Google Announces 'WebM' Open-Source Video Format, Plans for Android Television Integration

[435713]

I don't know about the rapist part, but the big three at Google (Brin, Page, and Schmidt), really do give me the creeps, and that has been a big factor in keeping me from jumping on the bandwagon.

Personalities really do matter. I may not like Bill Gates, and Steve Jobs can sometimes be an ass, but neither of those guys would make my blood run cold if I met them in an elevator.

I would not step foot into the Googleplex without wearing a silver cross and stuffing some garlic in my pocket.

The Rapist thing may be off. Good to see someone agrees with me on that and I am not the only one creeped out by the google big three. Gates is a nerd so he never bothered me really. Jobs is just one of those weirdos that you aren't scared of, but you kind of figure he would try to sex his electronics and have odd rituals before using his computer.

On topic since I guess I never gave my opinion, I think a new open video format source is a good thing. I thought h.264 was but it seems from posts here I am mistaken.

 

[Krizoitz]

Even the analysis everyone quotes says that VP8 is superior to H.264 baseline, which is what video on the web uses. Side by side shots show VP8 as less artifacting than H.264 baseline. So you're wrong.

And again, it's not because the web is moving to VP8 that everything needs to move to VP8. For Blu-ray, it makes no sense. For DRM downloads, it makes no sense either.

For the Web, it makes plenty of sense.



H.264 is not free for end-users, it's free for non commercial use. Big difference.

You're wrong. SOME h.264 uses baseline, but only for low bandwidth/some mobile. The iPhone supports unto the main profile. For desktops h.264 videos go even better such as the HD videos available on YouTube. Was the comparison you cite using comparable settings on the WebM side to baseline for the comparison, or maybe to make it look better they used higher fidelity settings so it wasn't a true comparison.

And yes it is free. I haven't had to pay a single dime to watch an h.264 video, commercial or not, such as the ones available from CNN.

 

[Lord Vader]

It really sucks to make H.264 and Theora versions of video files, now if they could come to an agreement that all parties would support at least one codec that would be great.

 

[Yankee617]

Just what the Internet needed... another video standard.

The nice thing about standards is that we have so many to choose from.

 

[Molecule]

I believe I did not make myself clear. Basically, will this popstone or totally destroy the "attack" that HTML5 was doing on Flash, when it comes to video?

Allow me to clarify this for you: HTLM5 is not a video standard - it's a markup language...the next version of HTML (you know, that stuff web pages are made from?). HTML5 simply adds the ability to - among other things - embed video directly into a webpage without requiring any browser plugins.

So, it won't be HTML5 vs WebM vs FLash. WebM will be used in conjunction with HTML5, not instead of.

 

[Molecule]

And yes it is free. I haven't had to pay a single dime to watch an h.264 video, commercial or not, such as the ones available from CNN.

You will in a few years time

 

[ScottishDuck]

http://nightly.mozilla.org/webm/

 

[rococoloco]

On topic since I guess I never gave my opinion, I think a new open video format source is a good thing. I thought h.264 was but it seems from posts here I am mistaken.

h.264 as an open standard is fine if you're a company with deep pockets and not concerned with software freedom, or 2015 when MPEG-LA decided to show their hand...

Companies like Apple and Microsoft want a quick transition to h.264, standards would be frozen and they could plan the future.

Mozilla, Google, and anyone interested in Linux, BSD or GNU don't want h.264 to happen, because it's not open in the true sense, Mozilla refuse to support it in Firefox because it could eventually destroy their open practices and philosophies, Firefox could become moribund!

The x264 Dev does not slate WebM totally, the author has called for a patent free codec previously and praises WebM for some of it's choices, as well as it's emergence in the claimed patent safe formats.

Software should not be dependent on those who can afford to implement it, especially such fundamental components like codecs and standards, as companies, Apple and Microsoft never have to consider the implications of not advocating truly open/source solutions.

Apple are clearly only interested in developing their own eco-systems, with one-click credit card, generating revenue using Apple clients (iPad/iPhone/iPod) to pull content that they've authorised as suitable for their demographic, the flash debate was never about open vs. closed.

V.interested to see what Apple does, although I have a feeling I already know...

 

[LunaticRed]

And yes it is free. I haven't had to pay a single dime to watch an h.264 video, commercial or not, such as the ones available from CNN.

You will in a few years time

Sorry, this is FUD. It would be CNN that would have to pay, and only if they were charging subscriptions to view the video content in h.264.

As the licensing is set up, if you had over 100,000 paying subscribers the most you would pay would be 25 cents per subscriber per year (there is no fee for less than 100,000 subscribers, or non-commercial use). With up to a 10% increase in fees every 5 years (so in 2016 it may be as much as 27 cents per subscriber).

But, do I think WebM is a bad thing? No, I don't. Since the video tag allows for multiple sources, you can provide both codecs. If there is ever a problem with the WebM patents, you can fall back to h.264, or vice versa. I also believe having WebM as an alternative will provide incentive for MPEG-LA to keep licensing costs reasonable.

One more thing, the video tag in Safari (3.0 and later) will support anything that QuickTime supports, so if a WebM QuickTime component is released and installed, you should have no problem viewing the videos in Safari. Basically the same thing MS has announced for IE9.

Some sources:
HTML5 video
h.264 patents - how much do they really cost?

 

[tatonka]

So Microsoft goes half in on V8 as well, forcing Apples hand I guess.
http://windowsteamblog.com/windows/.../another-follow-up-on-html5-video-in-ie9.aspx

They say, they will support the new codec, but it has to be installed separately for now. Not sure that will remain the position if V8 proves truely free from any patent claims.
I would have wished for a more completely support from MS, but Google supporting it with all its weight is a really good start.

T.

 

[MorphingDragon]

If the OS can't handle misbehaving apps, it's not the application that's the problem. If the OS would rather crash than crash an app, again, you have a whole other kind of problem than a crashy web browser.

See the problem with that answer is that it doesn't address why Google chrome made the computers behave the way it did.

It must surely be be the computers fault if it works fine without Google Chrome installed. (I am disappoint)

 

[Gepper]

It's not even a few hours old. Give it some time.

Yeah if by a few hours you mean six years. They didn't create this beast yesterday..

 

[Gepper]

And before that, they had standardized on MPEG-2 and before that, MPEG-1...

Seriously.

Yeah and those where upgrades, going from h264 -> VP8 is a draw at best considering quality / compression ratio.

 

[SactoGuy18]

I think there's another HUGE factor in regards to the WebM format: the possibility--especially once they add the ability to support hardware acceleration for video compression and decompression--for a dramatic reduction in the cost of Blu-ray mastering and disc production with Blu-ray discs encoded with WebM video compression. Imagine no more paying royalties to MPEG-LA to create and sell Blu-ray discs--this means lower costs for Blu-ray technology in the long run.

 

[KnightWRX]

You're wrong. SOME h.264 uses baseline, but only for low bandwidth/some mobile. The iPhone supports unto the main profile. For desktops h.264 videos go even better such as the HD videos available on YouTube. Was the comparison you cite using comparable settings on the WebM side to baseline for the comparison, or maybe to make it look better they used higher fidelity settings so it wasn't a true comparison.

Wait, you say I'm wrong then go on to talk about iPhone video, desktop video.

I said Web, you know, where Bandwidth is important. This is what Google is positioning VP8 for. For Web, h.264 baseline is used. For Web, VP8 is superior.

The often quoted "negative" analysis even points this out.

So cut out the "You're wrong" and then go and try to claim I said something I didn't.

And yes it is free. I haven't had to pay a single dime to watch an h.264 video, commercial or not, such as the ones available from CNN.

No, but CNN has to pay. If you put up a video in h.264 on your company website using HTML5's video tag to show people how you do whatever it is you do, that is commercial streaming and subject to license fees.

Are you being daft on purpose here ? Your watching CNN is non commercial use.

I think there's another HUGE factor in regards to the WebM format: the possibility--especially once they add the ability to support hardware acceleration for video compression and decompression--for a dramatic reduction in the cost of Blu-ray mastering and disc production with Blu-ray discs encoded with WebM video compression. Imagine no more paying royalties to MPEG-LA to create and sell Blu-ray discs--this means lower costs for Blu-ray technology in the long run.

WebM is not and shouldn't be aimed at replacing Blu-ray. That is just plain dumb. The license fees for H.264 are minuscule on a per-disc basis. There is no reason to switch.

Again, VP8 for the web, H.264 for other stuff. There is nothing wrong in having 2 codecs. We've lived for years with umpteen image formats used for different purposes and no one has died. Each format has its strengths and weaknesses. No one argued replacing TIFF raws for image work when JPEG was introduced...

 

[The Phazer]

I can only wonder if Apple's huge backing of h.264 doesn't have anything to do with their ties with the media companies. I believe h.264 has some DRM in place (correct me if I'm wrong), and I'm unsure if WebM has it as well.

H.264 has DRM, yeah. It's called Adobe Flash. Otherwise no.

If you want DRM, then you have to use Flash or Silverlight, because a codec doesn't give you that and there's nothing in the HTML5 spec (and I'd argue you *can't* have an open standard for DRM).

It's worth noting that at the WebM panel yesterday someone asked Serge himself about this - and he said that if you wanted DRM on VP8, then you should use Flash to do it.

So Flash won't be going anywhere in such a scenario.

Phazer

 

[fabianjj]

That is my though on it. Hopefully at least MS will sign on to it and really push it forward and push Apple do it as well.
Firefox is not support h.264 due to the licensing cost of it. It have to look for work around to off load it on to something else instead of the cost of license it. h.264 licensing would cost Mozilla $5 million a year. That is a huge chunk of change and it will increase so it becomes very costly.

It is understandable why they are supporting it.

I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft would implement it just to piss Apple off, which would be good for the standardization as IE, Firefox and Chrome would support it (did the article say Opera as well, I forgot). And with youtube also using the format, then Apple will have no choice but implement it and we might finally have an HTML5 video standard that everyone is using.

 

[Molecule]

Sorry, this is FUD. It would be CNN that would have to pay, and only if they were charging subscriptions to view the video content in h.264.

Not so - anyone who has it installed will have to pay up. If you use an OS that you actually pay for, this won't be much of an issue - the license for the OS will more than cover the cost of h.264. But what about those using something like BSD or Linux? Getting the codec isn't a problem - the folks over at VideoLAN solved that ages ago - it's the legal issues I'm worried about.
Yes, that's right, I'm concerned about other people who use a different OS to me. What can I say? I'm a nice guy

So, not only will CNN have to pay up, but so will you.



I'm showing concern for other people. This is anything but FUD...

 

[VoR]

This is really really good news, thank's google!

Shame about the name

I'm under the impression that vorbis is the best lossy audio codec about, and that the container, based on mkv is great too.
Now that the code is released, It'll be interesting to see if the standards can be kept while increasing the subjective video quality vs x264 (and of course, that vp8 is able to remain patent free).

 

[Rodimus Prime]

Again, VP8 for the web, H.264 for other stuff. There is nothing wrong in having 2 codecs. We've lived for years with umpteen image formats used for different purposes and no one has died. Each format has its strengths and weaknesses. No one argued replacing TIFF raws for image work when JPEG was introduced...

I think you have it the nail on the head.
I will expain on this. If you take a TIFF file and JPEG file each a 1meg The JPEG file is going to look a hell of a lot better. The reason for that is the JPEG file will be at a higher resolution and will have a lot more information in it because it is a very highly compressed file. Now kick them both to the same resolution the TIFF file looks better and is a much more workable file to work with.

No one uploads TIFF files for viewing on a web page over JPEG because TIFF files are huge and suck up a lot more bandwith.

For the web VP8 is like JPEG and h.264 is more like TIFF so for video viewing on the web VP8 is by far the better choice due to taking a lot less bandwidth. Now lets say you have a movie files your computer. I would rather be h.264. VP8 is better for streaming video over the web.
YouTube is a great choice for VP8. h.264 does not offer anything over it and just sucks up a lot more bandwidth. YouTube files are not the highest quality to begin with.

 

[LunaticRed]

If you put up a video in h.264 on your company website using HTML5's video tag to show people how you do whatever it is you do, that is commercial streaming and subject to license fees.

Actually, no. You only have to pay if you receive remuneration, and distribute to more than 100,000 subscribers. (source)

Right now the thing that bothers me most about h.264 is the idea that after 2015 they will reevaluate their licensing terms, and may introduce royalties for "Internet Broadcast AVC Video." I can't find any information that states "Internet Broadcast AVC Video" won't be royalty free indefinitely; it may be that it will, I just haven't found it. (One argument is that a 10% increase of royalty free would still be free [0 * 0.1 = 0]). This is one reason I see any widely adopted, open source, and royalty free codec, as a good thing. It's an alternative if anything undesirable were to happen with h.264 royalties, and an incentive for MPEG-LA to keep the licensing terms on par with what they have now.

I don't see WebM replacing h.264 for all internet video (and hope it does not), but I definitely see a need for a codec such as WebM. I doubt we will see WebM in mobile devices in the near-term (no idea if it's even reasonable to expect it at all), or replacing h.264 for things like Blu-Ray.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

I don't see WebM replacing h.264 for all internet video (and hope it does not), but I definitely see a need for a codec such as WebM. I doubt we will see WebM in mobile devices in the near-term (no idea if it's even reasonable to expect it at all), or replacing h.264 for things like Blu-Ray.

You will see WebM in mobile devices in the near term. Android will get it and if you look at the hardware makers supporting it you will note that a lot of the major chip makers are going to back it.

This means they will just include it in on their chips for the OS to access. It would be in at the same time with the other hardware accelerators. It does not matter if lets say HTC is on the list. Their supplier for chips is like Quadcom and Quadcomm is backing it so those chips will have the hardware accelerators.

 

[BaldiMac]

I think you have it the nail on the head.
I will expain on this. If you take a TIFF file and JPEG file each a 1meg The JPEG file is going to look a hell of a lot better. The reason for that is the JPEG file will be at a higher resolution and will have a lot more information in it because it is a very highly compressed file. Now kick them both to the same resolution the TIFF file looks better and is a much more workable file to work with.

No one uploads TIFF files for viewing on a web page over JPEG because TIFF files are huge and suck up a lot more bandwith.

For the web VP8 is like JPEG and h.264 is more like TIFF so for video viewing on the web VP8 is by far the better choice due to taking a lot less bandwidth. Now lets say you have a movie files your computer. I would rather be h.264. VP8 is better for streaming video over the web.
YouTube is a great choice for VP8. h.264 does not offer anything over it and just sucks up a lot more bandwidth. YouTube files are not the highest quality to begin with.

Any evidence that VP8 is a smaller file size at the same quality level? The information posted in this thread seems to indicate the opposite.

 

[LunaticRed]

Not so - anyone who has it installed will have to pay up. If you use an OS that you actually pay for, this won't be much of an issue - the license for the OS will more than cover the cost of h.264. But what about those using something like BSD or Linux? Getting the codec isn't a problem - the folks over at VideoLAN solved that ages ago - it's the legal issues I'm worried about.
Yes, that's right, I'm concerned about other people who use a different OS to me. What can I say? I'm a nice guy

So, not only will CNN have to pay up, but so will you.

I'm showing concern for other people. This is anything but FUD...

I was addressing h.264 usage for encoding content on the internet. I don't know all the particulars when it comes to having the codec on your machine. You're right in that developers and manufacturers are expected to pay a royalty to have it in their products. So, I suppose someone would have to buy a plug-in or video player that supports h.264 playback if they wanted to watch those videos on Linux or other free OS.

Although MPEG-LA seems pretty clear about the end-user not needing to pay royalties. If the folks at VideoLAN are in fact in compliance with the MPEG-LA h.264 licensing, then the user should be free and clear to use their product without any additional fees.

 

[KnightWRX]

Any evidence that VP8 is a smaller file size at the same quality level? The information posted in this thread seems to indicate the opposite.

The information in this thread ( the x264 dev article...) says in the conclusion that VP8 is better quality/bandwith than H.264 baseline, which is what is used on the web.