codec quality

Posted Dec 12, 2007 17:54 UTC (Wed) by DonDiego (guest, #24141)
Parent article: Specifying codecs for the web

How come that codec quality is never discussed when Theora comes up in discussions?  That must
be because Theora is outclassed by a long shot when compared to more modern codecs like MPEG-4
ASP or MPEG-4 AVC (H.264)...

Theora is technically inferior, period.  Centering discussions on patent issues is not going
to get us anywhere.  Any alternatives we wish to pursue must deliver comparable quality.

to post comments

codec quality

Posted Dec 12, 2007 18:16 UTC (Wed) by ikm (guest, #493) [Link] (17 responses)

You can choose between Theora and something else only when there is 'something else'. The
current situation looks like there is pretty much nothing to choose from, except for Theora,
considering royalty-free licensing requirements.

Why not ?

Posted Dec 12, 2007 19:29 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] (2 responses)

Most of the world can happily use x264 - free, open-source, high-quality codec. Why the whole world must suffer just because one country got silly laws ?

Why not ?

Posted Dec 12, 2007 21:16 UTC (Wed) by gmaxwell (guest, #30048) [Link]

While I haven't looked at H.264 specifically many of the other MPEG pool patents have been
granted in Europe. 

Try getting the companies arguing against Theora to say that the encumbered formats are not
encumbered in Europe. Haha.

While software patents may not be directly enforceable in Europe, devices (including software)
implementing certain techniques can probably infringe.  Though this is outside of my scope of
expertise so I can't say much on that point. Whatever benefits the European system currently
has can not be guaranteed to last.

Beyond that, infringing US patents is unwise even if they can't be enforced in Europe... Since
a judgment against you in the US would be a problem if you ever need to do business in the US.
Perhaps this may not matter to a person, but single people aren't currently the subject of
patent litigation. Companies are, and this matters a lot.

This codec licensing stuff can largely be seen as a fight where there are a few LARGE and
deeply invested companies against a huge number of smaller companies.  The public suffers as a
result but they are just collateral damage.

Why not ?

Posted Dec 13, 2007 11:53 UTC (Thu) by skitching (guest, #36856) [Link]

This is nothing to do with what formats *can* be supported; any user is free to add extra
codecs to their browser. This is about what codecs will ship with browsers, and therefore what
codecs publishers can assume are present.

The question that needs to be asked is not whether Theora is better than H264, but is it
better than nothing? And the answer is clearly yes: it is quite a reasonable default to
provide to users. Those who pay for bandwidth, or have limited bandwidth, and can legally use
an H264 implementation can install one later if they wish.

Flash video sucks, but it is very widely used, just because it is convenient.  And because it
is widely used, publishers offer their video in that format. If publishers knew that Theora
would be available in their users browser, they would provide that format.

codec quality

Posted Dec 12, 2007 23:34 UTC (Wed) by DonDiego (guest, #24141) [Link] (12 responses)

You can choose between Theora and something else only when there is 'something else'. The current situation looks like there is pretty much nothing to choose from, except for Theora, considering royalty-free licensing requirements.

No, you can always choose between Theora and nothing at all. This is the point I am trying to get across here: Without comparable quality the nothing at all choice will win. Nokia has just made the nothing at all choice.

codec quality

Posted Dec 13, 2007 1:48 UTC (Thu) by ikm (guest, #493) [Link] (11 responses)

Nokia was actually pushing H264/AAC. There seems to be a demand, so some form of supply should
better be decided upon, rather than leaving every player on the market to push their own
mutually incompatible de-facto standards. WHATWG tries to help everyone by finding some common
denominators here, but that proves not to be an easy task.

Concerning the opinion of yours on the matter, why not settle with some 'inferior' codec until
there is a better alternative?

codec quality

Posted Dec 13, 2007 8:29 UTC (Thu) by DonDiego (guest, #24141) [Link] (10 responses)

Correct, Nokia was pushing for a high-quality video codec and when offered crap as alternative
they went for the "nothing at all" option instead.  When you say "some form of supply should
better be decided upon" you assume that any supplied solution will be good enough and
acceptable to all players.  This is not the case.

My opinion on the matter is completely irrelevant.  Settling on an inferior codec just will
not work, no matter how much wishful thinking we apply.  Better alternatives without patent
encumbrances will not fall from the sky.  So it is going to be something patent-encumbered or
nothing at all.  It may be a sad fact, but nonetheless it is a fact.

To put things in slightly more graphic terms: When you are looking for an automobile and
somebody offers you a tricycle instead, will you settle for it until there is a better
alternative or will you keep demanding a car and keep looking for car providers elsewhere?

codec quality

Posted Dec 13, 2007 12:57 UTC (Thu) by mjr (guest, #6979) [Link] (7 responses)

So it is going to be something patent-encumbered or nothing at all. It may be a sad fact, but nonetheless it is a fact.

If it will in the end turn out to be a fact, it will mostly be so due to a conscious decision by multinational companies against the public good.

Also talking about "crap" being offered is hardly productive. Theora isn't crap. It just isn't very shiny either.

Also let's see if people want to continue using H.264 in 2009 with the per-user webcast fees or change into something more reasonable...

codec quality

Posted Dec 13, 2007 13:21 UTC (Thu) by DonDiego (guest, #24141) [Link] (6 responses)

Sugarcoating the issues for ideological reasons is hardly productive. Theora is crap, not just below average. If you don't believe me get it straight from the horse's mouth.

codec quality

Posted Dec 13, 2007 14:29 UTC (Thu) by mjr (guest, #6979) [Link] (1 responses)

I still see "crap" coming only from the horse's ass, not the mouth it referenced.

Anyway, suit yourself, but flaming on about crap is rather trollish of you. Nobody is or would
have been stopping you or anyone from using any codec you like regardless of the baseline
recommendation whose sole purpose would be to ensure achievable compatibility across all
browsers from everyone without active threat from outside.

Well, actually, somebody is stopping you. Not us or the W3C, though, but rather the MPEG LA
gang of Nokia and friends. If you're worth their time.

Of course, some of us are hardly worth anyone's time anymore. How lucky.

codec quality

Posted Dec 14, 2007 1:30 UTC (Fri) by DonDiego (guest, #24141) [Link]

You seem to be taking issue with my use of the word "crap". I'll retract that term and let the horse - Monty - speak for himself:

<xiphmont_> Vorbis still stands up nicely.  Theora, OTOH, is a a bit embarrassing.
<xiphmont_> rather, it's a bit embarrassing until you look at the code, then it's alot embarrassing.
<xiphmont_> and that's 70% 'really fucking stupid encoder, really On2, be ashamed' and 40% 'format design flaws'.  It's so bad it adds up to 110%.
<xiphmont_> I plan to help Theora limp along not too embarrassingly until it can be replaced for real-- possibly 2-4 years.
<xiphmont_> Theora is actually fixable tho.  The amount of low-hanging fruit is staggering.
<xiphmont_> I mean, an entropy backend that results in *more* bits being written than went in?  It's just... wow.

That statement is taken from #mplayerdev on freenode.

Now ad hominem attacks are not going to take us anywhere. I am afraid you are attacking the messenger bringing you bad news.

There are some inconvenient truths that need to be faced:

Theora is not going to make it into the W3C recommendation. A lack of patent encumbrances is not enough to get it there.
Theora is not good enough to compete with the current generation of video codecs nor with the last.
There is no assurance that Theora is free of patent encumbrances.

The sooner these facts are accepted the sooner solutions that have a better chance of succeeding can be found.

codec quality

Posted Dec 13, 2007 15:00 UTC (Thu) by nettings (subscriber, #429) [Link]

the horse itself - displaying considerable wisdom - is *not* sugarcoating anything. rather,
technical issues are being discussed frankly, shortcomings included.

for those who are used to marketing blabber and will take any internal criticism of a *work in
progress* as a sign of total obsolescence, the horse kindly spells it out for you in the
preamble:

>  "This document does *not* say [...] Theora is doomed or hopelessly obsolete. It says the
current encoder is lacking compared to the very very best."

>  "Don't forget kids, this isn't a fight about *technology*. It's a fight about *control*."

nobody is doubting that your favourite codec has a bigger dick than mine. that is not the
point.

conversation quality

Posted Dec 13, 2007 15:07 UTC (Thu) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] (2 responses)

Could I respectfully suggest that maybe this particular conversation has gone far enough? I'm not sure what else can be resolved through this particular line of argument.

Thanks.

conversation quality

Posted Dec 13, 2007 17:10 UTC (Thu) by nettings (subscriber, #429) [Link]

agreed, and my apologies. it's just that i've been working with theora pretty much since first
alpha (because it's the only available codec that allows free video streams worldwide), and i
know many people who put great efforts into it, creating a free platform for those who care
about such things. the derogatory nature (and lack of clue) of some comments here hit a
nerve... 
taking your advice, i shall withdraw from the discussion now.

conversation quality

Posted Dec 14, 2007 0:12 UTC (Fri) by DonDiego (guest, #24141) [Link]

Sorry for getting a bit carried away and thanks for pulling us all back in line.  However, I
firmly believe that there is a point to be made here.  Unfortunately the people disliking that
point have started to kill the messenger...

I shall try to make all further comments as respectful as possible.

codec quality

Posted Dec 13, 2007 20:33 UTC (Thu) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link]

When you are looking for an automobile and somebody offers you a tricycle instead, will you settle for it until there is a better alternative or will you keep demanding a car and keep looking for car providers elsewhere?

Depends on the tricycle.

codec quality

Posted Dec 14, 2007 1:05 UTC (Fri) by ikm (guest, #493) [Link]

Theora is not a tricycle. RLE compression is :)

In my current project, I use IMA ADPCM to compress sounds. The sound quality is not the best,
the compression ratio is not the best either, but it's very fast, and that's the absolute
requirement there. Before it was Vorbis, and I had to throw it away, no matter how much I
liked the compression quality. Same here.

Another example is bzip/bzip2. The author had to throw the superior arithmetic coding used in
bzip away and replace it with Huffman for bzip2 because of the patents.

patent royalties

Posted Dec 20, 2007 9:25 UTC (Thu) by KotH (guest, #4660) [Link]

You talk about royalties and how MPEG is so expensive, but did you
really have a look at the license terms? The h.264 are the cheapest
license terms for such a huge patent portfolio i've ever seen.
First 100'000 units per year are for free, and those over 100'000 are
a mere 0.2 USD per unit. I don't know how you calculate production costs,
but even administrative costs are higher than that. And please note that
only _paid_ products are included, anything that is given away for free
(like OSS) is royality free.

So, over all, h.264 has the same royalties like theora for OSS,
with the simple exception that you really know that you don't have
to pay for h.264 while it is always possible for someone to pop out
of nowhere demanding royalties for a patent violated by theora.
For commercial products the fees are negligible for h.264 and knowing
exactly what you have to pay makes it a much safer choice than theora.

Summa summarum, i have to say that the patent situation favors h.264 rather
than theora.

codec quality

Posted Dec 12, 2007 18:29 UTC (Wed) by mjr (guest, #6979) [Link] (3 responses)

Theora is indeed not the most advanced video codec there is. However, if you had actually read
the article or understood the issues, these patent-encumbered codecs are not simply even in
the running for a W3C recommendation. Therefore technical comparisons to them are, indeed,
quite irrelevant.

In fact, barring a miracle and the MPEG LA granting a royalty-free license to some MPEG
profile, the base codec recommended by HTML5 is likely to be an extremely old and crappy one
whose possible patents have expired already. That is if there is going to be a recommended
base codec; a consensus is not overly likely, what with MPEG LA protection racket members
having a strong say in the matter.

codec quality

Posted Dec 12, 2007 23:19 UTC (Wed) by DonDiego (guest, #24141) [Link] (2 responses)

Theora is indeed not the most advanced video codec there is. However, if you had actually read the article or understood the issues, these patent-encumbered codecs are not simply even in the running for a W3C recommendation. Therefore technical comparisons to them are, indeed, quite irrelevant.

I read the article and understand the issue perfectly. My point still stands: If the standard incorporates a low quality codec, the standard is going to be ignored. Alternatively it will be sabotaged as we have just witnessed Nokia do. Anybody who thinks that a low quality codec will win the race on nothing more than its legal merits is deluded. What's worse, there are no hard facts that prove Theora to not infringe any patents. It's just a popular belief in certain circles.

codec quality

Posted Dec 13, 2007 6:24 UTC (Thu) by nettings (subscriber, #429) [Link] (1 responses)

> What's worse, there are no hard facts that prove Theora to not infringe any patents. It's
just a popular belief in certain circles.

as a certain member of such circles let me tell you in no uncertain terms that this remark is
not particularly brilliant.
some facts to clear the FUD:

* theora is based on a patented codec (VP3 by On2) donated to the open-source community. a
license for unlimited use has been granted, and a lot of legal babble ensures that this stays
so.
* therefore it has been scrutinized by patent law to some extent and found sufficiently
original that a patent was granted.
* there can never be absolute proof that something is entirely unencumbered by patents. this
is not an argument against theora, but against software patents.

http://theora.org/faq/#24

codec quality

Posted Dec 13, 2007 13:36 UTC (Thu) by DonDiego (guest, #24141) [Link]

theora is based on a patented codec (VP3 by On2) donated to the open-source community. a license for unlimited use has been granted, and a lot of legal babble ensures that this stays so.

therefore it has been scrutinized by patent law to some extent and found sufficiently original that a patent was granted.

Your faith in patent law and the patent offices is honorable, but unfortunately there is no base for it in reality. The above points do not in any way refute my claim that the lack of patent encumbrances in Theora is - sadly - little more than wishful thinking by certain parties.

To the best of my knowledge there has not even been an exhaustive patent search around Theora to put some confidence into the assumption that Theora is free of patent encumbrances. Not that such a search could be exhaustive, but it could give people some confidence.

codec quality

Posted Dec 12, 2007 18:46 UTC (Wed) by nettings (subscriber, #429) [Link] (6 responses)

i think nobody who has worked with theora will dispute that there are better codecs out there.
*but*: in terms of interoperability and accessibility (for people/organisations on very tight
budgets), there is no alternative to theora today.
its toolchain needs more polishing, but that is likely going to happen within weeks of its
adoption for a major standard such as html5.

with broadband becoming a commodity in many countries, the trade-off between freedom/cost and
compression efficiency is not an issue any more. and in the developing world, where bandwidth
is scarce, the money to license proprietary codecs is in even shorter supply.

that said, the an implementation formerly bbc-funded dirac codec has recently gone beta, so
there is hope for a free alternative down the road. it should be able to compete with
proprietary state-of-the-art codecs in terms of compression vs. quality.

U.S. != world

Posted Dec 12, 2007 19:36 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] (5 responses)

In many countries people are still paying for traffic. In most countries you still must pay for mobile traffic. And x264 is free.

Thus from my POV all this discussion looks like someone is trying to get solution for their problems for my money.

who'da thunk it?

Posted Dec 12, 2007 19:54 UTC (Wed) by nettings (subscriber, #429) [Link]

thanks for letting me know that US != world. being a german citizen, that is quite a
reassuring fact. :-D
bickering aside, you have misread the web page you were linking to. the implementation itself
is free (GNU GPL), but there are patents involved:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H264#Patent_licensing
which is an issue in the US, specifically, because of their software patent laws.
i guess you will find that your money is involved either way... 
but i'd rather consumers had to pay a little more to access content, than see independent
content creators threatened by bullying corporations or lobby organizations over patent
issues.

U.S. != world

Posted Dec 12, 2007 22:59 UTC (Wed) by lambda (subscriber, #40735) [Link] (3 responses)

Yes, and what you need to remember is that Europe != world. Many of the major developers in 
question happen to be located in the US (Apple, Mozilla, Microsoft, etc), and so they are
liable if 
they infringe on people's patents. The W3C is also in the US, and has a very strong policy
against 
standardizing on anything that requires royalties or has patents that might require royalties.

Furthermore, there has been a lot of pressure to allow software patents in the EU, so it's
possible 
that at any time, a legislative decision will mean that even in Europe, x264 will be illegal.

Yup.

Posted Dec 13, 2007 0:09 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] (2 responses)

Europe and U.S. together are less then 15% of world. Plus Eupore is not a single country. Thus any choice forced on the whole world will be wrong. To force Theora on the people who can happily use x264 and save money on bandwidth is wrong, to force H.264 on people who can not legally use it is wrong too. The aspiration to free all people are admirable but why should poorer people pay for freedom of wealthier people ?

But...

Posted Dec 13, 2007 0:48 UTC (Thu) by RobertBrockway (guest, #48927) [Link] (1 responses)

A central concept of the Internet is that content is independent of the location of the end
user (as a general rule).  What you are suggesting is to have the video codec dependent on the
location of the viewer.  That is setting a very bad precedent.

I think people need to sit up and take a good long hard look at the global patent system.  It
is in a mess.  It is too easy to patent processes that didn't require any significant R&D to
develop in the first place.  The patent system is expensive and so naturally favours large
corporations over small corporations or individuals.  There are so many patents that it is now
very difficult to be sure that no patent infringement is occuring.  I believe the patent
system is near collapse.  Throught these discussions it is important to keep in mind that the
patent system is not an immovable rock, which is how  many seem to view it.  A lot of "patent
reform" has occured in recent decades .

"central concept" does not work for video...

Posted Dec 13, 2007 5:59 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

It's simple question of logistics. For example RUtube is significantly more popular then YouTube. How come ? Two factors:

1. 30min limit instead of 10min limit
2. free or cheap Russian traffic instead of expensive foreign traffic

Theora will just exacerbate second problem. The solution for Google is to sign contracts with big Russian ISPs, but... if you do THAT surely you can provide different kind of video too ?

Logistics will dominate field of web-video for next 10-15 years and by the end of this period patents related even to H.264 will be close to expiration