Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 4th Feb 2010 00:12 UTC
Multimedia, AV We've got news from the MPEG-LA, regarding any possible H264 license changes they might institute at the end of this year. More specifically, they've put out a press release stating that they will not change one specific aspect of the license that governs the AVC Patent Portfolio (to which h264 belongs): MPEG-LA will not collect royalties for internet video that is free to end users. The press release is highly confusing, so let's de-construct what's going on here.
Thread beginning with comment 407839
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Comment by memson
by miles on Thu 4th Feb 2010 19:48 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by memson"
miles
Member since:
2006-06-15

Not very good at reading comprehension are you?

Care to elaborate?

Yes, there's an "if" in your sentence, but adding "if" as an excuse to spread misinformation doesn't absolve you to back up your arguments with some facts. Else I doubt you'd have posted them as an argument against the use of Theora.

Especially when you back it up with the "which it seem to have" and use it as an argument against "stupid Theora". And saying that people who chose to backup Theora at the moment do so "just because people know about the Ogg brand" in opposition to Dirac means that either you can come up with the facts to back your claims, or you're just full of it and just repeating any stuff you've read on the net without having grasped the meaning of it.

Now instead of doging the point, could you please backup your claim?

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[7]: Comment by memson
by aliquis on Fri 5th Feb 2010 06:13 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by memson"
aliquis Member since:
2005-07-23

Yes, there's an "if" in your sentence, but adding "if" as an excuse to spread misinformation doesn't absolve you to back up your arguments with some facts.

Especially when you back it up with the "which it seem to have" and use it as an argument against "stupid Theora". And saying that people who chose to backup Theora at the moment do so "just because people know about the Ogg brand" in opposition to Dirac means that either you can come up with the facts to back your claims

Only comparisions I've seen are http://www.osnews.com/story/19019/Theora-vs-h.264/

In the FOSS camp people seem to back up anything just because it's open, which isn't necessary wrong, but yeah, IF H.264 was superior it seem pretty retarded to go with an inferior format, better wait for something open to catch up.

The name stuff was mostly because everyone into FOSS knows what ogg is, even though they may not encode much music using it themself, and that most likely give ogg theora a much bigger brand knowledge. I know I've known it for way longer and seen it mentioned many more times atleast.

Dirac wikipedia losely claims:
"Dirac supports resolutions up to HDTV (1920x1080) and greater and is claimed to provide significant savings in data rate and improvements in quality over video compression formats such as MPEG-2 Part 2, MPEG-4 Part 2 and its competitors, e.g. Theora, and WMV. Dirac's implementers make the preliminary claim of "a two-fold reduction in bit rate over MPEG-2 for high definition video",[11], which makes it comparable to the latest generation standards such as H.264/MPEG-4 AVC and VC-1."

So yeah, from looking at Eugenias post back in the day seeing how Theora looked way worse than H.264 and reading that Dirac was supposed to be better and comparable to H.264 I assumed both where true, Theora to look worse and Dirac to be better.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Comment by memson
by wumip on Fri 5th Feb 2010 08:47 in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by memson"
wumip Member since:
2009-08-20


That comparison is from 2007, and is not valid because it's the old Theora 1.0 and not 1.1.

Also, Dirac is not as suited for streaming, which is why Theora is a better choice for that. For the web.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[8]: Comment by memson
by miles on Fri 5th Feb 2010 11:43 in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by memson"
miles Member since:
2006-06-15

So actually you admit you've got nothing but thin air and "is claimed" assertions, yet it's enough for you to go and tell people they should use Dirac now instead of Theora (or whatever other codec for what I care)?

"Was supposed", "most likely", "is claimed", "I assumed", and deciding for others the reasons they're backing one codec or another...

... yet you still feel entitled to post such vapour and tell people what they should do?

Reply Parent Score: 2