen (4, Interesting)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#29154981)

Well, the MPEG-LA is doing a good job with their plan to introduce per-download fees for people using H.264 next year. If you're still using H.264 for streaming video next year, for anything longer than a 10-minute clip, expect to be giving all of your profits away to the MPEG-LA. Or you could switch to some other CODEC like, for example, Theora, which doesn't have stupidly-expensive licensing fees.

To be honest, I'm more interested in Dirac than Theora. VC-2 is a profile of Dirac which, like Theora, is not patent-encumbered. It's based on wavelets and is much higher quality and has a lot more industry backing than Theora (the BBC, for example, are using it for archiving already). Currently, the CPU requirements for decoding Dirac are a bit high. Playing back the Big Buck Bunny example on my 2.16GHz Core 2 Duo uses 100% of one core (although I'm using a slightly old version of the CODEC, apparently the latest one is about 20-30% faster). The BBC is working with hardware manufacturers to get hardware decoders which should make it a lot more attractive. There's also a CUDA-based implementation and a GLSL version which are reported to be a lot faster than the CPU-based version (I've not tried either) and should work on most modern GPUs. Given that most modern handhelds now include an OpenGL ES 2.0 GPU, which means that they support GLSL, it's likely that Dirac playback on handhelds will work nicely soon.

Theora has much lower CPU requirements than even H.264, so using Theora for the low-quality version and Dirac for high quality sounds like a sensible approach.

Re:Where are we winning? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29154021)

You sound a bit down today. Cheer up BadAnalogyGuy, things'll get better soon and you'll be back on your feet making new and exciting bad analogies in no time. Like a wheel that has just driven over some shit.

Oh, and it isn't about proactive vs. reactive. The market doesn't care about motives, it cares about relative value. And when proprietary codecs become so expensive and encumbered that the cost of using them versus a free alternative crosses some threshold, Theora's relative value will rise and it will find its niche. Just as Ogg has made inroads with game manufacturers looking for ways to cut costs without cutting corners on quality.

Re:Where are we winning? (2, Funny)

east coast (590680) | about 5 years ago | (#29154051)

most third party vendors are mere gnats on the backs of those wildebeests.

He is Vigo! You are like the buzzing of flies to him!

Sorry, had to do it.

Re:Where are we winning? (2, Interesting)

Skapare (16644) | about 5 years ago | (#29154093)

Everything that is new starts out in the not particularly popular phase. Some things rise rapidly, usually because there is nothing else before them. Some things rise more slowly. And, of course, there are lots of failures that never make it. Just because something is new doesn't mean squat one way or the other. Everything was new at one point.

I do agree that if the promotion of Ogg Theora is done strictly on the basis of no patent encumbrance, then it won't gain any significant popularity. That's because most people don't know, and even if they were informed, would not care. They see the other codecs (usually without even knowing the word "codec") as working, and dirt cheap, or free (not knowing they paid for it in some way, either in the computer they bought, or the advertising they see). If Ogg Theora is to live on, it will have to be promoted in a way that is beyond the basis of its current talking points.

Dirac has at least the advantage that it has BBC backing. I personally would like at least one of Dirac or Theora to become widely used. But I'm not in the arena that needs to promote it, so I may not get my wish. But please don't knock it because it is new or not yet popular. OTOH, if it doesn't have any gains in a few years, then it should die off.

Re:Where are we winning? (2, Insightful)

Quantumstate (1295210) | about 5 years ago | (#29154127)

As the first paragraph of the article says "[Ogg Theora] now works in over 24% of the world's web browsers". From the context it is obvious that this is why they are saying it is becoming a big deal. So maybe it won't ever catch on in other places but it does have a large portion of the browser market by being included in the second most popular browser.

Re:Where are we winning? (2, Funny)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | about 5 years ago | (#29154145)

Cigarette lighters are available in over 90% of all the world's cars and light trucks.
Sexual reproductive organs are present on over 99% of all Slashbots.
Calculator apps are included in over 90% of all modern OS installations.

Just because something exists in large numbers doesn't mean it is used, and if it isn't used it isn't really a big deal.

Re:Where are we winning? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29155217)

What struck me most about this article was how even the FSF is not particularly behind Linux, per se. so they have no real inclination to push Linux in the marketplace. Without a proactive strategy to push Linux both in a business sense as well as technically, it will flounder.

There are technical issues that need to be addressed technically, not simply (as the author of the article does) waved away as a future feature to be implemented when the codec becomes more popular.

OGG vorbis has been technically superior to MP3 for quite some time, the fact is nobody gives a shit about the technical side of the codec they have installed.

It will never become more popular until it can offer sufficient reason to switch. Relying on the negative influence of patent encumbrance to drive people towards the codec is a losing proposition. It is a reactive strategy that cannot eventually win.

H264 can never make it into the html standard, its just a mater of time till the W3C realise how stupid the idea of allowing a patent incumberd codec into an open (e.g anybody in the world is allowed to implement it) standard.
"HTML5 the standard that can't legally be implemented in certain countries and is not an option for unbacked open source"
That can either lead to W3C no specificity the codec (the currently favoured option)
"HTML5 the standard that doesn't specify stuff so is useless to code for"
or they can make a real standard and specify ogg Theora, thus giving ogg Theroa real importance

hmmm (2, Interesting)

thatskinnyguy (1129515) | about 5 years ago | (#29153775)

With regards to the video tag, why not support both h264 and Ogg Theora?

Re:hmmm (2, Insightful)

Torrance (1599681) | about 5 years ago | (#29153819)

It's all about the IP and the patents!

If h.264 were royalty free, no doubt it would be supported. But as it stands, only those with deep pockets can pay the licensing fees — and that goes for both those providing the decoders as well as those simply hosting (broadcasting) h.264 encoded content.

Re:hmmm (1)

broken_chaos (1188549) | about 5 years ago | (#29154143)

Royalties? I haven't been paying any royalties... Oh wait, right, some countries actually had the sanity to render business method and software patents as invalid. This entire thing is really a result of the (known, enormous) stupidity of the USPTO.

Of course both the MPEG LA and Xiph.org make no guarantees about the codecs actually not being under patents not controlled by the respective groups. It's, from my understanding (particularly given the USPTO's tendency to act like a drunk co-ed), highly likely that both H.264 and Theora are covered by some sort of patent that isn't a currently known quantity.

Re:hmmm (3, Insightful)

beelsebob (529313) | about 5 years ago | (#29153973)

The reasoning is that they wanted to put one codec in the spec that they could guarantee that all vendors would support, roughly like flash is now through plugins. That way, the video tag would actually be usable, website authors could guarantee that unless people used crazy browsers from crazyville, they would be able to watch the video.

In the mean time though:
â Mozilla refused to support h264 because it is patent encumbered.
â Apple refused to support ogg because it's technically inferior and they didn't want to put dev effort into something worse than they already have.

The result was that no decission could be made on which one would be supported everywhere.

Re:hmmm (2, Informative)

thatskinnyguy (1129515) | about 5 years ago | (#29154073)

Thanks for the clarification. Why I asked in the first place was because I actually tried the video tag out. It's dead simple in theory, but in practice, it's another story. I needed at least 3 video files and two additional scripts for browsers to fall-back on in case the browser didn't support Ogg Theora - one for Safari and one for a Flash player. There was no perceivable difference in quality in any browser.

If things are going to be this way by the time HTML spec becomes a standard, I think I'll just stick with Flash.

Re:hmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29154513)

I needed at least 3 video files and two additional scripts for browsers to fall-back on in case the browser didn't support Ogg Theora - one for Safari and one for a Flash player.

Have you tried/evaluated the Cortado fallback mentioned in TFA (http://www.theora.org/cortado/)? Not that Java would be my first choice of fallback for anything, but it sounds like it is the only solution that will alleviate the need for 3 different formats on the server...

Re:hmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29154547)

You actually only need 2 videos and 1 JS file for Flash fallback. The JW player [longtailvideo.com] is able to play .mp4 files with H264 encoded video. Safari will happily play that .mp4 in its < video > tag and Firefox et al will play the .ogv file.

Re:hmmm (2, Informative)

FrostedWheat (172733) | more than 4 years ago | (#29154291)

Apple refused to support ogg because it's technically inferior and they didn't want to put dev effort into something worse than they already have

I don't believe this is true. They've mentioned the potential for submarine patents as a reason for not using it. If this could be made clearer for them, there's no technical reason why they couldn't support the format. Heck, Webkit already supports the <video> tag and adding a Theora decoder would be trivial for an apple developer. A few hours work.

Regarding quality -- yes it's not just as good, but they don't have to promote the format. They just have to decode it. If a website is using Theora (mine does!) then it'll look the same regardless if they're using Safari or Mozilla, it's not like Apple will be worse off for it. And the difference isn't that great -- it's not like JPEG vs. JPEG2000, and we're still not using JPEG2000.

Re:hmmm (1)

Lennie (16154) | more than 4 years ago | (#29154407)

<i>Apple refused to support ogg because it's technically inferior and they didn't want to put dev effort into something worse than they already have</I>

<i>They've mentioned the potential for submarine patents as a reason for not using it.</I>

Actually it was both.

Funny, Apple actually has a free (as in free beer) license granted by On2 (now Google) to use VP3 (which Ogg Theora in based on), so it's kinda strange they complain about patents.

And yes, the iPhone now may not support Theora, but the hardware in the iPhone would possible be able to support it, the hardware isn't hardcoded (hardwired ?). Video-acceleration hardware like that usually has firmware to support different formats.

So some people keep wondering what the real reason is.

Re:hmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29154613)

Funny, Apple actually has a free (as in free beer) license granted by On2 (now Google) to use VP3 (which Ogg Theora in based on), so it's kinda strange they complain about patents.

Well, it's not On2's patents that would be the problem. It is other companies. All the major people involved in designing video codecs have pooled their patents for H264. I understand that the pooling agreement is blanket - they can't sign the agreement and then turn around and say to their partners "I kept one patent back so now you have to pay me extra". Anyone else has had several years now and if they had a submarine patent why wouldn't they have used it yet? H264 can't get MORE embedded in the marketplace so it's not like they would get any benefit from further delay.

And yes, the iPhone now may not support Theora, but the hardware in the iPhone would possible be able to support it, the hardware isn't hardcoded (hardwired ?). Video-acceleration hardware like that usually has firmware to support different formats.

I'm not sure about that. Sure firmware can cope with minor packing differences in file formats but the fundamental data transformation accelerated have to be in the same family. Otherwise the hardware would be virtually general purpose and you would lose the cost/efficiency advantages of dedicated hardware. If Theora was compulsory in HTML5, not only would there be several months before hardware acceleration chips even started to be available, but all the existing iPhones would be obsolete, despite not having gained any new capabilities from the user's point of view.

Re:hmmm (1)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 4 years ago | (#29154615)

there's no technical reason why they couldn't support the format
Yes there is, there's no hardware ogg theora decoder available. That means that apple's most profitable piece of hardware can't be made to play it.

Re:hmmm (3, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#29155039)

Submarine patents are not a valid reason for choosing H.264 and not Theora. The VP3 codec that Theora was based upon has been around for longer than H.264 so there has been longer for patent trolls to come out of the woodwork. The H.264 license you get from the MPEG-LA doesn't grant you a license to all of the patents required for H.264, it grants you a license to all of the patents that the MPEG-LA knows about required for H.264. Similarly, the (free and irrevocable) patent grant from On2 gives you a license to all of the patents that On2 knows about required for Theora.

Oh, and it wouldn't take a few hours for an Apple developer to add Theora support, it would take zero hours. On my machine, video tags referring to Theora content Just Work(tm) in Safari. Safari doesn't do any video decoding, it delegates it to QuickTime. If you have the (free, provided by Xiph) QuickTime Theora plugin installed then Theora videos work correctly. Installing the codec isn't exactly difficult and once you've done it you never have to think about it again. The problem is on the iPhone, where users can not install their own codecs.

Re:hmmm (1)

Ant P. (974313) | more than 4 years ago | (#29155231)

â Apple refused to support ogg because it's technically inferior and they didn't want to put dev effort into something worse than they already have.

I guess being compatible with much larger players doesn't come into it then, which leads me to wonder why they bothered to put all that dev effort into making an X11 compatibility layer for their OS.

Theora 1.1 (5, Informative)

Torrance (1599681) | about 5 years ago | (#29153789)

Monty from Xiph has provided an update [mit.edu] on the state of the upcoming 1.1 release. It makes for interesting reading.

The bigger picture (3, Insightful)

malevolentjelly (1057140) | about 5 years ago | (#29153825)

I don't think there's any evidence that the video tag is catching on in any meaningful way. Can anyone point me to evidence of the contrary?

Who is to say that Flash's grasp is even weakening among major content providers? Is the video tag DRM friendly?

Re:The bigger picture (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29153867)

i think it's funny you open sores bitches have nothing better to do than to talk up open sores faggotry on a friday night. lol!!!!eleven!!!

Re:The bigger picture (2, Funny)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | about 5 years ago | (#29153975)

Oh god I'm so lonely!

Re:The bigger picture (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29153891)

Google is getting behind HTML5, so it will probably be an eventuality with youtube.

Re:The bigger picture (1)

malevolentjelly (1057140) | about 5 years ago | (#29153991)

I don't think they're going to want to re-encode everything to a weaker format that uses more bandwidth, they're bleeding enough money as is. They'll likely only do that if it will play existing h.264 files they have lying around.

Google behind HTML5... Not behind Theora (2, Informative)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | about 5 years ago | (#29154029)

Chris DiBona [dibona.com] of Slashdot fame [slashdot.org] now of Google fame [google.com] had some choice words [whatwg.org] regarding Theora.

Re:Google behind HTML5... Not behind Theora (5, Informative)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 4 years ago | (#29154191)

Yes, and when he was called out on his BS and FUD [xiph.org] ... he promptly disappeared.

Re:Google behind HTML5... Not behind Theora (1)

FloydTheDroid (1296743) | more than 4 years ago | (#29154891)

Okay, the parent linked article says FUD, you say FUD, and the article you link to says FUD. I admit there's uncertainty and doubt but where's the fear?

The simple truth is that Theroa has a lot of catching up to do which is completely fair since it's up against a codec family which has been in constant development for, well, ever. In my experience it has a hard time keeping up with motion which is not something which can be shown with single frames like your linked article does. I don't think we'll see the Internet embrace Theroa until its quality is truly comparable to h.264 or when h.264 starts charging for use. Just saying we should use it without any compelling reason other than that it's free isn't going to win any converts since it is always going to be free for the client.

Re:Google behind HTML5... Not behind Theora (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29154443)

if by "choice" you mean "totally uninformed" then you are correct.

Re:The bigger picture (2, Informative)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | about 5 years ago | (#29153899)

I don't think there's any evidence that the video tag is catching on in any meaningful way. Can anyone point me to evidence of the contrary?

Here you go [youtube.com] .

Is the video tag DRM friendly?

Hell no, but neither is Flash, realistically.

Re:The bigger picture (1)

malevolentjelly (1057140) | about 5 years ago | (#29153939)

Here you go [youtube.com].

A technical demo? Come on. If this is all it takes to be "catching on," then I would say JavaFX is the future.

Re:The bigger picture (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | about 5 years ago | (#29154031)

A technical demo on the most popular video site on the internet. A website that is using so much bandwidth it's losing ~$1 billion/year. Why wouldn't they want to switch to a higher-quality-per-kb option?

Re:The bigger picture (1)

malevolentjelly (1057140) | about 5 years ago | (#29154049)

A technical demo on the most popular video site on the internet. A website that is using so much bandwidth it's losing ~$1 billion/year. Why wouldn't they want to switch to a higher-quality-per-kb option?

Can you recommend one? I thought they were using h.264 already...

Re:The bigger picture (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | about 5 years ago | (#29154065)

It is my understanding that they transcode to FLV, but still have the h264 availiable [blogspot.com] .

Re:The bigger picture (1)

malevolentjelly (1057140) | about 5 years ago | (#29154075)

It is my understanding that they transcode to FLV, but still have the h264 availiable [blogspot.com] .

Isn't FLV a container format? It's not a codec. The videos should all be in h.264 or h.263.

Re:The bigger picture (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29154349)

FLV is a container, it can hold several audio and video formats including MP3, AAC, H.264, VP6(?) and some more obscure formats as well as a custom video format for slide shows or desktop screencasts.

Youtube uses the default codec for standard quality (it's a VP* format, VP6 or VP7 [Successors to VP3 which Theora was built from]) with MP3 22050Hz (128kbit/s) for audio. High Quality is H.264 with AAC 44100Hz (128kbit/s).

Re:The bigger picture (3, Informative)

MartinSchou (1360093) | about 5 years ago | (#29154025)

Well, that was anti climactic.

Opera 10 beta 3: Shows the player, but doesn't work "You must have an HTML5 capable browser."
Firefox 3.5.2: Shows the player, but doesn't work. Doesn't give the error message though
Google Chrome 2.0.172: Same as Opera "You must have an HTML5 capable browser."
Google Chrome 3.0.195.6 (latest beta): All player controls work except full screen and the thingie on the right hand side, but none of the "more from" or "related videos" links work at all.
Internet Explorer 8: Only shows the controls for the player, "Done, but with errors on page"
Apple Safari 4.0.3: Can play the video (yay), but nothing else works. Doesn't show the time played or remaining, doesn't move the time indicator, none of the "more from" or "related videos" links work at all.

I've no idea if the issue is with YouTube or with the browsers, but ... it's really not impressive. I installed the latest Chrome beta just to see if that made everything work like it should on that page, and it still doesn't.

I've no doubt that it will work eventually, but for now, I wouldn't use that site as an of course it works, just look at this example.

Re:The bigger picture (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | about 5 years ago | (#29154055)

This is why we need a standard video format. AFAIK, only Chrome and Safari support h264 (which is the format Google's using on that page). Mozilla, Chrome, and Opera support Ogg. IE must be betting on silverlight or something, because they've stayed out of the video tag debate.

Re:The bigger picture (1)

impaledsunset (1337701) | more than 4 years ago | (#29154297)

Firefox doesn't show the video because it doesn't support H264. It's funny, because if you have a plugin for the H264 format installed, it still doesn't show the video. But if you right-click on it and select "Show video" from the menu, it opens it in a new window, where it is playing just fine.

Re:The bigger picture (1)

Lennie (16154) | more than 4 years ago | (#29154425)

I think someone should make a bugreport.

Heck, I'll do it now, if it isn't.

restarting slow downloads could also use some improvement, I'll do the same for that.

Re:The bigger picture (1)

impaledsunset (1337701) | more than 4 years ago | (#29154529)

I'm not sure if that's worth a bug report. A video tag is different from a plugin, which is for some kind of unknown object. The plugin has it's own controls, which Mozilla can't hide, and also Mozilla can't control the playback inside of it, so the plugin _can't_ be utilized for the video tag, as much as I wish it could.

My anecdote might be interesting and funny, but it isn't fixable. Unless, of course, there are changes in the plugin architecture (adding support for video plugins) and (or) in the plugins themselves.

Re:The bigger picture (2, Insightful)

moon3 (1530265) | about 5 years ago | (#29153913)

Theora is relatively new, recently matured format still under heavy development so people are in waiting mode, they will switch as soon as the format bested the competing H264, if this format outperforms competition in a sense that the bit-rate is better for given quality then lot of people will turn their heads as bandwidth is money these days, this however must happen in concord with the video tag adoption and hardware acceleration support otherwise it really is not very viable format even for the near future.

Re:The bigger picture (1)

malevolentjelly (1057140) | about 5 years ago | (#29153935)

But what's the advantage as a content provider for me to re-encode everything so it only works in Firefox and Chrome?

Re:The bigger picture (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29154107)

25%-30% more marketshare.

Re:The bigger picture (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29154313)

25%-30% more marketshare.

Assuming none of those people have Flash installed.

Re:The bigger picture (1)

nixkuroi (569546) | more than 4 years ago | (#29154353)

Wait, wouldn't making it so it ONLY works in Firefox and Chrome be 70-75% LESS market share?

Re:The bigger picture (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29154369)

And Opera, too - which basically leaves Safari and Chrome... Let's face it, without IE, supporting one or the other means half/half :p

Re:The bigger picture (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29154409)

You could always be an idiot and write a Theora decoder in ActionScript to deploy as a Flash Movie to everyone who isn't using Firefox.

This would give Firefox users something to sneer at others about but there's no real business case for it. (Oh, and a software decoder in ActionScript would be as slow as molasses travelling uphill).

---
Does Chrome actually support Theora? Google threw their chips in the H.264 pot during the HTML5 standard video format debate so I would have expected Chrome to only play H.264 vids.

Re:The bigger picture (1)

FrostedWheat (172733) | more than 4 years ago | (#29154447)

For some sites, H.264 licensing costs may end up being more than any savings on bandwidth.

Subtitles (1)

GerardM (535367) | about 5 years ago | (#29153901)

How do you subtitle ogg material. Without it, it does not have the relevance it could have. Thanks, GerardM

Re:Subtitles (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | about 5 years ago | (#29154043)

Thoggen has the option to rip subtitles, so I assume it's possible.

Re:Subtitles (5, Interesting)

FrostedWheat (172733) | more than 4 years ago | (#29154449)

That's OggKate [xiph.org] 's job. It also works with any other Ogg embedded video codec.

Technically inferior (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29153949)

The main problem with Theora, is that it is clearly technically inferior.
For instance, Vorbis generates comparable or better quality than MP3 of the same size, so it has a hope to be pushed. Theora doesn't.

Linux cant even edit it half the time (2, Interesting)

nrgy (835451) | about 5 years ago | (#29154053)

Try finding video editing software which can edit (not commandline like ffmpeg, I'm talking gui After Effects style) a Theora file.

Even on Linux where you would think ogg would be strongest is horrible in the ability to edit ogg files. I do screen captures from time to time and recordmydesktop only saves out ogg (ogv in later versions) files of the captures. I constantly have to run ffmpeg on the files and spit them out as png image sequences.

Outside the technical merits I don't know how you can expect to get traction on a format that barely anything if at all can edit the darn things.

Just my 2 cents.

GUI editor for Theora: LiVES (3, Interesting)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 4 years ago | (#29154255)

Try finding video editing software which can edit (not commandline like ffmpeg, I'm talking gui After Effects style) a Theora file.

I've never used After Effects so I'm not sure what features it has. However, if you want a GUI editor which can handle theora files, then try LiVES. It's rather better (in features & interface) than avidemux or kdenlive, neither of which can handle theora. It's cross-platform OSS for BSD-Linux-Mac-Windows.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LiVES [wikipedia.org] http://lives.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net]

Re:GUI editor for Theora: LiVES (1)

Sal Zeta (929250) | more than 4 years ago | (#29154623)

with all the due respect, it's like replying with "wordpad" to someone who is asking for a substitute to emacs or VI.

Consider After Effects like photoshop, but for whole video reels rather than still Images.

Maybe the OP was thinking of Final Cut, and even in that case we're still talking about very different products, especially if you're using FC with some proficiency at professional level.

Re:Linux cant even edit it half the time (1)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 4 years ago | (#29154619)

Well you wouldn't edit in your delivery format, ordinarily. Even H.264 isn't really a source format, it's just what you encode into when your project is done and you want to put it on the web. Mpeg2 if you are going to DVD, HDV if your dumping to a DV tape and so on.

While it's possible to edit formats like H.264 or Theora, it's not really ideal.

Re:Linux cant even edit it half the time (1)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 4 years ago | (#29154635)

Edit: I should have added that some current "edit" formats are based on H.264 and Mpeg2 - HDV and XDCAM HD, for example, are both based on MPEG2 and you can edit them natively with certain software (Final Cut Pro, for example). I wouldn't like to edit an MPEG2 clip that had been encoded for DVD, however, although it is possible.

Re:Linux cant even edit it half the time (1)

WWWWolf (2428) | more than 4 years ago | (#29154679)

Try finding video editing software which can edit (not commandline like ffmpeg, I'm talking gui After Effects style) a Theora file.

Cinelerra.

Though I have to say that occasionally, Cinelerra-CV has problems reading all formats with different quirks in each format. I can't remember offhand what weird quirks it had with Theora. Probably some funny inability to find keyframes at times and thus messing things up if you cut at a wrong place. Rendering to Theora works fine, last I checked.

Re:Linux cant even edit it half the time (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#29155113)

Why is this relevant to Theora adoption? If you want to produce professional-looking Theora, install the Theora QuickTime plugin on a Mac and then you can export directly from Final Cut Pro. Presumably the same thing applies with the DirectShow plugin and After Effects on Windows if you're forced to use that.

Compare success of Web vs audio video standards (3, Interesting)

gig (78408) | more than 4 years ago | (#29154755)

Audio standardization is not only bigger than the Web, it's older, and it's MUCH more successful than any Web standardization to date, including HTML 5, which is still only 35% of desktops and 90% of mobiles.

I think until the Web development community actually creates and follows even just one of their own standards (maybe HTML 5 will be the one), browser makers and other principals should STFU about audio video standardization, which has been highly successful for 30 years.

During the 21st century thus far, you can't make one fucking Web page for all browsers. But the same ISO MPEG-4 audio video plays in both Adobe Flash and QuickTime Player; both iTunes and YouTube; both iPod and Blu-Ray; both iPhone and Blackberry. Camcorders from Sony and Kodak make the same MPEG-4 video format. Editors from Adobe and Apple edit and export the same MPEG-4 video format. Both NVIDIA and AMD GPU's have ISO MPEG-4 H.264/AAC decoders in them. There are MPEG-4 players from literally hundreds of manufacturers.

But consider that Linux and Windows can't play all of that audio video, and so we invoke Flash in a Web page, bring in a proprietary app with questionable security context and crashy history and also it changed owners twice already, just so we can make everyday standard audio video work in Linux and Windows!

And during the 21st century thus far, HTML has been static. The object tag bullshit from 2008 is the same object tag bullshit I used in 1998. The W3C and browser makers have contributed almost nothing to audio and video in the entire history of the Web. If not for the fact Tim Berners-Lee created the Web on a NeXT system that had 8-bit audio, maybe the Web would not have had audio at all from the beginning. The Web is turning 20 and still no consumer level audio, never mind pro audio. I produce music ... how can I express a 5 minute 24-track 24-bit 192kHz song made up of hundreds of synchronized audio clips in HTML so I can store it for posterity? You guys are not even getting started with what needs to be done with audio and video on the Web. And while HTML did nothing over the past 10 years, we got RSS and then podcasts, which are filled with ISO MPEG-4 audio video. Even MSNBC.com is MPEG-4 since podcasts, no more Windows Media. Set-top boxes with MPEG-4 decoders in them are downloading podcasts. These podcasts are viewable already in browsers. The browser today is interacting with a metric shitload of MPEG-4, but it's leaving it all to Flash and then ironically, the browser vendors complain that Flash crashes their browser! Incredible.

Think about the fact that Microsoft could not break MPEG-4 standardization in spite of using Windows and Internet Explorer to push Windows Media. That was years ago when MPEG-2 was changing over to MPEG-4. How is Firefox going to do it now, when all the media is MPEG-4 already?

Understand that music and movie makers are creating content for MPEG-4 in the way they used to make CD and DVD. Authoring tools have had MPEG-4 export for many years, it's extremely old news. And music and movies are not tolerant of format wars. The margins are too low. Most music albums and movies don't make money. A format war kills all the smaller artists who can't double up their production costs to make 2 products. Broken audio video standardization breaks artists. The media that is on iPod and YouTube and Blu-Ray is what is going to be on the Web servers. If Mozilla can't play it then Flash will be invoked perpetually. That is all Flash is used for now it seems, is to wrap MPEG-4 up to make it Linux and Windows safe.

Further, this is all political because there is no technical substitute for MPEG-4 that pleases Mozilla. Ogg is offered, but Google has already said that an Ogg YouTube would require more bandwidth than currently exists in the world today. Are you telling me that YouTube is not part of the World Wide Web? Ogg on iPod would get you one quarter battery life because there are no Ogg decoder chips. Should the audio from the Web not play on iPods and vice versa?

And even if there were a new Mozilla-approved format, who would transcode all of the world's media into it? Where does the computing power come from?

So what Mozilla is really saying is that they want to make audio video standards more like Web standards. Now, not only can you make 2 websites to support the Web, you can make 2 audio formats and 2 video formats as well. And who knows how long before Mozilla stops supporting JPEG.

So I honestly think humility is in order for browser makers who are really, really late to the audio video standardization party. Nice to see you. Too bad the first thing you did was take a piss in the punch bowl. Nice to see you plan to have a way to make just one Web page for the whole Web by 2026.

The truth is, if Linux and Windows continue to be the odd ones out in the entire world, the only devices that can't play MPEG-4, then that is fine. Flash runs on both of you. You'll get Flash forever and that is how you'll see your MPEG-4. Your battery will run down really fast because you're not using your GPU to decode the video, and Flash is crashy and so on. But at least you'll know you're not showing a "closed" video format. Except you are. But in Flash. So whatever.

Re:Compare success of Web vs audio video standards (1)

agnosticnixie (1481609) | more than 4 years ago | (#29155065)

Congratulations, you completely missed the point
1 - it's about licensing fees, jpeg has no such fees and all patents have been dead for years or shot down
2 - You quote a nonsensical piece of FUD (the bandwidth thing)
3 - Congrats, you're another self-important prick. I know plenty of people who still work with mp3, or deal with flac. Similarly, studios rarely encode video before post-processing, so it's moot, they could just as well. The BBC uses Dirac, which as far as I know is also a xiph standard. 4 - Hardware acceleration will become moot with openCL.

Re:Compare success of Web vs audio video standards (1)

Psyborgue (699890) | more than 4 years ago | (#29155301)

The point you're missing is that since x264 is a closed format the Mozilla foundation can't include it in their browser because of the patent fees and so forth. It's not idealism of open v. closed. It's just the situation required by the stupidity of US patent law. If the US didn't recognize software patents i'm sure the Mozilla foundation would quickly integrate the x264 project as an h264 excoder/decoder into their browser. Personally I think the answer is to define a video tag like an image tag and leave the browser / plugins and/or system codecs to sort it out. Safari uses the system's quicktime for video (even avi), IE uses directshow, and Firefox in linux an use the vlc plugin to play just about anything. Why is it suddenly the responsibility of the browser to do provide something that already exists?

Re:Compare success of Web vs audio video standards (1)

Ant P. (974313) | more than 4 years ago | (#29155321)

how can I express a 5 minute 24-track 24-bit 192kHz song made up of hundreds of synchronized audio clips in HTML so I can store it for posterity?

First tell me how I can write a message board in WAV format?

*sigh* (1)

nrgy (835451) | more than 4 years ago | (#29155017)

I don't know why my post is marked as Troll.

Does no one know how many people rip stuff off youtube, vimeo, insert site X here, and edit the videos into parodies or god knows what else?

If you have a format that can't be readily edited I don't get how its going to go anywhere.

Not saying its ideal but it is a valid point.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>