Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 28th May 2010 11:40 UTC
Intel One name was conspicuously absent from the list of companies backing Google's WebM project and the VP8 codec. Despite other chip makers and designers being on the list, like AMD, NVIDIA, ARM, and Qualcomm, Intel didn't make an appearance. Yesterday, the company made its first careful commitment to the WebM project.
Permalink for comment 427111
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Neolander
Member since:
2010-03-08

I haven't seen anyone here pushing H.264 for political reasons.

The question I asked is if the "MPEG-LA and the industry backs it, hence it has to be great" unconscious thought does have a strong influence.

If MPEG-LA backed VP8, and if H.264 lovers took exactly the same Park Joy frame and told "look, the grass is blurry", I think that VP8 backers would say "No, you're just wrong, videos can't be compared based on still frames, it's images in motion. You won't ever see the blurry grass in the moving picture. Video algorithms are made to optimize the look of the video, not of the still frames which composes it". And then H.264 backers would argue "Dammit you're bought by the MPEG-LA, come on, still frames are the absolute reference in terms of video quality".

Don't you think so ?

If anything the debate here has been Theora advocates vs people who want whichever codec has the best quality.

The whole video quality discussion is a joke launched by H.264 backers like x264 devs in order to hide the real issue. If quality really mattered on the web, Youtube (which use H.264 by the way) wouldn't be #1 video site on the web.

It's all about the politics of media industry, really. It's royalty-free vs widely distributed. Getting things done right vs getting things done fast.

No one here has a vested interest in H.264. Of course the ideal would be a completely unrestricted codec that provides the best quality but such a codec doesn't exist.

My opinion is that the W3C should specify two codecs, H.264 and VP8. There should be a codec built into browsers that can be used for commercial purposes without the permission of MPEG-LA.

They cannot. It's written in the web standard definition by the W3C itself that a web standard has to be royalty-free. This has been made so in order to avoid enduring the Unisys incident again in the future. So either the MPEG-LA makes the definitive statement that H.264 is royalty-free, which is not going to happen because those rats want to make money on what looks to them like a juicy media, or the H.264 will remain a non-standard way to display video on the web, like the Flash player which introduced it in the first place.

Edited 2010-05-29 07:37 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1