Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 13th Jan 2011 20:31 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 457750
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 13:17 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 12:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/15/13 23:03 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-08-18
I guess I´m reaching beyond my expertise, but is there anything preventing the WebM CODEC from being used in another format (compatable with these other editors), at which point shifting to a different container is relatively simple/low-cost operation?
In any case, I believe Adobe will be supporting WebM fairly quickly, at which point other vendors will have pressure to follow suit (obiously, AVID is a different case). The YouTube tie-in is what gives WebM more of a ´beneficient aura´ than simply the new container Matroska offered. I guess all I can say if you´re worried about fragmentation... start bitching to Adobe and other developers to start supporting WebM! :-)
(and BTW, thanks for sharing your perspective of ´it´s got to work good in my real-life eco-system´, without that kind of dose of reality, we get open-source stuff like the GIMP)