Apple Developing New High-End Video Codec?

[Mr VacBob]

h.264 is not ideal --- like most codecs, it was not designed with multiple CPUs in mind, and incorporates parts of the algorithm that are very hostile to multi-threading (every subsequent step depends on what went before). I think there is room in the world for one more round of the video codec improvement wheel, with the improvements most aggressively targeting ways to segment the work done into independent units that can be decoded on independent CPUs. But this sort of thing seems better done in universities than at Apple.

H.264 has no problem at all with multiple threads. And that's even without slices, you can multithread it with 100% efficiency if you use slices and turn off deblocking across their borders.

On the other hand, a wavelet codec is much harder to multithread, and is also slower even ignoring them, and has worse compression. There's really no reason to recommend them, and I don't think there are any good ones submitted for H.265.

 

[ideasplace]

This may be the reason for Apple looking at DIRAC

The BBC are working with their partners to make an open media archiving system (http://www.avatar-m.org.uk/project-details/) the core technology of which is the DIRAC codec.
It makes perfect sense for Apple - one of the BBC's largest technology suppliers, to make their codec native to the operating system, especially as the project is to be offered to other content producers.

 

[aughsum]

I'm not joking. Are you getting defensive? It's an honest question.

USB 2.0 > RCA cables exist, so there's no need for a dongle or dock connector.

"Routed" means Dock connector pins all lead to a USB plug on the other end anyway. Pretty simple stuff. Are there any "dock connector to line out" cables? Because it seems any line out scenario includes a dongle or dock regardless of the dock connector's presence.

So, in summary, there's no need for the dock connector, but I really don't even care. I just questioned the validity of the statement.

yeah, dock>video out cables exist.

 

[toke lahti]

But from the point of view of content providers, they would be happiest with _one_ top quality codec that can be freely implemented by everyone.

There's no free lunch here.
I wasn't talking about codecs being patented.
I was talking about compression methods being patented.
Every codec has to use those mtehods, so it's practically impossible to make new free codec.
If the wheel is already patented, you can't invent a new free version of it.

 

[MorphingDragon]

If the wheel is already patented, you can't invent a new free version of it.

No, you just implement the wheel differently.

 

[sarge]

In case anyone missed Friday's Announcement...

By Nick Mediati at PC World

The battle for the future of Web video has been nothing if not confusing, and it isn't over yet. MPEG-LA, the industry group responsible for various audio and video formats, announced that it'll keep H.264 video royalty-free--for online video that is free to end-users, anyway.

That's the good news. The bad news? Nothing's settled just yet.

For those of you just tuning in...

Previously, MPEG LA pledged that it would keep H.264 video royalty-free through the end of 2015. This had led some to express concern that MPEG LA would start charging royalties for H.264 Web video after 2015.

With Firefox 3.5 and later, Mozilla adopted the open-source Ogg Theora video format, citing its open, royalty-free nature. Meanwhile, earlier this year, Google announced its WebM video format, pitched it as a possible solution to the HTML5 video problem, and touted widespread support for the new standard. But that potential solution itself may have had a problem: WebM may have infringed on some H.264 patents.

While MPEG LA's announcement may make it easier for H.264 to be adopted as the standard format for HTML5 video, nothing is guaranteed yet. There are still three viable video formats out there for the choosing, and the HTML5 standard isn't expected to be finalized until 2022. Seriously.