codec quality

Posted Dec 13, 2007 1:48 UTC (Thu) by ikm (guest, #493)
In reply to: codec quality by DonDiego
Parent article: Specifying codecs for the web

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?

to post comments

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.