Linked by David Adams on Fri 20th Apr 2012 01:31 UTC, submitted by fsmag
Multimedia, AV "When I started working on a no-DRM, open-standards-based solution for distributing high-definition video on fixed media ('Lib-Ray'), I naturally thought of Theora, because it was developed as a free software project. Several people have suggested, though, that the VP8 codec would be a better fit for my application. This month, I've finally gotten the necessary vpxtools and mkvtoolnix packages installed on my Debian system, and so I'm having a first-look at VP8. The results are very promising, though the tools are somewhat finicky."
Permalink for comment 515042
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

First of all -- thanks very much for the input, and for inviting me to this thread.

and explains what the spec is like.

Mind you, I'm rewriting that now. That's what the FSM articles are about:

Which I'm writing as I go through the development of my third prototype design.

Now, my own take on this: it's a generally rather good idea, but the spec is not well-defined enough.

Thus far, I agree. Hence, the "0" version numbers. :-)

I'll release a version "1" when I think I've got past that point.

Problem one: there is no file defined with a clear enough name that would immediately indicate that the media contains a Lib-Ray product. "meta.cnf" is just too ambiguous, I've already seen ".cnf" -files used by multiple different applications and games

Not a problem. It's not just the 'meta.cnf' file that defines it as a Lib-Ray volume, it's the contents of the file, e.g.:

# Mandatory fields
LibRayVersion: 0.2
LibRayID: 1 # ID for the producer (sign up for this with
DiskID: 2 # ID for this disk (you assign this number)
Cover: cover.jpg
Title: Sintel

Second problem: the specification defines a combination of VP8/Vorbis as mandatory

Currently trying VP8 + FLAC/Vorbis + SRT. Was originally Theora + FLAC + Kate.

whereas a much more flexible and future-proof approach

Future-proof versioning is addressed above.

Bear in mind that "VP8-only" constrains the disk/card format, not the player. The point is that a player developer need only support this format.

(And AFAIK, the only choices for free/open formats are VP8 and Theora at this time. Allowing proprietary standards like H.264 would defeat the purpose).

I am also somewhat uncertain if the way the menus are done is all that good and flexible enough, but I suppose that remains to be seen.

Well, I'll be revisiting that issue. The thing is, I don't like the idea of creating a whole new menu format when there are perfectly good free software HTML engines and lots of developers already know how to write HTML.

One thing that springs to mind at first is that I do not see anything that would allow for multiple full titles, each with their own subtitle and audio settings, on one media.

That's definitely going to happen, though. I'm still considering the best way to organize it -- and at the moment I'm trying to get the basics dealt with first.

it would allow for the creation of collections where the titles [...] do not share the same characteristics when it comes to audio and subtitling.

That's a good point that I haven't given a lot of thought to. However, I think it gets covered by using the already-specified HTML5 Javascript approach, where the subtitle and audio options are properties of the video objects.

Reply Parent Score: 2