| |||||||||||||
Sorry, but noSorry, but noPosted Jun 11, 2009 13:59 UTC (Thu) by drag (subscriber, #31333)In reply to: Sorry, but no by khim Parent article: The LGPL and video codecs
I have a very very strong suspicion that the ffmpeg folks are not going to care one way or the other. If they were were very worried about patents I don't think they would of put so much effort into making h.264 codecs in the first place.
I think that google is treading very safe water here.
As far as H.264 goes for the web... The amount of bandwidth saved by using H.264 over Theora is more then enough to compensate for the cost of royalties for big players. For everybody else then there is Theora which should continue to have it's encoders improve the point to were at least it is somewhat of a rival for DivX. And like is mentioned you need to have H.264 for hardware compatibility and so on and so forth.
Dirac, it seems, is not going anywhere, unfortunately. Unless people are going to start concentrating on it after the Theora enccoder improvements are implemented.
Maybe it is time to look at snow?
(Log in to post comments)
Sorry, but no Posted Jun 11, 2009 17:10 UTC (Thu) by zooko (subscriber, #2589) [Link]
"Dirac, it seems, is not going anywhere, unfortunately. Unless people are going to start concentrating on it after the Theora enccoder improvements are implemented."
Why do you say that? I hosted some dirac videos on my p2p filesystem, and when I play them with VLC on Macintosh it looks great:
http://testgrid.allmydata.org:3567/uri/URI%3ADIR2-RO%3Az3...
Sorry, but no Posted Jun 19, 2009 1:20 UTC (Fri) by roc (subscriber, #30627) [Link]
"The amount of bandwidth saved by using H.264 over Theora is more then enough to compensate for the cost of royalties for big players."
There's no evidence for this. In fact, there is evidence to the contrary.
http://hacks.mozilla.org/2009/06/open-video-codecs-and-qu...
|
|||||||||||||