Ogg and H264

[MacBH928]

Hello,

I am not a technical guy, and I do not understand the difference between the two codecs or why one is free and the other is to pay for.

I also do not know why would companies like Apple and Youtube want to pay licenses fees while a free option is available ,

but what I know that Ogg is just as good as h264 and many people are voting for Ogg since its free(and since they use FireFox which will not support it).

Under all this fuss, is it possible to create a boycott campaign to NOT visit youtube or buy apple products until they choose Ogg?
I think if youtube watches its revenues go down due to people choosing a different format they will switch to Ogg, its all about the money in the end.

How would this work out?

 

[robbieduncan]

but what I know that Ogg is just as good as h264

Pretty much every side-by-side test I've seen the results of says that this is not true. Ogg Theora cannot, at this point in time, produce the same quality at the same bitrate as H.264.

 

[MacBH928]

Pretty much every side-by-side test I've seen the results of says that this is not true. Ogg Theora cannot, at this point in time, produce the same quality at the same bitrate as H.264.

hmmm, its getting confusing...
some people say it does, others say it doesn't

 

[robbieduncan]

hmmm, its getting confusing...
some people say it does, others say it doesn't

So it is more than possible that Apple decided that, in their view, H.264 produced a better result. Another thing to consider is that Apple already have a very efficient, high performance, hardware accelerated stack for playing H.264 which is tried and tested and shipping in millions of devices. This is not true for Ogg/Theora. So if they backed that they'd need to develop this. Which might well not even be possible for all the existing iPhones out there...

 

[DoFoT9]

from comparing random movies, ogg appears to be the inferior format for the time being at similar bitrates.

 

[stomer]

Hello,

I also do not know why would companies like Apple and Youtube want to pay licenses fees while a free option is available ,
...
but what I know that Ogg is just as good as h264 and many people are voting for Ogg since its free(and since they use FireFox which will not support it).

How would this work out?

1. Theora is an inferior codec.
2. There are no hardware decoders for Theora. So whilst you could hack a digital media device to playback Theora/OGG, playback would be in software and your device would quickly lose its charge.
3. There's lots of H.264 encoding software. Many broadcasters and media companies use H.264. Even Microsoft supports H.264.
4. Implementing OGG/Theora isn't free. You have to implement, test and debug many code changes. Then there's the patent issue. If Apple were to use Vorbis/Theora pervasively, they'd be exposing themselves, unnecessarily, to patent law suits.

Your asking your average consumer to give a crap about which codec is politically correct to use. The battle's already been won, H.264 is the way forward. Not even the pirates use Theora.

Things may have been different if Theora were better than H.264 and had been better from the beginning.

 

[Aronnax]

1. Theora is an inferior codec.
2. There are no hardware decoders for Theora. So whilst you could hack a digital media device to playback Theora/OGG, playback would be in software and your device would quickly lose its charge.
3. There's lots of H.264 encoding software. Many broadcasters and media companies use H.264. Even Microsoft supports H.264.
4. Implementing OGG/Theora isn't free. You have to implement, test and debug many code changes. Then there's the patent issue. If Apple were to use Vorbis/Theora pervasively, they'd be exposing themselves, unnecessarily, to patent law suits.

Your asking your average consumer to give a crap about which codec is politically correct to use. The battle's already been won, H.264 is the way forward. Not even the pirates use Theora.

Things may have been different if Theora were better than H.264 and had been better from the beginning.

H.264 had not always this quality. It is as well a result from improved encoder software and the same is naturally as well possible with Theora.
Or in other words: Theora is now inferior, but this could be changed.

H.264 had not always hardware decoders and Theora can have naturally the same in the future.

H.264 has as well a risk from patent law suits. With Theora is the risk only higher
But H.264 has another risk. They change the cost every few years and who knows how high the cost are, when H.264 is later the standard for videos on the net. The cost are now more or less low. But when everyone use it can they demand whatever they want.

The battle's already been won, H.264 is the way forward.

Yes? Who knows
Firefox will never support H.264 out of the box. Opera as well. Never and for sure.

Opera is as well a good example, why H.264 is bad for the web.
This company earn his money basically with the mobile browser version and the version for the desktop computer is more or less only there to advertise the entire company. When they must pay the H.264 license is the whole concept in danger. They will be maybe forced to stop the desktop version.

Browser like Camino, iCab, Omniweb and so on are then as well extremely in danger. Other web apps like newsgroups reader or other ... have probably as well not the money.

It is not only a question about a political correctness. The H.264 license would be a killer of new ideas, new projects, new companies.
When someone is happy with an internet dominated from the current big player is the H.264 license naturally not a problem. When someone want a creative and open web is HTML5/H.264 currently the worst danger.

-----------

By the way,
i would prefer this solution:

http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/08/0...ssion-technology-company-on2-for-106-million/

Google and On2 Technologies jointly announced today that they have entered into a definitive agreement under which Google will acquire On2, a developer of video compression technology.

...

If would be great if Google decides to open-source On2’s VP7 and VP8 video codecs and free them up as the worldwide video codec standards, thus becoming alternatives to the proprietary and licenced H264 codecs. On2 has always claimed VP7 is better quality than H264 at the same bitrate.

Also noteworthy: Google could use the VP8 codec for YouTube in HTML5 mode, basically forcing its many users to upgrade to HTML5-compliant browsers instead of using Flash formats.

 

[robbieduncan]

H.264 had not always hardware decoders and Theora can have naturally have the same in the future.

But these decoders cannot be added to devices that have already shipped. Apple have shipped upwards of 50 million iPhone OS devices with H.264 hardware decoders. Apple are not going to turn their back on this massive install base to support a standard that offers them very little in return.

 

[Aronnax]

But these decoders cannot be added to devices that have already shipped. Apple have shipped upwards of 50 million iPhone OS devices with H.264 hardware decoders. Apple are not going to turn their back on this massive install base to support a standard that offers them very little in return.

Sooner or later will be every iPhone replaced with a new one

Flash use as well H.264 (and they pay a lot of money for the license) and Youtube has currently therefore every file in this format.
Flash will not die in the next years. H.264 will not die in the next years.
But the current iPhones for sure

Google has for example the money to support both (H.264 and maybe VP8) Or in other words: The current iPhone and iPad with H.264 files still for many years.
New browser and other new web apps. could support then VP8. New hardware can have hardware decoders for VP8.

A license free Html5/VP8 standard would need anyway some time. Html5/ H.264 would need more or less the same time to be the new standard. But Firefox/Opera for example will never support H.264. With a superior and free Html5/VP8 will have nobody a problem.

By the way,
Apple is a member form the MPEG-Consortiums and they will earn money with the H.264 license.

 

[jackerin]

But Firefox/Opera for example will never support H.264.

Alternatively they will make it revert to plug-ins. Quicktime on OS X, WiMP on Windows.

 

[Aronnax]

Alternatively they will make it revert to plug-ins. Quicktime on OS X, WiMP on Windows.

http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2010/01/video_freedom_a.html

Mozilla should pick up and use H.264 codecs that are already installed on the user's system. I've previously written about a variety of reasons this would be a bad idea, especially on Windows. Really there are two main issues:

* Most users with Windows Vista and earlier do not have an H.264 codec installed. So for the majority of our users, this doesn't solve any problem.
* It pushes the software freedom issues from the browser (where we have leverage to possibly change the codec situation) to the platform (where there is no such leverage). You still can't have a completely free software Web client stack.

 

[jackerin]

http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2010/01/video_freedom_a.html

I don't see how that's relevant. What some guy's opinion is (no matter how high he might be in the mozilla hierarchy, I don't know) will matter little when users are banging on the door asking for video.

 

[Nermal]

http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2010/01/video_freedom_a.html

Wow, some of the stuff he says is beyond belief.

But it's important to remember that the only reason you can browse the Web without IE today is because we shipped Firefox to tens of millions of Windows users.

So now IE and Firefox are the only browsers? Incredible.

The thing I find the most "amusing" is the general unwillingness from Mozilla to use your QuickTime/DirectShow decoders. As one of the comments on that blog said:

Mozilla should pick up and use H.264 codecs that are already installed on the user's system.
That is the solution! It is not up to you to tell users what codec they should/should not use. Users will make the choice themselves and having the ability to use an existing system codec will open up html video to all other codecs.

I find it funny that Mozilla seems to be deliberately trying to restrict H.264, yet also complained about Apple restricting iPhone apps. Hypocrisy is fun!

 

[Aronnax]

Wow, some of the stuff he says is beyond belief.

So now IE and Firefox are the only browsers? Incredible.

The thing I find the most "amusing" is the general unwillingness from Mozilla to use your QuickTime/DirectShow decoders. As one of the comments on that blog said:

I find it funny that Mozilla seems to be deliberately trying to restrict H.264, yet also complained about Apple restricting iPhone apps. Hypocrisy is fun!

You should remember how many sites were IE only before Mozilla creates a popular alternative. The web-standards were at this time only theoretical important and had nothing to do with the real web.

Mozilla make web-standards in the real web important and it needed many many years until the web developer are convinced not to build sites only around IE only stuff.
Mozilla and naturally the millions of Firefox user changed the web.

Let's face it. A browser like Safari with only a limited user base could only works fine, when the web-developer use web-standards. Mozilla make the web-standards important and only Mozilla make then Browser like Safari possible (usable) . It is the simple truth

With a million dollar license barrier in the past like the H.264 codec now would Firefox not exist. An open web like today would not exist. Browser like Safari, Chrome or Opera would looks like a piece of **** in an ugly IE only ocean

Therefore will Mozilla never ever support a new license barrier.
Have i already said never

Cheers

 

[clevin]

from comparing random movies, ogg appears to be the inferior format for the time being at similar bitrates.

Pretty much every side-by-side test I've seen the results of says that this is not true. Ogg Theora cannot, at this point in time, produce the same quality at the same bitrate as H.264.

Theora has been developed very fast, and 1.1 was released last year, the progress is obvious, and the quality of the image has been just as good, if not better than H.264 at same bitrate.

so what you guys said maybe true two years ago, but not now.

I find it funny that Mozilla seems to be deliberately trying to restrict H.264, yet also complained about Apple restricting iPhone apps. Hypocrisy is fun!

how does firefox restrict a thing that is not developed by them, not distributed by them, not managed by them, already encumbered by patent who is following the ugly path of GIF and MP3?

firefox has many downstream packages compiled by linux distroes, etc, firefox also supports many platforms that don't have the ability to decode H.264 naively (including windows xp and windows vista). H.264 maybe an apple darling, but you can't expect firefox to ditch half of its userbase just to make you happy. on top of $5,000,000 it has to pay each year.

and whats wrong with opening the web? if H.264 has been dominant several years ago, with its current license fee, a website like youtube would have never get chance to start. apple or google is rich enough to pay several millions a year, smaller companies who want to do video can just forget about it. maybe thats what apple or google stock holders want after all?

 

[Aronnax]

I don't see how that's relevant. What some guy's opinion is (no matter how high he might be in the mozilla hierarchy, I don't know) will matter little when users are banging on the door asking for video.

Even when every web user on this planet is banging on the door asking for video would Mozilla not support a license barrier. Never ever.
---
By the way,
Mozilla's vice president of engineering, explained on his blog why Mozilla doesn't license the h264 codec:
http://shaver.off.net/diary/2010/01/23/html5-video-and-codecs/

 

[MacBH928]

so what will happen now, we won't be able to watch youtube on FireFox?

and excuse my noob-ness but what is the current standard codec used by youtube and apple?

 

[DoFoT9]

Theora has been developed very fast, and 1.1 was released last year, the progress is obvious, and the quality of the image has been just as good, if not better than H.264 at same bitrate.

so what you guys said maybe true two years ago, but not now.

a comparison from youtube? could we possibly try using samples that we have converted ourselves and can control? sorry but that comparison seems useless.

 

[Ritsuka]

Theora has been developed very fast, and 1.1 was released last year, the progress is obvious, and the quality of the image has been just as good, if not better than H.264 at same bitrate.

so what you guys said maybe true two years ago, but not now.

Right, and pigs have wings.
You should stop believing every fud from mozilla and theora guys. Theora may be better because there are no known patent on it, but quality wise? It sucks compared to h.264, and they can't fix it without creating a new format.
We updated the Theora encoder in HandBrake some months ago, and guess what? 1.1 wasn't really better, and the rate control was even worse.

Test it yourself and see.

 

[robbieduncan]

so what you guys said maybe true two years ago, but not now.

From the article you took those pictures from "In the case of the 499kbit/sec H.264 I believe that under careful comparison many people would prefer the H.264 video."

 

[Aronnax]

so what will happen now, we won't be able to watch youtube on FireFox?

and excuse my noob-ness but what is the current standard codec used by youtube and apple?

current standard codec used by youtube and apple = H.264

----- ----- -----

So what will happen now:

http://www.0xdeadbeef.com/weblog/20...-tells-us-and-why-were-standing-with-the-web/

HTML5 video and H.264 – what history tells us and why we’re standing with the web

Christopher Blizzard is an Open Source Evangelist working for the Mozilla Corporation:

for example:

But I, like many others, have reason to believe that H.264 will not be Google’s final choice. There’s good reason to believe this: they are purchasing On2. On2 has technologies that are supposed to be better than H.264. If Google owns the rights to those technologies they are very likely to use them on their properties to promote them and are also likely to license them in a web-friendly (i.e. royalty-free) fashion. Google actually has a decent history of doing this.

So it’s very likely that Google will be using a codec that’s superior to H.264 in terms of bandwidth usage and will also have web-friendly licensing attached to it. I know that at Mozilla we would support that and would very likely incorporate that technology into our browser, much like we did with Theora and Vorbis.

 

[jackerin]

Even when every web user on this planet is banging on the door asking for video would Mozilla not support a license barrier. Never ever.

It's obvious that English is not your first language, but you could try to follow the discussion at least somewhat instead of spouting moral absolutes and copy-pasting blocks of text.

What I said amounted to "if they won't code the decoder into the browser, they will use plugins".
You said that the head honcho at mozilla does not like plugins, even though they are using them right now in Firefox.
I said it will matter little if users want to see H.264; they won't code it into the browser, so they can either use the plugin system or drop support.
Then you say again they will never support a license barrier???

And it is quite obvious that H.264 is not the end-game for Google, just as MPEG-1 or Realvideo wasn't the end-game for video on the internet 10 years ago.

Edit: Just to clarify, I would actually prefer open standards and having good Ogg/Theora support in Quicktime etc., but that is not today's reality and I don't see it happening anytime soon.

 

[Aronnax]

It's obvious that English is not your first language, but you could try to follow the discussion at least somewhat instead of spouting moral absolutes and copy-pasting blocks of text.

What I said amounted to "if they won't code the decoder into the browser, they will use plugins".
You said that the head honcho at mozilla does not like plugins, even though they are using them right now in Firefox.
I said it will matter little if users want to see H.264; they won't code it into the browser, so they can either use the plugin system or drop support.
Then you say again they will never support a license barrier???

I only copy-pasting a block of text that the head honcho at mozilla think plugins are not a proper solution for this problem.

Safari on Mac OS X use Quick-time for the H.264 playback and i think it would be no problem to build an extension that Firefox could do the same.
I think Mozilla will not build it, but someone else can naturally do it.

a license barrier???

a license royalty barrier to be specific

It's obvious that English is not your first

Sorry

 

[clevin]

a comparison from youtube? could we possibly try using samples that we have converted ourselves and can control? sorry but that comparison seems useless.

sure, I will do some encoding myself and show you guys later.

Right, and pigs have wings.
You should stop believing every fud from mozilla and theora guys. Theora may be better because there are no known patent on it, but quality wise? It sucks compared to h.264, and they can't fix it without creating a new format.
We updated the Theora encoder in HandBrake some months ago, and guess what? 1.1 wasn't really better, and the rate control was even worse.
Test it yourself and see.

its no secret that OSS project changes fast, Ogg/Theora is not widely used at this stage, whats wrong for changing format when necessary?

handbrakes has been, and still is, dominated by H.264, thats a fact, and I can see their love with H.264, thats all fine, but which problem mozilla suggested about H.264 is not true? patent encumbered? check, $5,000,000 fee a year? check, unable to cover the down stream packagers? check, those are not FUD, those are the fact, you think handbrakes won't be affected? wait and see. and dont whine when that happens.

ogg/theora 1.1 sucks, and you are calling that not a FUD? why dont you do some encoding at 350kbps and show us? at least I offered a picture, which was a response to google's claim that theora will increas bandwidth consumption compare to youtube's current HD format. what did you offer? zaaro. you spend more time on H.264 doesn't mean you can spill FUD like this.

FUD, SJ has been FUD-ing all these years, i dont see you jump on them (apologize if you ever did).

From the article you took those pictures from "In the case of the 499kbit/sec H.264 I believe that under careful comparison many people would prefer the H.264 video."

there is little problem when the streaming is at higher bitrate, codecs makes little difference, obviously the web video is focused on the low bit range, youtube is doing 350kbps, and it will be the focus, I will be encoding whatever dvd i have with both at this rate and will share my result later.

=========================================
here you go
avatar trailer, encoded for first 20sec, origin is a bt VOB file i just downloaded.
H.264 encoding using "Free Zune Video Converter", all default, H.264/AAC @350kbps, file size 2MB
Theora encoding (2 tests) using gfrontend with ffmpeg2theora-0.26, all default, quality@6(&7), file size 1.83(&2.25)MB

played on VLC 1.0.5

 

[DoFoT9]

sure, I will do some encoding myself and show you guys later.

sick man thanks

=========================================
here you go
avatar trailer, encoded for first 20sec, origin is a bt VOB file i just downloaded.
H.264 encoding using "Free Zune Video Converter", all default, H.264/AAC @350kbps, file size 2MB
Theora encoding (2 tests) using gfrontend with ffmpeg2theora-0.26, all default, quality@6(&7), file size 1.83(&2.25)MB

played on VLC 1.0.5

hmmm quite interesting. the differences are most certainly there but hardly noticeable in a moving sense of things im sure. the movies are sometimes blurred in different ways to make them appear more flowing, i can def see some of what happening in both of these - i guess thats directly from the movie.

the writing on the ship is only just clearer on the Ogg, slight differences.

interesting to see - not that i use those lower bitrates hehe.