Weekly Edition
Return to the Announcements page
| |||||||||||
First "Firefox Flicks" released
The first set of Firefox Flicks - entries in a contest to create a 30-second video promoting Firefox - has been posted. They look like they could be interesting, though it is somewhat amusing that Firefox on your editor's system is unable to display the videos or even suggest a plugin which can.
(Log in to post comments)
First "Firefox Flicks" released Posted Apr 12, 2006 10:05 UTC (Wed) by mmarsh (subscriber, #17029) [Link] Fortunately, they provide a download link, and xine can play the videos without problems (assuming you've got the right codecs installed).
First "Firefox Flicks" released Posted Apr 12, 2006 10:17 UTC (Wed) by carcassonne (guest, #31569) [Link] You could also choose download and open it with xine (as proposed by Firefox). Takes the same download time I guess, although the embedded version should let you see the flick before actually downloading all of it. On the other hand, with xine it's easy to see it full screen.
Why QuickTime??? Posted Apr 12, 2006 10:09 UTC (Wed) by moxfyre (subscriber, #13847) [Link] Firefox is an open source browser, right??? So why are they releasing their video clips in a proprietary, patent-encumbered, poorly documented format... namely Quicktime?There *is* a nice patent-free highly functional well-supported video codec available: Theora. It's from the same people who brough you Ogg Vorbis :-) I've been ripping all my DVDs into Theora the last few days with ffmpeg2theora. Theora is great, with out-of-the-box support on any Linux distro, well-documented, good quality video at reasonable bitrates. About the *only* downside right now is that encoding is slower than XviD, DivX, etc. So, hey, Firefox: leverage the power of open source and open standards and use Theora video clips!
PS Posted Apr 12, 2006 10:11 UTC (Wed) by moxfyre (subscriber, #13847) [Link] Oh, and there are very nice plugins to integrate Theora video with Windows Media Player, so Theora will work for Windoze peeps too... it's no harder to install than QuickTime, in fact I'd say easier.
Why QuickTime??? Posted Apr 12, 2006 10:22 UTC (Wed) by kirkengaard (subscriber, #15022) [Link] It's sad that MPEG4 is worse off than MPEG3 in encumbrances. At least an MP3 is an MP3; an MP4 is a QuickTime MOV.
Why QuickTime??? Posted Apr 12, 2006 11:01 UTC (Wed) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link] MP3 is MPEG2, layer 3.
But yes, it is sad that the MPEG standards are progressing towards restrictions which make it difficult for open source software players and encoders to be written.
Why QuickTime??? Posted Apr 12, 2006 11:30 UTC (Wed) by kirkengaard (subscriber, #15022) [Link] (smacks self on head)I knew that. Mpeg Audio Layer 3 (but you mean MPEG1 -- MPEG2 is video). Same sentiment applies. Everybody wants to own a piece of an "open" standard, because they think that's the way to profit. Everybody uses, everybody pays, they win. And it ruins the landscape. ISO/IEC working groups working on behalf of companies that want to own their output exclusively.
Why QuickTime??? Posted Apr 12, 2006 15:12 UTC (Wed) by k8to (subscriber, #15413) [Link] nitpick: MPEG1 and MPEG2 are both video standards for different bitrates and applications, and the MPEG group specified some audio streams for them as this is pretty useful for many video applications.
Why QuickTime??? Posted Apr 12, 2006 10:51 UTC (Wed) by rfunk (subscriber, #4054) [Link] Quicktime is quite open. But Quicktime is a container format, withinwhich various codecs can be used. The problem is that the most common codecs used in it are proprietary. See also: http://www.openquicktime.org/
Why QuickTime??? Posted Apr 12, 2006 15:27 UTC (Wed) by zdzichu (subscriber, #17118) [Link] It's not the first time the did it. Remeber the full-page NYT ad? It probably still fully viewable only in closed Acrobat Reader. Relevant bug #3252 is still open. And original bug report in GNOME Bugzilla is over a year old!
Why QuickTime??? Posted Apr 12, 2006 15:33 UTC (Wed) by moxfyre (subscriber, #13847) [Link] Well, I'm more willing to forgive that case since PDF is a (reasonably) standard and unencumbered format. In that particular case the bug is mainly with the open-source Xpdf and Evince PDF readers, which don't render the PDF correctly.
But it certainly is embarrassing to have that open-source software ad only viewable with closed-source software!
Why QuickTime??? Posted Apr 14, 2006 6:50 UTC (Fri) by pkern (subscriber, #32883) [Link] Wasn't Theora the codec which not even the developers consider as ready? (At least if you read their FAQ about alpha releases.) This is not to bash Theora, they only claim that it is just suitable for developers, not yet for mainstream end-users.
First "Firefox Flicks" released Posted Apr 12, 2006 10:39 UTC (Wed) by pbardet (guest, #22762) [Link] I suppose those flicks are produced so that people not using firefox or open source software can watch them without installing extra plugins, which is a lot more intelligent when you want to promote something, instead of forcing the user to install something else to get convinced about the superiority of your product.The only thing that those people should install, is Firefox itself, not a plugin to watch the flick.
First "Firefox Flicks" released Posted Apr 12, 2006 13:03 UTC (Wed) by NAR (subscriber, #1313) [Link] I think it's quite hard to promote the superiority of Firefox with videos that can be watched with the competitor product, but not with Firefox itself...
First "Firefox Flicks" released Posted Apr 13, 2006 8:44 UTC (Thu) by pbardet (guest, #22762) [Link] Why do you need to watch a video about a product you're already using ?
First "Firefox Flicks" released Posted Apr 17, 2006 22:52 UTC (Mon) by malor (subscriber, #2973) [Link] They work fine in Firefox for Windows. The problem is probably Linux, not the web browser. Without a codec, no program can do much with a video file.
And if you're running Linux, you are *so* not the target market for these ads, anyway.
"Whee!", by the way, is a great classic...so incredibly stupid that it's hilarious.
the point Posted Apr 12, 2006 15:28 UTC (Wed) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] But why do we want anyone to use Firefox? Why not tell people to use Netscape? or Opera? Both offer technical advantages over Internet Explorer.
If we are trying to spread software which gives users certain rights which we would like to become a social norm, then we're shooting ourselves in the foot if the medium contradicts the message.
What if some video playing software was the hottest free software right now, and their website only worked in Internet Explorer because they a certain IE-only feature to show off the true potential?
the point Posted Apr 12, 2006 20:40 UTC (Wed) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] But why do we want anyone to use Firefox? Why not tell people to use Netscape? or Opera? Both offer technical advantages over Internet Explorer.We, LWN readers, are different. I, for one, mostly care that Microsoft loses its monopoly and that the sites I care about work in the browsers I use. If we are trying to spread software which gives users certain rights which we would like to become a social norm, then we're shooting ourselves in the foot if the medium contradicts the message.I agree. But the problem is not with Firefox. Theora has a long way to go before it becomes as accepted as PNG. Maybe Theora links should be offered as an alternative. What if some video playing software was the hottest free software right now, and their website only worked in Internet Explorer because they a certain IE-only feature to show off the true potential?That's a bad comparison. The website is more than an ad. It carries development news, it directs users to downloads, it allows to see the documentation, it may allow to report bugs. In many cases I do care whether the developers would listen to me if I have any problems. I don't care how the software is advertised (e.g. only in a language I don't understand).
the point Posted Apr 14, 2006 5:50 UTC (Fri) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] > that Microsoft loses its monopoly
Is it really true that you just don't want MS to have a monopoly? Would you be happy if RealNetworks took over as the Monopoly holder?
Or is it that you don't like society's technical direction to be dictated by a company and you would prefer that it was directed by the software users?
If the latter, then the only sustainable solution I see is to ensure that all software users are not fettered in ways that prevent this. The end goal is for software users to have a minimum standard of rights, like the free labour movement got for workers. Today, software users can take these rights, by using free software.
Maybe this is the gap that the free software movement has to bridge: the gap between "I just want this one problem fixed", and "I use free software the proprietary approach leads to a whole nest of problems".
First "Firefox Flicks" released Posted Apr 12, 2006 10:49 UTC (Wed) by taavi (guest, #28277) [Link] I'm behind Ubuntu Breezy right now, and when I try to watch any of those Flicks, my PC starts lagging so much, that I can't even switch to console to kill Firefox. Maybe it's media player plugin some sort of that causes it, but it is annoying. Very.
I used links2 to download those files...
First "Firefox Flicks" released Posted Apr 12, 2006 13:27 UTC (Wed) by bulkoboy (subscriber, #13749) [Link] These "flicks" play fine in my Firefox with the Debian package "mozilla-mplayer" installed.
First "Firefox Flicks" released Posted Apr 13, 2006 7:38 UTC (Thu) by taavi (guest, #28277) [Link] Totem media player plugin was the one that caused such misbehaviour.
First "Firefox Flicks" released Posted Apr 12, 2006 15:26 UTC (Wed) by k8to (subscriber, #15413) [Link] As the clips are 'MPEG 4' files, using the compressor mp4a for audio and mp4v for video. I can't figure out if the video codec is H.264, H.263, or otherwise. The audio is certainly an AAC implementation.
Both the audio and video streams in this clip are "open" formats, in that the specifications of them are generally available, if for a fee, for anyone who would like a copy.
The lack of generally available software to play them highlights the difference between the concept of an open format as specification-available, and an open format as unencumbered. While I can play these clips in xine, using open source software no less (libfaad, ffmpeg), the deployment of this software is illegal or legally questionable in various ways.
It saddens me to see the adoption of mpeg4 take off even by the Mozilla organization, who claim to be interested in interoperability, when mpeg4 can never truly address interoperability for all segments.
It does, of course, deliver higher quality results for lower bitrates as compared to all other broadly available options.
First "Firefox Flicks" released Posted Apr 12, 2006 15:38 UTC (Wed) by moxfyre (subscriber, #13847) [Link] Theora's pretty darn good already, and would undoubtedly get better with more people working on it. Vorbis already equals or exceeds commercial audio codecs.
I feel that open source projects should try to give each other publicity when possible. Mozilla is a big and successful and well-publicized FLOSS project, but its devlopers certainly owe a lot to GCC and GNU tools and other free software. I'm sure the Ogg/Vorbis/Theora folks would be mighty appreciative for Mozilla to distribute Theora videos :-)
PS- People seem to have the misconception that Apple QuickTime was chosen because it can be played out-of-the-box on Windows. It CAN'T!!! You have to install the annoying Apple QuickTime nag-ware in order to play it. By that standard, the Theora plugin is EASIER to set up on Windows than QuickTime.
choosing Theora Posted Apr 12, 2006 16:09 UTC (Wed) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] After organising a recent free software event in Northern Ireland, myself and the other organisers faced the decision of how to distribute the recordings. So we started off weighing up the problems and benefits of using Theora. Problem
Oh, wait a second, that's a good thing. Decision process ends. If we, the free software community, won't user our works to increase Theora adoption, who will? Who would we be leaving it to, the Theora developers?
choosing Theora Posted Apr 12, 2006 17:40 UTC (Wed) by moxfyre (subscriber, #13847) [Link] Right on! That's exactly right.
And, for what it's worth, for most *Linux* users they don't even have to install any plugin or anything to watch Theora videos. For Ubuntu, ogg theora/vorbis/flac/speex "just works" ... I double click on one and up pops Totem.
Codec comparson -- a bit offtopic Posted Apr 13, 2006 15:39 UTC (Thu) by k8to (subscriber, #15413) [Link] I agree, Theora is pretty darn good. It's superior in terms of quality per size and absolute quality achievable as compared to MPEG1/2 and similar generation technologies. It's comparable to XVID/DIVX, and perhaps could get better with development of the in-stream codebooks.
It will never be as good or better than H.264 MPEG4 video, and the difference in quality is perceivable by normal humans on normal video files, unlike the subtle differences in relatively high quality audio codecs. H.264 simply has a large number of features which are not available in a Theora style codec such as specifying a large number of subsections of the screen, referring to a much larger number of previous frames, and so on.
The trade-off of course is that Theora is easily playable by nearly all computers out in the field at reasonable resolutions and framerates. A 300mhz pentium will play a reasonable theora download without much of a problem. H.264 can peg the processor on a 2ghz machine easily. I actually have to manually transcode such files into another format to watch them, a multi-hour process. The rapid adoption of H.264 is thus a huge annoyance to me because of a real insurmountable unplayability of the format, as well as the various legal problems it represents.
|
|||||||||||