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.
Thread beginning with comment 427051
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Theora gone but not forgotten
by Neolander on Fri 28th May 2010 21:32 UTC in reply to "Theora gone but not forgotten"
Neolander
Member since:
2010-03-08

Three months ago, the majority of OSnews readers wanted Theora mandated as the required codec for the video tag in HTML5. With the announcement of WebM, the 'virtues of Thusnelda' have been forgotten.

I'm surprised Theora supporters aren't saying that Thusnelda is better than VP8.

Because in terms of company support, VP8 has much, much better chances of succeeding than Theora. It's just a fact.

Theora was the best option for the web yesterday, because it was the sole royalty-free codec. Now it's VP8, because of Google's backing that may kick some butts at the MPEG-LA when it goes into patent trolling because they see that the superior format is starting to win. Xiph and the open-source crowd can't do that.

About those who criticize the honesty of theora backers, I have just one question : if the situation was absolutely reverse, ie ON2 invented H.264 and MPEG-LA backed a patent-encumbered VP8 the "official" standard, how many current H.264 backers would explain that VP8 is a technically superior format, through exactly the same encoding tests that we see now where people argue that H.264 is superior ?

Edited 2010-05-28 21:40 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26


About those who criticize the honesty of theora backers, I have just one question : if the situation was absolutely reverse, ie ON2 invented H.264 and MPEG-LA backed a patent-encumbered VP8 the "official" standard, how many current H.264 backers would explain that VP8 is a technically superior format, through exactly the same encoding tests that we see now where people argue that H.264 is superior ?


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

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

Reply Parent Score: 2

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

oinet Member since:
2010-03-23

No one here has a vested interest in H.264.


How do you know that ?

Reply Parent Score: 1