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!

VP3, Open Source Video at 200kbs

CmdrTaco posted more than 12 years ago | from the lower-bitrate-pr0n dept.

Movies 219

Honest Man noted that intel is hyping VP3 as the first low bitrate open source video codec. 200kbs for VHS quality video sounds good to me, especially when I can apt-get it. But is DivX already to entrenched in this niche?

cancel ×

219 comments

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

Divx rules!!! (-1, Troll)

LouisXIX (518487) | more than 12 years ago | (#2666493)

Nothing will beat Divx for a long time!

Re:Divx rules!!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2666691)

divx sucks donkeys - vp3 is a REAL codec designed by people who actually know what they're doing.

Thank you easter bunny (1, Funny)

KernelHappy (517524) | more than 12 years ago | (#2666495)

For Christmas this year I was really hoping for yet another video codec to bring my live video to a cell phone that I don't have and couldn't use if I did.

would you? (-1)

Fucky the troll (528068) | more than 12 years ago | (#2666500)

would you like to suck on my penis, sir? would you? I think you would.

Re:would you? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2666604)

and film it with the VP3 format too :)

DivX (0)

zhar (533174) | more than 12 years ago | (#2666506)

How much processor power does it take to convert between DivX and this new Codec?

Re:DivX (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2666829)

14 bogomips... give or take 3

Will the MPAA allow Intel to do this? (2, Interesting)

Hairy_Potter (219096) | more than 12 years ago | (#2666513)

This sounds like a dangerous piece of software for Intel to allow, dangerous to the MPAA at least. Do you suppose they will allow this, to make their movies even easier to pirate? I bet they sue Intel over this.


So quick, apt-get it before it gets banned!

Re:Will the MPAA allow Intel to do this? (5, Insightful)

steve_bryan (2671) | more than 12 years ago | (#2666562)

Right, they'll sue Intel when hell freezes over. The last thing they would try is to sue anyone with the resources to defend themselves and the 'political' stature to laugh off the lies and slurs the MPAA might attempt.

Re:Will the MPAA allow Intel to do this? (1, Informative)

zmooc (33175) | more than 12 years ago | (#2666575)

Sue? On what charges? If one can be sued over this, manufacturers of VHS-tapes, paper, pencils and photo-paper would be in danger as well. Under that new law (SSCCA or something) this could possibly be considered illegal, but I believe there's nothing that can be done about this nowadays.

Re:Will the MPAA allow Intel to do this? (2)

Rick the Red (307103) | more than 12 years ago | (#2666800)

If one can be sued over this, manufacturers of VHS-tapes, paper, pencils and photo-paper would be in danger as well.
Um, they already did sue [hrrc.org] . Fortunately, they (the greed^H^H^H^H^H movie industry) lost.

APT-GET? From where? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2666796)

With all this talk of "apt-gettin" vp3, I wonder whether there really is a deb. As far as I can tell, it's not in any of the standard apt-caches. Are you just making stuff up? Where is this deb?

Re:Will the MPAA allow Intel to do this? (2)

mickeyreznor (320351) | more than 12 years ago | (#2666888)

The creators of mp3, AFAIK, have never been sued by the RIAA. The creators of divx have never been sued by the MPAA, again AFAIK. Until the SSSCA gets through(pray that it doesn't), the MPAA and the RIAA have nothing to go on for suing people make formats themselves.

Wiht @Home in Doubt (2, Interesting)

puppetman (131489) | more than 12 years ago | (#2666523)


A low-bandwidth codec might have more success than DiVX (which, while lighter than mpeg-2, is still 800 meg for 90-100 minutes at decent quality).

Re:Wiht @Home in Doubt (1)

Malc (1751) | more than 12 years ago | (#2666763)

Hmmm, but how does DivX weigh in for 90-100 mins at VHS quality?

Re:Wiht @Home in Doubt (2, Insightful)

weeeee (196575) | more than 12 years ago | (#2666783)

Your comparison is incorrect. DivX at 800 megs for 90-100 minutes entails using a high bitrate. The only application that would require such high bitrates is high quality video. A better comparison would be to use DivX at the 200kbps and the new one at 200kbps and compare the results.

Ohhh.... (1)

MKalus (72765) | more than 12 years ago | (#2666525)

.... so does this mean that I can watch pr0n now without having to use Windows Media Player or Real Media?

Re:Ohhh.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2666653)

media player sux, try this [sasami2k.com] . I haven't used media player in over a year, (I mostly use mplayer now under linux, but it's what I run more, and plays a wider variety of stuff. It even player divx better and more reliable than windows now.

Re:Ohhh.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2666672)

Yes. You can buy a tv and vcr, or get cable and cinemax.

Re:Ohhh.... (1, Offtopic)

TheAwfulTruth (325623) | more than 12 years ago | (#2666680)

There are dozens of media players FGS, some free, some for pay. I use the ATI media player, clean and simple and I don't even have an ATI video card! It plays all properly installed video codecs on windows, windowed and full screen, no hassle. (Note that this does not include quicktime or real as they keep their codecs tied to their players). Annoyingly the Divx installer SAYS you HAVE to use their player (Playa) abd forces you to install it, but once installed, any VFW media player can playback Divx files (including the ati player I mentioned)

Boosting Ego / Marketshare (4, Insightful)

CmdrPaco (531189) | more than 12 years ago | (#2666532)

warning: not a troll, just an observation: Is this just a cheap ploy to sell P4's? This seems like Intel is just tooting their own horns about this technology, and claiming it's only for P4's.

Re:Boosting Ego / Marketshare (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2666694)

> Is this just a cheap ploy to sell P4's?

Seeing as it has been licensed by Apple, I would say no.

Re:Boosting Ego / Marketshare (3, Funny)

reaper20 (23396) | more than 12 years ago | (#2666719)

Of course! I mean, without Intel Pentium IV's how could we "enjoy the wonders of the Internet at faster than light speeds...", and I'm sitting here like a sucker missing out on the special features that one gets by using a P4 to surf the Internet.

Re:Boosting Ego / Marketshare (2)

WasterDave (20047) | more than 12 years ago | (#2666753)

Is this just a cheap ploy to sell P4's?

It might be, but it's a wasted effort - I just ran a 300Kbit stream through a P2-233. Pretty good piece of code this, should be fun to pull apart.

Dave

Quick Answer (5, Insightful)

theantix (466036) | more than 12 years ago | (#2666535)

Is DivX ;) entrenched in the market? Well, how many non-technical people have heard of it? How many PCs is it bundled with? It has a reputation for being primarily used for pirated video (regardless of the truth). So, the answer is a resounding "no, it isn't entrenched".

Re:Quick Answer (5, Insightful)

jvj24601 (178471) | more than 12 years ago | (#2666621)

It has a reputation for being primarily used for pirated video

So did MP3. Sometimes being first is more important than being better.

Major differences (2, Interesting)

theantix (466036) | more than 12 years ago | (#2666718)

With MP3, joe sixpack could copy his CD collection onto his hard drive without additional equipment, and the alternatives were all closed and proprietary. Plus, MP3 files could be simply downloaded via Napster even with a regular dial-up modem.

With DivX, if you want to copy your video collection, your hard drive is likely too small, plus you need special equipment to record. The alternatives are open as the linked article demonstrates. Via KazaA (or Gnutella, or whatever), Video files (even a 22 minute Simpsons episode) take a long time to download via cable modem, and is not realistic for the majority of people who use dial-up connections.

Don't get me wrong, DivX ;) is great, just as MP3 is. All I'm saying is that the differences are big enough to prevent DivX from being entrenched at this stage of the game.

Re:Major differences (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2666863)

The thing is, there's already better formats than DivX 3 (which is based on 3 year old beta MS code). Yet, we still see new pirate content coming out in DivX -- it's entrenched as you'd expect for the people with good bandwidth.

You might see a shift to a new codec, but only if it provides a 50% or smaller filesize.

(Also, Joe Sixpack did a lot of napstering at work.)

Re:Major differences (1)

fishebulb (257214) | more than 12 years ago | (#2666928)

actually joe sixpack couldnt do that, and still cant. its become easiey, definately, but most people dont encode music, most people copy/download other peoples music. which they downloaded from someone else. occasionally i do meet someone that encodes cds, but its no the joe sixpack

Re:Quick Answer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2666782)

Tell us all about mp3 video then, goatse face.

Re:Quick Answer (3, Informative)

triple_c (458836) | more than 12 years ago | (#2666650)

Is DivX ;) entrenched in the market? Well, how many non-technical people have heard of it? How many PCs is it bundled with? It has a reputation for being primarily used for pirated video (regardless of the truth). So, the answer is a resounding "no, it isn't entrenched".

I encouraged my Digital Video Professor here at the University of South Florida to institute divx as the codec standard for all of our projects. He tried it out and now he swears by it. I am pretty positive that divx will be used as the class standard for a while now..

Yes (1)

theantix (466036) | more than 12 years ago | (#2666734)

As I tried to indicate with (regardless of the truth) I realize that is not an accurate perception. However, it is a perception, and it is a barrier to acceptance amongst the corporate types.

Re:Quick Answer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2666773)

Holy shit! The "Digital Video Professor here at the University of South Florida" uses divx? Why didn't you say so before?! Now it'll surely be a standard!

Re:Quick Answer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2666912)

It is a standard numbnuts.. it's based around ISO Mpeg4. The only claim that microsoft can make is they had the first codec based around that out. And they did so before the standard was set too.

Re:Quick Answer (2, Insightful)

IntlHarvester (11985) | more than 12 years ago | (#2666702)

Check http://www.archive.org/ [archive.org] -- a legitimate site that uses DivX 3.

Not to mention... (2, Interesting)

_avs_007 (459738) | more than 12 years ago | (#2666825)

For the most part, isn't DiVX illegal, in that it is based on Microsoft Intellectual Property... Namely, their proposal to MPEG-4, which was not accepted? Isn't the DiVX 3.11 codec, just a hack of the MS Codec? I believe 3.11 is just the older version of the Codec that allowed encoding to non .ASF formats or something like that.

This new Codec developed by intel, is open, so there is no immediate legal issues pertaining to its use, unlike DiVX. Also, this may open the doors to commercialization. I mean... How many vendors do you think would want to release something called DiVX ;) ? In addition, its hard to defend DiVX in a court battle. I mean, how many teleconferencing apps do you know run DiVX? I'm sure Intel will be able to show that the main purpose of this codec has nothing to do with pirating movies, even though it could be a good use of it ;)

I think it would have better market value knowing it was a codec developed by a real company, not a hack of someone else's work.

Besides, isn't the bitrate of DiVX like 910 kb/sec in most applications? I think 200kb/sec for the same quality is awesome.
Key difference being: WMA supposedly offers better/equal quality to MP3 at a lower bitrate, but nobody wants to be sucked into a proprietary format. Likewise Windows Media8 supposedly offers DVD quality video at like 500 kb/sec, but again, who wants to be sucked into a proprietary format? This new codec from Intel on the other hand is open.

Just my two bits...

apt-get ispell (-1, Troll)

scotch (102596) | more than 12 years ago | (#2666537)

Although ispell probably won't help you with your usage of "to" versus "too".

More info... (2, Informative)

kaptkudzoo (235385) | more than 12 years ago | (#2666548)

More info here at http://www.on2.com

Yah, its open source for development but it costs $395 to license? You do the work, but we'll take the profits.

optimized for P4? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2666553)

why would I want a video codec optimized for a P4? A good video codec should be able to encode and decode on low MHz procs. Why would I give a *&^*(&^

Re:optimized for P4? (1, Redundant)

barawn (25691) | more than 12 years ago | (#2666619)

"low bandwidth, high quality, low processing power" is completely impossible. Bandwidth+quality equates into space, and processing power equates into time. There's always going to be a trade off between time and space.

Re:optimized for P4? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2666699)

You could have something described as low processing power if it takes very little power to decode, even if it takes lots to encode...

Re:optimized for P4? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2666730)

Uh oh, someone said IMPOSSIBLE; look for it to happen Real Soon Now...

Space, Time, what does it all MATTER? Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk

Re:optimized for P4? (1)

fishebulb (257214) | more than 12 years ago | (#2666887)

dilberts: "ontime, bug free, and feature riche" pick 2

Re:optimized for P4? (1)

TMacPhail (519256) | more than 12 years ago | (#2666704)

MHz is not the problem. To have low bandwidth and high quality a decent precessor is required. My complaint would be that the optimizations arent being done for AMD processors as well. If they want to make a truly succesful product it will need to be optimized for both and as a result, vastly increase the number of people who can and will take advantage of it.

Re:optimized for P4? (5, Funny)

Rick the Red (307103) | more than 12 years ago | (#2666822)

If it's "optimized for the P4" that means it will run twice as fast on a P3, and 2.5 times faster on AMD, right?

error, error, error (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2666556)

Don't you mean --too-- entrenched?

Some real info (2, Informative)

BigDaddy (28409) | more than 12 years ago | (#2666557)

The page linked in the article is notably lacking in any resembling information on this codec. For more info try: On2's website [vp3.com]

3Y3 R0015 J00 114M4H5 (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2666558)

61MM3 H34D 0R 3Y3 5H411 H4X0R J00 W17 4 5P0RK R4574NB00Y3Z!!!!!!!!!!!!

Worst Case? (2)

SanLouBlues (245548) | more than 12 years ago | (#2666567)

The page says datarate as low as 200kb, but what's the average datarate and what's the worst case scenario datarate?

Re:Worst Case? (2)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 12 years ago | (#2666844)

It appears to handle a QCIF sized feed over a 56kbps link and it does do VHS quality feeds in 200-500kbps feeds.

RealNetworks licensed the technology and Neww.com appears to be using the codec which is managing a better than VHS feed at about 200kbs with a framerate around 16-18fps.

Open Source??? (1, Interesting)

Dr. Blue (63477) | more than 12 years ago | (#2666573)

Their press release says "open source", but what exactly backs that up??? If you follow the download link you get to something called "VP3 for Windows". Hmmmm.... seems binary-only (no source), and only for Windows, and it costs $395!

Am I missing something here????

Re:Open Source??? (1, Flamebait)

BigDaddy (28409) | more than 12 years ago | (#2666637)

More over, note this line from their page:

The power of this codec has been validated by the fact that it has been licensed by both RealNetworks and Apple for their internet video players.

Anyone want to tell me why Apple and RealNetworks would license something that is OpenSource.

In case you're wondering their license is based upon the Mozilla Public License 1.1 (MPL 1.1). I understand this license, it should allow Apple and others to use it freely without licensing fees.

Re:Open Source??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2666722)


Anyone want to tell me why Apple and RealNetworks would license something that is OpenSource.


GCC is Open Source (GNU General Public License). If I use it, I am licensing it. I don't pay a thing to the FSF, though.


Licensing and fees are entirely different.

Re:Open Source??? (1)

Alan Partridge (516639) | more than 12 years ago | (#2666764)

Are you OK? The Mozilla Public Licence is obviously a LICENCE isn't it? Therefore, if Apple or Real make use of VP3 under the terms of that licence they can be said to have LICENCED it. I think you need to get some sleep, buddy.

Re:Open Source??? (2, Interesting)

_Marvin_ (114749) | more than 12 years ago | (#2666684)

From the vp3.com website:
"With VP3, there are no platform limitations and developers are not required to pay the restrictive license fees that other open source codecs make mandatory."
restrictive license fees for open source...? They seem to have a very strange concept of the term "open source".

Re:Open Source??? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2666723)

> Am I missing something here????

It uses a modified Mozilla license, and I just downloaded source for free (reg. required) from here:

http://www.vp3.com/

Re:Open Source??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2666756)

RTFB [tuxedo.org]

Dig deeper next time... (3, Insightful)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 12 years ago | (#2666879)

http://www.vp3.com has the real goods- Had you looked at the link on the bottom of On2's website, you'd have seen the link for the Open Source release of VP3. Open Source doesn't mean that they can't still be selling the versions of the codec that are "certified" (as in supported- they're offering limited support for the open source release...).

Re:Open Source??? (2, Informative)

ndogg (158021) | more than 12 years ago | (#2666883)

Uhh, yeah, it's pretty open source [vp3.com] , in spite of what you may believe. Whoever modded this up obviously did about as much research as the poster.

Open Source Video?!?!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2666578)

Open Source Video?!?!?!

PORNO JUST GOT INTERESTING!

Please check http://www.sourceforge.net/projects/open_porno/ for my open source porno. Only beatiful women apply, please.

Re:Open Source Video?!?!? (-1)

Fucky the troll (528068) | more than 12 years ago | (#2666711)

I believe you're thinking of Open *sores* video. Syphillis-cam baby.

Don't forget about patents. (5, Informative)

jmoffitt (100733) | more than 12 years ago | (#2666580)

There are patents on the technology, which means it is of no more use to the open source community than True Type font hinting and MP3.

I hope that they address the patent issues, and not just brush them aside like the DivX guys have done.

There's a reason the Xiph.org project is trying to develop a video codec too :)

apt-get, eh? (1)

cheezus (95036) | more than 12 years ago | (#2666600)

I didn't see anything about linux support. Intel's website really pushes the pentium 4's sse and windows xp (for some reason) for the vp3 codec.


and the codec itself is from some company called on2 technologies. They have the vp3 player for windows, a plugin for quicktime 5, but i didn't see a linux player. There is a tarball that is "for all operating systems", but it looks like it might be the quicktime addon. They make you regester to get the binaries and source. On2's website is also pushing their commecial vp4 codec, which they claim delivers full screen 60fps mpeg-2 quality video at around 750kbit...


sigh... i don't want better compression... i just want fiber at my house.

The **REAL** links are here... (5, Informative)

bani (467531) | more than 12 years ago | (#2666602)

The real open source VP3 site [vp3.com]

The VP3 open source license [vp3.com]

The VP3 license claims to be MPL derived. Would be interesting to see if it still fits the open source criteria.

Not free software (5, Insightful)

oddityfds (138457) | more than 12 years ago | (#2666939)

I'd say it is non-free software. This is cited from what they added:
[2.1] (e) Notwithstanding Sections 2.1 (a), (b), and (c) above, no license is granted to You, under any intellectual property rights including patent rights, to modify the code in such a way as to create or accept data that is incompatible with data produced or accepted by the Original Code.
and
[2.2] e) Notwithstanding Sections 2.2 (a), (b), and (c) above, no license may be granted to You by Contributor, under any intellectual property rights including patent rights, to modify the code in such a way as to create or accept data that is incompatible with data produced or accepted by the Original Code.
It is not GPL-compatible, anyway.

well (2, Insightful)

vectus (193351) | more than 12 years ago | (#2666616)

if my experience helping my friends install various codecs is any indication, people will gladly download whichever codec they need, as long as it is clear where to download it, and there isn't much of a hassle to download it.


Having to fill out any registration forms will push people away, and not being able to find the codec online will obviously throw people off. The easiest way to get around this would be to encode a bunch of movies, or tv shows.. in the name of the file put the URL to download the codec, and message everyone who is trying to download it, telling them where to download the codec.


With a bit of support from its users, this could easily take over as the common standard. With mp3's, people were only used to hearing about one specific codec (mp3). With video, people already know there are multiple kinds, each with different qualities. They know of real video, mpeg, divx, quicktime, and a few other formats. Throwing another one in the mix won't be surprising to them.


Also, after someone has downloaded a 600Mb file, they are more likely to go out on a limb and install a codec, than if they just downloaded a 3Mb mp3.

Re:well (5, Informative)

Wesley Felter (138342) | more than 12 years ago | (#2666741)

I went to the VP3 site to watch some movie trailers they have. When I started playing the trailer, QuickTime Player told me I didn't have the VP3 codec and offered to install it for me. I clicked OK a few times and the trailer started playing. It couldn't have been easier. It even installed the encoder, so I can encode VP3 from any QuickTime app.

Re:well (1)

vectus (193351) | more than 12 years ago | (#2666798)

not everyone has quicktime, though. I'm sure that a lot of people do, but a great number of people I've seen, whether they be in computer science or commerce, lack everything but windows media player. It's funny watching them try to play .rm on windows media player, and watch them bitch about how it isn't working, but it does present these VP3 people with a significant problem. (along with apple, real, and virtually every other company trying to sell some kind of media product)

Re:well (1)

jjeff (80578) | more than 12 years ago | (#2666807)

CVS doesnt require username/password.

cvs -d :pserver:anonymous@cvs.vp3.com:/on2 login

password: anonymous

then just co vp32

Open source? Looks like $395 to me.... (5, Insightful)

Lawmeister (201552) | more than 12 years ago | (#2666633)

it may be open source, but it sure isn't cheap...

Intel's link takes you to on2.com's website where they have this to say:

With the VP3 for Windows codec, you can encode VP3 video and play it back through the Windows Media Player! The VP3 for Windows codec allows you to encode VP3 video using any Video for Windows compatible encoding application (such as Adobe Premiere and Virtual Dub) and play it back through the Windows Media Player. This version comes with limited email support. $395 USD"

The free open source versions can be found at www.vp3.com, but it looks like Intel is promoting them the big bucks version.

Overheard at Intel: (1)

javaaddikt (385701) | more than 12 years ago | (#2666642)

You idiot! We're trying to sell processors here!

Re:Overheard at Intel: (1)

Unknown Bovine Group (462144) | more than 12 years ago | (#2666816)

You idiot! We're trying to sell processors here!


I know you were kidding but think about it. The more complex the compression algorythm, the smaller the file size. Complex algorythms require equally complex calculations to decompress. And if you want to be able to do it at 30 fps maybe you need a faster processor...

I remember the days of waiting for those pesky .GIF files to render on my Amiga 500 ;)

Right... (1, Informative)

GroovBird (209391) | more than 12 years ago | (#2666645)

SO

- I registered at the web site (www.vp3.com) in order to receive the source and binaries for VfW and QuickTime.
- I downloaded and started the installation.
- I was welcomed by an EULA agreement ("in consideration of your payment of $39.95").

My Question

Is this safe?

Dave

Re:Right... (1)

jvj24601 (178471) | more than 12 years ago | (#2666701)

I did the same thing, except I didn't read the EULA [slap on the wrist ... "Bad citizen!"].

Stephen King, author, dead at 55 (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2666658)


I just heard sad news on the radio - Stephen King was found dead in this Maine home this morning. There weren't any more details - it was just a little news blurb. I'm sure the slashdot community will miss him; even if you didn't like his books and movies there's no denying his contribution to american pop culture. Truly an icon.

*Not* Open Source *or* Free Software (4, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2666675)

Consider this pice:

(e) Notwithstanding Sections 2.1 (a), (b), and (c) above, no license is granted to You, under any intellectual property rights including patent
rights, to modify the code in such a way as to create or accept data that is incompatible with data produced or accepted by the Original Code.

Yeah, that's real fucking useful -- we can view the code, but we can't improve it (incompatibly).

This is the problem with the "Open Source" movement -- it's become such a buzzword that morons like VP3 think they can make up licenses like these.

Re:*Not* Open Source *or* Free Software (5, Interesting)

cruelworld (21187) | more than 12 years ago | (#2666834)

You can improve the code, as long as your improved codec's datastream can still be decoded by a cvs co unmodified decoder.

This is smart, and contrary to what you believe you can improve the encoder without breaking compatibility with the decoder. The datastream format is what cannot change.

Re:*Not* Open Source *or* Free Software (2)

Alan (347) | more than 12 years ago | (#2666861)


Yeah, that's real fucking useful -- we can view the code, but we can't improve it (incompatibly).


That sounds like the MS Shared Source concept, except it'd read "we can view the code if you pay a buttload of money, but we can't improve it..."


Bah...

"Open Source"? (4, Interesting)

slashmenot (534112) | more than 12 years ago | (#2666705)

Where, pray tell, is the link to download the source?

CVS (3, Informative)

BigDaddy (28409) | more than 12 years ago | (#2666831)

It's available from their cvs server. Look at: this page [vp3.com] for more info on browsing the CVS tree.

Re:"Open Source"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2666900)

You fucking idiot. Click the first link in the fucking story and the first thing you're presented with is a way to download the source. Register with your email address and click. Click click!

Dumbass.

$395 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2666725)

and it works with Windows Media Player?!

such a deal!!!

On2's last blaze of glory (2, Informative)

Mr_Ust (61641) | more than 12 years ago | (#2666749)

On2 could have been there first, but they squandered their chances by charging money for a codec while everyone else and his mother were giving it away for free.

Their technology was slightly better than the latest mpeg at the time, but marketting ruined another .bomb

Disclaimer: I used to have money invested in this company.

For informational purposes relating to the on2 codec, check out http://www.duck.com

They say, I say... (1)

A_Non_Moose (413034) | more than 12 years ago | (#2666760)

Blatantly ripped from the blipvert on the page:

Enables VP3 technology to deliver full-screen, full-motion, online and on-demand TV-quality video.

And divx does near DVD quality at low to mid data tates. Hummm.

Helps VP3 Video Player to implement more complex coding for higher quality at lower bitrates.

Another video player? {mumph, snorket...hehehee} I'm thrilled, and I'm sure my p200 will be happy too. Propritary codec, right?

Has SSE2 instruction set with real-time video filters for enhanced quality and experience.

Dang, reads like they are embedding hardware into software/codecs, does it not?

And they almost said it makes the internet 'supafast (tm)'...

Intel says:MP3 finally has a video counterpart - a file-compression algorithm that makes it possible to send large multimedia files over the Internet on demand.

So the are admitting they are enabeling piracy!
Get the BSA and Get the MPAA on the phone...
(rings triangle dinner bell) "Come and get it!".

Sigh, if only.

.

what about audio (5, Interesting)

Splork (13498) | more than 12 years ago | (#2666776)

200kbit/sec for video? so what. double that if you want VHS quality sound along with it!

200 kbps... (3, Informative)

chhamilton (264664) | more than 12 years ago | (#2666777)

Is that video *and* audio? Or is that video only? Either way, it seems too good to be true. Typically, 128kbps is the considered the bottom end for near CD quality for MP3 audio... at 200kbps for this VP3, if they have decent stereo sound encapsulated, that doesn't leave a lot of room for the video!

Even if that figure is for video data only, that seems way too good... 200kbps is barely enough to describe audio, let alone a decent representation of video! Don't forget, DivX takes about 10Mbyte/min or 1365kbps for audio and video at decent quality...

I wonder what the quality and resolution are truly like...

VHS audio (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2666929)

VHS audio can be encoded at about 24-48 kbps.

VHS audio is mono, and IIRC, drops off at something like 11 khz. Hi-Fi audio, on the other hand, is a little different, but they aren't advertising that. :)

Kick start Ogg Tarkin? (1)

Leknor (224175) | more than 12 years ago | (#2666785)

Maybe this can be used to kick start Ogg Tarkin [ogg.org] . It'd be nice if they had a working implementation sooner than later so developers had a reason to start supporting it which will only help more when they come up with their own nifty codec.

VP3 as counterpart to MP3... (5, Interesting)

sam@caveman.org (13833) | more than 12 years ago | (#2666786)

MP3 finally has a video counterpart - a file-compression algorithm that makes it possible to send large multimedia files over the Internet on demand. VP3 is the first open-source video codec to truly support VHS-quality video at bandwidths as low as 200 kbps.

isn't MP3 a patented, non-free algorithm? isn't that why Ogg Vorbis [ogg.org] exists? so the only reason Intel is comparing VP3 to MP3 is marketing crap, right?

either that, or they are hoping people will compress millions of DVDs into VP3 and set up giant file-swapping services, that would be a video counterpart to MP3.

in other news, are there any side-by-side comparisons of VP3 and DivX? and how does Ogg Tarkin fit into all of this, now that there is an 'open source' codec?

-sam

Re:VP3 as counterpart to MP3... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2666827)

If 200kbs are enough for VHS quality on VP3 (What im not sure of) then its better than DivX, DivX has been the way to tranfer video clips. I would also like a side-by-side comparation, but, 200kbs make the point by theirselfs.

Open Source != Free Software (2, Insightful)

Corby911 (250281) | more than 12 years ago | (#2666795)

Ok, folks - since so many people seem to be having trouble with the concept, we'll go over it again. I'm no expert (feel free to flame me if I'm wrong - oh, you would have anyway...), but Open Source is not the same as free software. Open source merely means that your customer can obtain the source after purchasing the product. Free Software is (as its name implies) free. There are many great products that are open source, but not free. Similarly there are many free software packages that are not open source. It just so happens that a lot of software for Linux/BSD/whatever happens to be both.

Ok, back to my lurking.

Mandatory registration .. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2666821)

Hmm ... vp3.com requires you to 'register' before downloading the sources. Does this mean I can't redistribute the the code once I get it? Doesn't feel like open-source to me. What is that saying? -- beware of Greeks bearing ... err ... open-source software ... or something like that...

OT: apt-get answer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2666826)

I tried apt-get haircut.
It didn't work.
I have the latest kernel version and the nightly builds following that, but my hair is very long.

What am I doing wrong?

BTW, does anyone have apt-get laid?

Quality comparison? (3, Interesting)

dschuetz (10924) | more than 12 years ago | (#2666841)

With all the talk lately about various Codecs (divx, sorenson, and now VP3, as well as the "mpeg-4" stuff we've heard about (that may or may not be a codec :) )), I've been wondering...

...has anyone put together a good test suite to compare the various codecs at various bit rates? I'm thinking something that'd have some fixed-images (test patterns), some high- and medium-intensity moving images, lots of colors, simple and complex sounds, etc. Then put that file through all the various systems, at various rates, and compare the quality somehow...

Not that it'll really make much difference to me, as an end-user, since I'll just watch whatever someone has already encoded, but I'd be curious to see something a little more substantial and quantitative than just "sorenson's cool" sort of postings...

to/too/two (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2666856)

to too and two are all differnt words with differnt meanings.

DivX shouldn't be entrenched (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2666872)

Most people don't have fast enough connections to download DivX movies like they download .mp3's. Any DivX small enough for a modem user to download is probably small enough in .mpg, .mov, .avi, or any other codec you should chose. There's still room to compete. My guess is that the window of opportunity before DivX becomes entrenched is 6-12 months.

BlackGriffen

Only 200kbps (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2666893)

When they can beat DiVX, I'll be impressed.

Two months ago I was compressing near-VHS quality at just over 250 kbps with DiVX. Could have gone down to 200 kbps if I had the time to tweak it a little more.

Now, if VP3 can do the tweaking for me, and is faster, then I'll be impressed.

missed info (5, Informative)

akb (39826) | more than 12 years ago | (#2666902)

Lots of missed info for a project that whose source was released in early September. Good to see it finally got noticed by /.

-first source is available on vp3.com [vp3.com] . You must register to download (hrm).

-Its license [vp3.com] is MPL derived, with some restrictions on IP for their patents. Also derivatives must always be able to play VP3.

-Its streamable with QT hinting.

-only currently available for Win and Mac. Port to *nix should be easy since there is code for OS X.

-Apple and Real will be supporting it in their players

Low bandwidth? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2666937)

since when is 200Kbps low bandwidth?
Last time I checked 22Kbps and 37Kbps was low bandwidth, 56-128Kbps mid bandwidth,and > 128Kbps was high bandwith. That would make VP3 a high bandwidth codec if 200 Kbps is the lowwest bitrate.
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>