Blizzard: HTML5 video and H.264 - what history tells us and why we're standing with the web [LWN.net]

Blizzard: HTML5 video and H.264 - what history tells us and why we're standing with the web

Posted Jan 26, 2010 8:53 UTC (Tue) by paulj (subscriber, #341)
In reply to: Blizzard: HTML5 video and H.264 - what history tells us and why we're standing with the web by coriordan
Parent article: Blizzard: HTML5 video and H.264 - what history tells us and why we're standing with the web

They're orthogonal arguments though. In one dimension you have a video
embedding technology, HTML5 vs Flash. In the other dimension you have the
video codec, H.264 v Ogg Theora.

At present the world is Flash / H.264. Surely replacing Flash with HTML5 is a
win, regardless of the codec dimension?

Further, the dimensions are not completely independent, for Flash intrinsically
supports H.264, whereas it does not support Ogg Theora. The video codecs
which Flash is deemed to support is determined solely by one
vendor, for all practical purposes[1]. So in a world where Flash is the dominant
video embedding technology you will struggle to get the codec changed.
Whereas with HTML5 you have a greater number of vendors who can offer
more codec support, including a very well established open-source effort.

Therefore if you can encourage the adoption of HTML5 over Flash, regardless
of codec, you will get more freedom to change the world in the other
dimension (the codec dimension).

Basically, this is how you change the world:

Flash + H.264
-> HTML5 + H.264
-> HTML5 + H.264 + Ogg Theora
-> HTML5 + Ogg Theora

You stand far less chance of making the world a more free place by spurning
HTML5, as that just keeps Flash in place, which keeps the codec dimensions
'stuck' to the H.264 pole.

(and yes, I know Ogg Theora is a container format itself, I don't know the
name of the free video codec it uses - VP3?)

1. they have the ability to ensure any free re-implementations are always
kept well behind.

(Log in to post comments)

Ogg vs. Theora

Posted Jan 26, 2010 10:23 UTC (Tue) by DonDiego (subscriber, #24141) [Link]

> (and yes, I know Ogg Theora is a container format itself, I don't
> know the name of the free video codec it uses - VP3?)

Ogg is the container, Theora is the codec. Theora is derived from the VP3 codec originally created by On2.

Ogg is a deeply flawed container format, for details see

http://hardwarebug.org/2008/11/17/ogg-timestamps-explored/

Ogg vs. Theora

Posted Jan 26, 2010 10:41 UTC (Tue) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]

Very interesting thanks!

So perhaps replace Ogg with Avi? E.g. replace "Ogg Theora" in my comment
above with "Avi Theora"?

Ogg vs. Theora

Posted Jan 26, 2010 13:02 UTC (Tue) by __alex (subscriber, #38036) [Link]

Avi and Vorbis audio do not work very well together. I'm not sure if there are
even any DirectShow filters other than ffmpeg that support it and even that
has trouble keeping the audio in sync.

Ogg vs. Theora

Posted Jan 26, 2010 21:38 UTC (Tue) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877) [Link]

http://xiph.org/downloads/

Xiph has them. Dunno if they're perhaps ffmpeg-based, but it seems unlikely.

Ogg vs. Theora

Posted Jan 27, 2010 11:40 UTC (Wed) by DonDiego (subscriber, #24141) [Link]

They are not based on FFmpeg.

Ogg vs. Theora

Posted Feb 1, 2010 14:45 UTC (Mon) by nye (guest, #51576) [Link]

Matroska is probably the way forward.

Ogg vs. Theora

Posted Feb 4, 2010 1:13 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

Does it just show that I don't watch much video, or that I don't watch
much (any) pirated video, that I've never actually seen anything in a
Matroska container? (At least, not knowingly. I've never encountered an
odd-looking video file and run file(1) or similar tool on it and been
told, hey, this is Matroska.)

Ogg vs. Theora

Posted Feb 4, 2010 23:30 UTC (Thu) by DonDiego (subscriber, #24141) [Link]

The answer is yes ;-)