Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 2nd Jul 2009 18:51 UTC, submitted by snydeq
Internet & Networking We here at OSNews have taken somewhat of an interest in the new HTML5 video and audio tags, which should - some day - make embedding audio and video material into web pages as easy and straightforward as embedding images, allowing the web to finally remove the shackles of dreadful Flash video. Sadly, the problem with these new tags are the codecs; as it turns out, browser makers have not reached an agreement about what codecs to choose for video, with mostly Apple throwing a spanner in the works, and Microsoft shining in absence.
Thread beginning with comment 371370
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Ogg Theora
by Tom K on Thu 2nd Jul 2009 19:37 UTC
Tom K
Member since:
2005-07-06

*WHY* is everyone pushing a technology that is obviously inferior?

Ogg Theory has been proven, time and time again, to have lower quality per unit of data than other codecs of the same generation.

I'll take my encumbered H.264/QuickTime/whatever any day if it means a sharper, more fluid, and more vivid picture for the same amount of data transferred. If you can't afford the licenses, fair enough -- but if licensing is not the issue, and if you're choosing Ogg Theora just to keep the freetards happy, please, please stop.

Reply Score: -2

RE: Ogg Theora
by ZephyrXero on Thu 2nd Jul 2009 19:47 in reply to "Ogg Theora"
ZephyrXero Member since:
2006-03-22

Please look at this comparison ( http://people.xiph.org/~greg/video/ytcompare/comparison.html ) rather than just going on here-say or old news. Theora 1.0 was not quite as good as H.264, but Theora 1.1 will be just as good it seems. Of course by your use of a term like "free-tards" you come off as just another troll, so maybe it's not even worth bothering trying to talk in terms of logic...

Edited 2009-07-02 19:47 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Ogg Theora
by Tom K on Thu 2nd Jul 2009 20:38 in reply to "RE: Ogg Theora"
Tom K Member since:
2005-07-06

I've heard that one before!

"Version X wasn't that great, but Version Y will be better!"

Everyone from Linux nerds to Microsoft execs to Apple engineers has used this. Unfortunately, when it comes to something subjective like video quality, such claims rarely pan out -- especially when it's an open-source project.

Also, the results for H.264 from that link are incorrect -- http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2009-May/069239.ht...

Reply Parent Score: -1

RE: Ogg Theora
by umccullough on Thu 2nd Jul 2009 20:19 in reply to "Ogg Theora"
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

Ogg Theory has been proven, time and time again, to have lower quality per unit of data than other codecs of the same generation.


Disclaimer: I have not reviewed the differences, but you're leaving out an important factor that may come into play: Decoder complexity. If it takes more CPU power to decode one or the other, that's another hit against it - in a world quickly moving to low-power devices, the amount of CPU it takes to decode a video stream is relevant as well.

My Atom N270 can barely decode full screen video as it is ;)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Ogg Theora
by PlatformAgnostic on Thu 2nd Jul 2009 21:42 in reply to "RE: Ogg Theora"
PlatformAgnostic Member since:
2006-01-02

Power/datarate consumed is an interesting factor too: depending on the mode of transport (cellular, wifi, wimax), there may be more power savings from having the processor/embedded hardware codec work harder to ensure that you can transfer fewer bits because the per-byte energy of the data transmission turns out to be worse than the energy spent decoding. Also, sometimes data transfer costs become a big factor (some cellular companies are charging thousands of dollars per GB after you exceed your cap.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Ogg Theora
by Beta on Thu 2nd Jul 2009 23:13 in reply to "RE: Ogg Theora"
Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

My Atom N270 can barely decode full screen video as it is ;)

Notice the recent inclusion of nVidia’s Ion with quite a few Atom systems? Desktop GPUs supporting programmable pipelines?

VDPAU / DxVA / XvBA should solve the problems of low power decoding, and highlight certain codecs qualities more (Theora in this case, less overhead), at least on the x86 platform ;)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Ogg Theora
by Fergy on Thu 2nd Jul 2009 20:35 in reply to "Ogg Theora"
Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

Ogg Theory has been proven, time and time again, to have lower quality per unit of data than other codecs of the same generation.

Ogg Vorbis has been proven, time and time again, to have higher quality per unit of data than other codecs like mp3. Still mp3 is the default and only 'freaks' use Ogg vorbis.

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[2]: Ogg Theora
by madcrow on Thu 2nd Jul 2009 20:42 in reply to "RE: Ogg Theora"
madcrow Member since:
2006-03-13

Not quite true. Plenty of things use Ogg Vorbis in "embedded" contexts like in-game music, sound effects, etc. It's just on the consumer-visible side of things that Ogg Vorbis is considered a second-tier option. Even on the consumer side of things, OGG support would be more widespead if the IPod supported it. I have friends who KNOW that OGG sounds better and takes less space, but they can't use it as their media player doesn't support it.

Edited 2009-07-02 20:44 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Ogg Theora
by Tom K on Thu 2nd Jul 2009 20:44 in reply to "RE: Ogg Theora"
Tom K Member since:
2005-07-06

Audio codecs and MP3 debates are yesterday's news. Today is all about video codecs.

Know why Vorbis didn't make it? Because iPods and iPhones don't play it. Whine all you like about unfairness and patented algorithms, but that's basically what it comes down to.

Also, people who re-encode their MP3s into Vorbis just to be "free" and/or claim better audio quality COMPLETELY miss the point.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Ogg Theora
by memson on Fri 3rd Jul 2009 11:47 in reply to "RE: Ogg Theora"
memson Member since:
2006-01-01

Doesn't Ogg Vorbis require floating point operations to decode at a reasonable quality vs performance rate? Most ARM processors (usually present in MP3 players) till recently were too slow to handle integer based decoding at a high quality and did not support floating point operations without a software emulator.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Ogg Theora
by dbolgheroni on Thu 2nd Jul 2009 21:44 in reply to "Ogg Theora"
dbolgheroni Member since:
2007-01-18

Same reason Betamax was a big success over VHS.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: Ogg Theora
by lemur2 on Thu 2nd Jul 2009 23:27 in reply to "Ogg Theora"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

*WHY* is everyone pushing a technology that is obviously inferior? Ogg Theory has been proven, time and time again, to have lower quality per unit of data than other codecs of the same generation. I'll take my encumbered H.264/QuickTime/whatever any day if it means a sharper, more fluid, and more vivid picture for the same amount of data transferred. If you can't afford the licenses, fair enough -- but if licensing is not the issue, and if you're choosing Ogg Theora just to keep the freetards happy, please, please stop.


Theora has very recently just about caught up. There is only 2db difference now between the development version of Theora encoder, called Thusnelda, and H.264.

Thusnelda still has a bit of tuning to complete, and there is potential that after that tuning Theora could actually be better than H.264.

Please try to keep up, Thom.

Oh, BTW, if you are choosing patent-encumbered H.264/QuickTime/whatever that performs no better than oepn codecs just to keep big corporations happy, please, please stop.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Ogg Theora
by Wrawrat on Fri 3rd Jul 2009 00:30 in reply to "RE: Ogg Theora"
Wrawrat Member since:
2005-06-30

Theora has very recently just about caught up. There is only 2db difference now between the development version of Theora encoder, called Thusnelda, and H.264.


Actually, 2 dB of PSNR is quite a significant difference in image quality measurement. The average gap between H.263 and the reference H.264/AVC implementation is about 3 dB.

Second, it's just a mathematical metric. It doesn't take account of our visual system. It's not uncommon to have images with an higher PSNR that look worse than another with a lower PSNR.

Last, but not the least, one of your own links that you use as reference[1] mention that PSNR is a poor metric to compare different codecs! Don't you read your own sources?

Thusnelda still has a bit of tuning to complete, and there is potential that after that tuning Theora could actually be better than H.264.


Like I mentioned in the news about Mozilla Firefox 3.5, H.264 is not a still target. H.264/AVC is fairly complex standard; there are many features that are barely exploited at the moment. Most comparisons between Theora and H.264 are made with the free x264 encoder. There are better encoders out there, like the one from Nero.

The only thing I agree with you is that we should promote open, free standards. For the rest, it's pure "free" zealotry. Being a "free" advocate is great, being a zealot makes you blind.

[1]: http://web.mit.edu/xiphmont/Public/theora/demo7.html

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: Ogg Theora
by lemur2 on Fri 3rd Jul 2009 00:37 in reply to "Ogg Theora"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

If you can't afford the licenses, fair enough -- but if licensing is not the issue, and if you're choosing Ogg Theora just to keep the freetards happy, please, please stop.


Hey Thom, here is an alternative viewpoint that you might like to consider:

http://www.linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2009070300135OPBZCY

Cheers.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Ogg Theora
by JMcCarthy on Fri 3rd Jul 2009 00:44 in reply to "Ogg Theora"
JMcCarthy Member since:
2005-08-12

Because it's the only one that everyone is capable of standardizing on. It's not just "freetards" that would be boned.

I agree with you as far as personal use is concerned, but if it's something everyone is supposed to be able to use..

Reply Parent Score: 2