Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Software

VP8 Codec Coming To FFmpeg 218

Posted by kdawson
from the small-fast dept.
Jim Buzbee writes "Interested in Google's VP8 codec? Well, so were the FFmpeg guys, so they went ahead and wrote their own native decoder in only 1,400 lines of unique code. They were able to keep the line-count low by relying on heavy reuse from the existing H.264 codebase."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

VP8 Codec Coming To FFmpeg

Comments Filter:
  • Hmmm... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 28, 2010 @08:10AM (#32715086)

    Is anyone else worried by..

    They were able to keep the line-count low by relying on heavy reuse from the existing H.264 codebase."

    I bet the MPEG-LA will see that as proof that it violates their patents.

    • It gets worse (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Chrisq (894406) on Monday June 28, 2010 @08:15AM (#32715126)

      Is anyone else worried by..

      They were able to keep the line-count low by relying on heavy reuse from the existing H.264 codebase."

      I bet the MPEG-LA will see that as proof that it violates their patents.

      From tfa:
      since H.264 (the current industry standard video codec) and VP8 are highly similar, we can share code (and more importantly: optimizations) between FFmpeg’s H.264 and VP8 decoders (e.g. intra prediction).

    • by TheKidWho (705796)

      Well, besides being a free to use standard, what advantages does VP8 have over H.264?

      • Re:Hmmm... (Score:4, Informative)

        by Nerdfest (867930) on Monday June 28, 2010 @08:27AM (#32715188)
        Just that is enough. That alone is enough in some cases to even outweigh some disadvantages.
        • Re:Hmmm... (Score:4, Insightful)

          by TheKidWho (705796) on Monday June 28, 2010 @08:36AM (#32715250)

          Is it? The vast majority of mobile phones including Apples iPhone/iPod/iPad devices have hardware decoding of H.264. Can the same be said of VP8?

          • Re:Hmmm... (Score:5, Insightful)

            by MrHanky (141717) on Monday June 28, 2010 @08:51AM (#32715342) Homepage Journal

            No, and it never will. Apple's support for "open standards" is limited to only support for such standards when they depend on proprietary formats like AAC, mp3, h.264, etc. No support for Vorbis, Theora, VP8 or anything that can be implemented freely without a patent license. You wouldn't want free software to be able to compete, would you?

            • Re:Hmmm... (Score:4, Insightful)

              by TheKidWho (705796) on Monday June 28, 2010 @08:55AM (#32715372)

              Free software should be able to compete and it does, unfortunately most free software is usually around 5 years behind the state of the art.

              • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

                by 6ULDV8 (226100)

                most free software is usually around 5 years behind the state of the art.

                But it fits so nicely with the state of my wallet.

                • Re:Hmmm... (Score:5, Insightful)

                  by MrNaz (730548) on Monday June 28, 2010 @11:27AM (#32717012) Homepage

                  Perhaps in some, but lets not forget that some FOSS projects are either the best, or very close to the best in their class. A few that come to mind: Apache, PostgreSQL, Linux, BSD, Asterisk, Firefox, Thunderbird, OpenSSH... and that's just a 10 second brainstorm. All of those are either clearly the best in their breed, or at least comparable to the top end product.

              • by tepples (727027)

                Free software should be able to compete and it does

                Free software needs compatible hardware, and devices such as Nokia Maemo handsets aren't widely available in the United States, which is Slashdot's home country. One has to mail-order them without trying the screen or input, and even then, AT&T still won't give a discount on a SIM-only service plan.

                unfortunately most free software is usually around 5 years behind the state of the art.

                The Wii console was half a decade behind at launch (it's an overclocked GameCube with a Bluetooth receiver), yet you don't see free games competing with Wii games.

                • by TheKidWho (705796)

                  [quote]The Wii console was half a decade behind at launch (it's an overclocked GameCube with a Bluetooth receiver), yet you don't see free games competing with Wii games.[/quote]

                  That's wrong, the Wii beat the PS3 and the Xbox360 to the motion control game, they made the rules.

                  • That's wrong, the Wii beat the PS3 and the Xbox360 to the motion control game, they made the rules.

                    They demonstrated the marketability of a gimmick. Once they lose exclusivity of that gimmick, they have nothing else to compete on except for price.

                    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                      by TheKidWho (705796)

                      They demonstrated the marketability of a gimmick. Once they lose exclusivity of that gimmick, they have nothing else to compete on except for price.

                      That and the quality of the software.

                    • Well, once the others lose exclusivity on processing power, they'll have nothing to compete. Not even price.

                      There is an obvious flaw with that argument, that extends to yours. But, anyway, in general, markets are defined mainly by price.

                    • So true.
                    • by FauxPasIII (75900)

                      In that case they're _really_ in trouble.

              • Re:Hmmm... (Score:5, Interesting)

                by MrHanky (141717) on Monday June 28, 2010 @09:35AM (#32715644) Homepage Journal

                Vorbis isn't any worse than the competition. Certainly better than mp3, and AFAIK with better encoders than AAC. Quality isn't the reason why Apple refuses to support it. Denying competition is.

                • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

                  by hitmark (640295)

                  funny enough, vorbis is big in gaming. The various versions of the unreal engine have been using it for music, iirc.

              • by Yvanhoe (564877)
                And yet, strangely, being free is a killer-feature for some application that makes these old 5-year lagging format seem revolutionary...
              • by b4dc0d3r (1268512)

                "State of the art" is the current knowledge, right now. By the time something is patented an implemented in hardware it's already old. By the time it's ubiquitous it's already in hardware, and already past old. When free software takes on something, it's usually because it's either popular or important.

                To put it another way, if free software took on state of the art, there would be millions of unused, useless code bases and a mond-boggling number of wasted development hours.

                I would argue that the useful

              • Free software should be able to compete and it does, unfortunately most free software is usually around 5 years behind the state of the art.

                This is a strange thing to say in a thread related to ffmpeg, which is free, and IMHO is one of the most advanced encoder/decoders out there period.

              • Re:Hmmm... (Score:5, Insightful)

                by GameboyRMH (1153867) <{moc.liamg} {ta} {hmryobemag}> on Monday June 28, 2010 @11:10AM (#32716810) Journal

                5 years behind? In what way? Maybe PC gaming?

                Free browsers are leading the pack. Free media players are at least on par with their commercial equivalents (I'm being very generous here, I have yet to see any commercial player like VLC or Mplayer). Free OSes are now comparable in terms of usability to commercial ones, and in technical terms are years AHEAD of commercial OSes. Vorbis and Theora are comparable to their best closed counterparts. VP8/WebM has totally closed the gap with H.264, for those who like to split hairs about Theora.

                I use all free software on all of my computers (apart from most of my games, the OS on my gaming PC, and some of the stock apps on my PDA) and I sure don't feel like I'm missing anything.

            • You wouldn't want free software to be able to compete, would you?

              It can compete. It's called Android, and it's competing rather well [osnews.com]

            • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

              by Anonymous Coward

              No, and it never will. Apple's support for "open standards" is limited to only support for such standards when they depend on proprietary formats like AAC, mp3, h.264, etc. No support for Vorbis, Theora, VP8 or anything that can be implemented freely without a patent license. You wouldn't want free software to be able to compete, would you?

              MP3, AAC and H.264 are not proprietary. They are maintained by international standards bodies and developed by consensus.

              This does not mean that they are free, Free, or GPL compatible and these would be genuine complaints but you weaken them by using the inaccurate complaint that they are proprietary.

            • by itzdandy (183397)

              not to defend apple's logic, but if they pay a license to someone, then that someone takes on the responsibility and risk for future patent infringement lawsuits. Apple, in good faith, licensed the technology from a party who was understood to own the IP. Granted, this doesnt necessarily totally shield Apple but its much better than an open source codec that has no buffer. If someone decides that VP8 infringes on their patent, then they would sue anyone that used a product based on the patent..

              all the be

              • Re:Hmmm... (Score:5, Informative)

                by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Monday June 28, 2010 @10:55AM (#32716626) Journal
                It should be noted that the MPEG-LA specifically does not "take on the responsibility and risk for future patent infringement lawsuits". Your MPEG-LA license covers only MPEG-LA patent pool patents, it does not constitute any sort of promise that these patents are the only ones required to implement the spec, nor does it offer indemnification in the event that you are sued over your implementation of the standard for which you purchased an MPEG-LA license.

                Paying your protection money to them does ensure than none of the MPEG-LA members will sue you(at least over any patent that they have contributed to the MPEG-LA pool for the technology in question); but it confers no protection against any nonmember with a patent that they believe is being infringed upon(given that this group includes a little old mom 'n pop operation they call "AT&T" this isn't exactly a theoretical risk)...
            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by samkass (174571)

              Apple's support for "open standards" is limited to only support for such standards when they depend on proprietary formats like AAC, mp3, h.264, etc. No support for Vorbis, Theora, VP8 or anything that can be implemented freely without a patent license.

              Oh please. Apple will include anything that lets them sell substantially more hardware. If Vorbis or Theora would sell millions of units, they'd rapidly be well-supported across Apple's hardware line. The fact of the matter is that the standard codecs you

              • by MrHanky (141717)

                Sure. And they will sell more hardware if free software is locked out from the open web, so they gang up with Microsoft to lock out the free competition. Apple wants an MPEG-LA license-dependent html5, and refuses to support free and open standards. That's how they hope to kill Mozilla.

            • No, and it never will. Apple's support for "open standards" is limited to only support for such standards when they depend on proprietary formats like AAC, mp3, h.264, etc. No support for Vorbis, Theora, VP8 or anything that can be implemented freely without a patent license. You wouldn't want free software to be able to compete, would you?

              AAC is not a proprietary format. It is a ISO standard. Perhaps you wanted to say FairPlay.

            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              by sl3xd (111641) *

              There is a difference between a specification and a standard.

              The patent-encumbered AAC, MP3, H.264, etc. are actual standards, governed by a recognized standards body. Vorbis, Theora, and VP8 are self-published specifications, much like Windows Media. The fact that Vorbis, et al. are more open than Windows Media does not make them a "standard". Until it is recoginized and ratified by an actual standards body, it isn't a standard; it's yet another vendor specification.

              I can crap in a box and call it a "st

          • by cgenman (325138)

            MPEG-LA charges for encoding as well as decoding.

          • Re:Hmmm... (Score:5, Informative)

            by BZ (40346) on Monday June 28, 2010 @08:57AM (#32715386)

            > Can the same be said of VP8?

            Not yet. Of course the format is less than 2 months old, and there _were_ several hardware companies who committed to implementing support for it at launch.

            Also, note that mobile phones don't support "hardware decoding of H.264". They support hardware-acceleration of operations needed to decode a particular profile of H.264: the Basic profile. The one that has lower quality output than VP8 does.

            So if you start bringing the hardware accel issue into the picture, then your quality metrics are suddenly in VP8's favor...

            All of which is to say that the situation is complicated. ;)

          • Re:Hmmm... (Score:5, Informative)

            by tepples (727027) <{tepples} {at} {gmail.com}> on Monday June 28, 2010 @09:25AM (#32715566) Homepage Journal
            "Hardware decoding" on these ARM-based devices usually doesn't mean H.264 is implemented directly in silicon. A lot of these codecs with "hardware support" are implemented either on a secondary CPU optimized for digital signal processing, which might even be a GPU running shaders. It isn't expected to be too difficult to port VP8 decoders to these DSPs because, as the article points out, VP8 is so similar to H.264's baseline profile that it has been called H.264 with the patent numbers filed off.
            • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

              by Khyber (864651)

              With Google behind it now, VP8 will likely exceed anything MPEG-LA can create. Google, despite doing some boneheaded things at times, does have some of the brightest minds working for them.

          • by hitmark (640295)

            question is, how many of these devices do the hardware decoding by way of a DSP( or maybe GPU).

            i suspect many of the high end at least do so, and so could have support coded.

        • Re:Hmmm... (Score:4, Insightful)

          by LWATCDR (28044) on Monday June 28, 2010 @09:38AM (#32715678) Homepage Journal

          No it isn't
          Right now H.264 is free as in beer to every Windows, Mac, iPhone, iPod, iPad, Android, WinMo, and Palm WebOS users on the planet. And probably a good deal more people that I am leaving out.
          For the vast majority of them that is free enough.
          To make this work Google is going to have to get VP8 out on a lot of devices convince a lot of developers to produce video in that format.
          Will it happen? Maybe one can really hope.
          The other solution will be if we can ever get software patents overturned.
          BTW which I am all for.
          But to even state that just being free is good enough goes 100% counter to history.
          MP3 isn't free Vorbis Ogg is. You just don't see much music in Ogg format do you?
          You have to have the support in devices to make a format fly.

          • by gbjbaanb (229885)

            Take a trick from other companies:

            "Youtube, now with VP8 technology inside enabling superior playback and user experience with reduced download requirements making it fast, better and nicer to the planet". Then auto-install a Firefox plugin that you can't remove and job's done!

            Alternatively, just encode some stuff in it on YT and wait for everyone to upgrade anyway.

            • by LWATCDR (28044)

              Yes but I do not see YouTube throwing away iPhone, IE, and Safari users just to push VP8.
              Yes it will help but YouTube will always support H.264 as well.
              I know it sounds like I am not for VP8 but that really isn't the case.
              I just have been around long enough to know how things work.

              • by boxwood (1742976)

                yeah but I've seen digital cameras advertise they can make videos that are "ready for youtube". Google can require that devices need to support VP8 before they can say they are "youtube compatible".

                Of course other devices would still work with youtube, but people using those devices would have to wait while their videos are transcoded (with the loss of quality that comes with transcoding), while users of "youtube compatible" marked devices that support VP8 can have their videos uploaded faster and at full q

                • by LWATCDR (28044)

                  Maybe but again they will always support H.264 because of the devices that don't support it.

          • by hedwards (940851)
            Only because those platforms have paid for a license. If you're using software on a different platform, then you're not covered by it. Moreover there's no guarantee that they'll keep up the present terms and price structure. Arguing that it's free really beggars the concept of free as it isn't free in any way shape or form. The end users ultimately have paid for it at several levels, probably several times on hardware and additionally on any software that's meant to deal with it as well.
            • by LWATCDR (28044)

              Yea in theory you are right but let's take a hard look at your arguments.
              "If you're using software on a different platform, then you're not covered by it. "
              What percentage of people is that? Let's make it even a bit more honest what % of people using Linux and or BSD have not downloaded FFmpeg or some other package that adds H.264 support?

              And if you have already paid for OS/X, Windows, Android or... you have already paid. H.264 free to you as far as you can tell.

              Is it really free? Well to be honest it may b

        • by Spykk (823586)
          The trouble is h.264 is free to the individuals consuming the content. Being free to use isn't always a benefit when you are at a corporate level. You can spend all day trying to explain that CentOS will work just as well as RedHat, but a corporation will still choose RedHat so they can pay somebody. That way they have someone to point at when things go wrong.
      • by Chrisq (894406)
        From what this article [multimedia.cx] say, really none
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by poetmatt (793785)

          so you're saying an x264 development blog by an x264 developer is going to be biased against vp8, has been quoted a million times, and has no real world tests (there are real world tests out there). color me surprised! /sarcasm.

          Here a real article, trollop. [streamingmedia.com]

          Saying that H264 is better or worse than vp8 shows straight up ignorance because they both have specific scenarios which they cater to. To avoid recognizing that is a lie.

          In the real world, studies have shown the two perform quite similarly, actually. Al

          • Re:Hmmm... (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Virak (897071) on Monday June 28, 2010 @09:35AM (#32715638) Homepage

            The post the parent linked to goes into extensive detail about the technical aspects of the codec, has a real [doom10.org] world [doom10.org] comparison [doom10.org], a proper one, and is overall an excellent article. In contrast, the article you linked to uses poor quality source videos, JPEG for their comparison images, and by their own admission didn't even manage to use the same frame for both codecs in the images, among other problems. If you're calling that a "real article", you are in no position to be calling someone else a troll.

            And enough of these fucking asinine claims about the x264 developers being out to get your poor, precious VP8 that crop up every time someone posts that link. They don't work for MPEG. They don't make obscene mounts of money off of all the people using their free (as in both sense of the word) open source software. They're not secret Chinese agents working to destroy the West from within through the patent system. There is absolutely no motive for them to lie about this sort of thing. VP8 is simply not as good of a codec, and no amount of baseless accusations will change this.

          • by DrXym (126579)
            In the real world, studies have shown the two perform quite similarly, actually. Also, at the rate VP8 adoption is going MPEG is going to have to sue a lot of people, and they're going to lose in public image among other things.

            No, they'll just sue a couple prominent users of the technology, receive a squillion dollars in punitive damages and then everyone else cough up whatever licence fees bring them into compliance. It's obvious from various postings that VP8 is dangerously close to H264 in a number of

          • by Kjella (173770)

            Just FYI, that test had so many issues with no encoder settings, not even the same frames, using lossy screenshots and so much other bull it originally deserved a troll moderation. It has fixed some of the more glaring errors but nobody takes that guy seriously.

          • by pavon (30274)

            If by "real-world tests" you mean comparing the results of the defaults settings of a mediocre encoder, then sure that is a "real article". But it does not show that VP8 is as good of a specification as H.264. For starters, they used a baseline H.264 encoder. Jason Garrett-Glaser himself (the supposedly biased x264 developer) stated that the VP8 specification was very simular to H.264 Baseline Profile, and he expected well optimized encoder to have simular quality. The comparison you posted completely valid

      • by hedwards (940851)
        The fact that Youtube will almost certainly be migrating from Flash to VP8 as well as any other sites that Google will control is probably a pretty substantial advantage.
    • Re:Hmmm... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by The New Andy (873493) on Monday June 28, 2010 @08:38AM (#32715258) Homepage Journal
      ... or alternatively, it means that Google has found that it owns patents to bits inside H.264. So then as soon as someone sues Google (or "any entity") for stuff in VP8 they lose the right to use the bits of H.264 which are covered by patents that Google acquired when they purchased on2.

      I wouldn't be surprised if the ace up Google's sleeve is a patent on something which is key in both H.264 and VP8.

      • by Rockoon (1252108)
        Google is not a member of MPEG-LA

        The scorched-earth policy of MPEG-LA's anti-lawsuit scheme applies to members only. If Google has patents that apply, then MPEG-LA already doesnt have the rights to use the bits covered by googles patents.
        • Re:Hmmm... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Neil (7455) on Monday June 28, 2010 @09:56AM (#32715930) Homepage

          But, if the original poster's speculation were true, it would put Google in the traditional role of a technology patent holder who holds a defensive arsenal of patents: if MPEG-LA makes a fuss about aspects of VP8 which they claim infringe MPEG-LA patents, then Google can threaten to retaliate by suing everyone in the world who is currently shipping an implementation of H.264 for infringement of the On2/VP8 patents (and so publicly demonstrate the fact that being an licensee of the MPEG-LA H.264 pool doesn't protect one from all patent claims, and provides no insurance or indemnity).

          Stalemate. Mutually-assured-destruction stand-off. Result: VP8 available for royalty-free for use, without MPEG-LA interference.

          But only if Google really have inherited some killer On2 patents as part of their acquisition. I hope they have - it would make sense of their strategy and confidence in VP8 if this kind of thing were going on in the background.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Svartalf (2997)

            But only if Google really have inherited some killer On2 patents as part of their acquisition. I hope they have - it would make sense of their strategy and confidence in VP8 if this kind of thing were going on in the background.

            Even though it's speculation, I'm strongly suspecting that you're going to find that this is the case. Combine that very possible reality along with many of the patents not being actually patentable, for varying reasons including in re Bilski being upheld in some fashion, and any d

          • Empty threat (Score:3, Insightful)

            But, if the original poster's speculation were true, it would put Google in the traditional role of a technology patent holder who holds a defensive arsenal of patents: if MPEG-LA makes a fuss about aspects of VP8 which they claim infringe MPEG-LA patents, then Google can threaten to retaliate by suing everyone in the world who is currently shipping an implementation of H.264 for infringement of the On2/VP8 patents (and so publicly demonstrate the fact that being an licensee of the MPEG-LA H.264 pool doesn't protect one from all patent claims, and provides no insurance or indemnity).

            MPEG-LA itself admits this. The licensors' lawyers know that paying protection to MPEG-LA doesn't indemnify them.

            The licensees have no choice. They're like a shopkeeper in a town full of corrupt cops. Paying bribes to one cop doesn't mean they don't have to pay another bribe to a different cop next week, but you'd better believe they're going to pay the bribe each time anyway.

            Stalemate. Mutually-assured-destruction stand-off. Result: VP8 available for royalty-free for use, without MPEG-LA interference.

            That's absurd. Mutually assured destruction? It's more like Russia saying to the USA, "Disarm all of your ICBMs, or we'll nuke...Nigeria!"

            The MPEG-LA doesn't care what happens to its licensees

      • More importantly, VP8 video encoding this is not core business for Google. Some random company can start patent-war and achieve VP8 being removed from ffmpeg for a month or three, at expense of being removed from business (see: SCO).
    • The patent issues covering VP8 and H.264 are unproven. It's possible that H.264 infringes on VPx patents as much as VPx infringes on H.264 patents.

      They also reused code from previous VPx versions. Maybe the "infringing" code in VP8 is actually older than the patents on which it infringes?

    • by diegocg (1680514)

      Well, it isn't violating more patents than the H.264 codebase itself....

    • wtf slashdot! (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Jesus, do some investigation.

      The ffmpeg VP8 implementation doesn't use a single function from their H.264 support. Not a single one!

      There was some arm-waving speculation that it could use something in common made by people other than the ones actually doing the work. The code they are comparing includes a f@$@# encode. The full ffmpeg VP8 implementation is ~2740 lines. The VP3/Theora implementation which shares no codec functions is 2500 lines.

    • Re:Hmmm... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 28, 2010 @08:52AM (#32715350)

      They were able to keep the line-count low by relying on heavy reuse from the existing H.264 codebase."

      I bet the MPEG-LA will see that as proof that it violates their patents.

      They might, but that's not how patents work. MPEG relies on old math, when MPEG got together to write the spec they were deciding what the constants should be. For example, say they decided to use 20 taps in some filter, then one of the guys in the room went back to his company and said "patent using 20 taps in filter Y, stat!"* To avoid that patent all you need to do is use a different number of taps, say lets say 24 for concreteness.

      ffmpeg decodes many different formats, so they use reusable code. It's not surprising that they have a function that just implements the age old function and takes a parameter for the number of taps you want.

      *In some cases the constant was already patented, but because the MPEG process is "patent agnostic" there is no incentive to use some other non-patented constant and the guys owning a patent on that constant are in the room so they have every incentive to argue for using that constant.

    • Is anyone else worried by..

      They were able to keep the line-count low by relying on heavy reuse from the existing H.264 codebase."

      I bet the MPEG-LA will see that as proof that it violates their patents.

      Well, it's complicated. I wasn't worried when you first asked the question. But by the end of your post, I was a little worried, because after your question, you made that interesting point about patents. So I guess it depends on what you meant b "is".

    • by LWATCDR (28044)

      Yep I thought the exact same thing. It doesn't really mean a thing but would a jury understand that?

  • Good idea? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by surmak (1238244) on Monday June 28, 2010 @08:11AM (#32715096)

    Is is really a good idea to advertise how similar VP8 and H.264 are? Send in the patent trolls.

  • codec? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by quenda (644621) on Monday June 28, 2010 @08:16AM (#32715132)

    and wrote their own native decoder

    It sounds like more of a dec than a codec.

  • Same codebase? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Mystra_x64 (1108487) on Monday June 28, 2010 @08:52AM (#32715352)

    What does "relying on heavy reuse from the existing H.264 codebase" actually mean? For example, if you make some kind of new a superfast array sorting algorithm for 1 project and 'reuse' it elsewhere it does not mean both projects are the same. [Of course I haven't RTFA.]

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by WWWWolf (2428)

      What does "relying on heavy reuse from the existing H.264 codebase" actually mean?

      It means exactly what it says: The developers added a VP8 decoder to FFmpeg, and only had to write very little of completely new code, while making extensive use of the code that already exists in FFmpeg. This way, VP8 decoder will improve when the rest of FFmpeg improves, and all codecs that share the same bits of code benefit from those improvements.

    • VP8 shares a lot of features with H.264's Baseline profile [multimedia.cx]. I'd expect a lot of code to be sharable between them.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      What does "relying on heavy reuse from the existing H.264 codebase" actually mean?

      It means that the code uses the same mathematical principals of video encoding/decoding that H264 does. Unfortunately, the USPTO being what it is today, these mathematical principals have been patented and are owned by various private entities. All this despite the fact that mathematics is not supposed to be patentable. Not that the USPTO actually cares about what is patentable and what is not anymore.

      Basically, H264 largely

  • FFmpeg? (Score:2, Funny)

    by Chris Mattern (191822)

    But what if you don't play Final Fantasy?

  • I am a little disappointed in VP8 and it looks like it may not be the game changer that it was touted to be. It basically comes down to the fallacy of the software patent. It scares off innovation because people are afraid of being sued. It is my belief that patents were designed to protect tangible, mechanical or electrical engineering innovations not pieces of code which drive a machine. I fully believe in the philosophy behind patenting a mechanical engineering innovation. It seems like weekly we he
  • by tokul (682258)
    Is there a limit on line length?

"Card readers? We don't need no stinking card readers." -- Peter da Silva (at the National Academy of Sciencies, 1965, in a particularly vivid fantasy)

Working...