Media Content Player (VP8 versus libavcodec)

Discussions About CyanWorlds.com Engine Client & Plugin
User avatar
JWPlatt
Member
Posts: 1097
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 7:32 pm
Location: Everywhere, all at once

Re: Media Content Player (VP8 versus libavcodec)

Post by JWPlatt » Fri May 31, 2013 6:35 pm

Simon Phipps latest headline on VP8:
Google's VP8 codec license is OK after all. Google caused confusion with talk of patents, but it turns out company's VP8 video codec is safe for open source use.
More detail here:

http://www.infoworld.com/d/open-source- ... all-219673
Perfect speed is being there.

User avatar
JWPlatt
Member
Posts: 1097
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 7:32 pm
Location: Everywhere, all at once

Re: Media Content Player (VP8 versus libavcodec)

Post by JWPlatt » Fri Jan 03, 2014 4:48 pm

VP9.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VP9

http://www.dailytech.com/YouTube+4K+Str ... 34034c.htm

http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/01/ ... or-youtube

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-57612 ... c-support/

It's interesting that VLC will support HEVC (H.265), the MPEG LA codec, and VP9, Google's codec. As explained at the last link:
"European and French law does not consider 'software-only' patents as valid," said Jean-Baptiste Kempf, president of the VideoLAN Organization, told CNET. "As we are doing software only, not hardware, and we don't make money, we don't license those."
So while now-VP9 may be the codec of choice for the CWE client, it appears HEVC may be viable as well. That is, if it is open source. I haven't read far enough into it to know whether it is.

In the same article:
Google and Mozilla banded together to back Google's VP8 for Web video, but the alliance was frayed when Google decided not to keep a promise to remove H.264 support from its Chrome browser.
Did we know this?
Perfect speed is being there.

User avatar
Mac_Fife
Member
Posts: 1227
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 12:38 am
Location: Scotland
Contact:

Re: Media Content Player (VP8 versus libavcodec)

Post by Mac_Fife » Fri Jan 03, 2014 6:59 pm

I think the position with the collapse of some of the support for Google on this was fairly well documented - I had a vague recollection of Adam commenting on it at some point but I can't find it so I'm probably wrong :roll: . Aside from that, I haven't really been watching VP8/VP9 developments.

I'll repeat that VideoLAN's position is dubious. Certainly, European patent law is much more likely to reject a "software patent" than US law might and the question is whether the contribution of the "invention" compared to prior art is more than just "a program for a computer" (http://www.ipo.gov.uk/pro-types/pro-pat ... mputer.htm) and it's clearly VideoLAN's contention that is all the CODECs are. However, I think the Aerotel/Macrossan Test (http://www.ipo.gov.uk/pro-types/pro-pat ... r-case.htm) would likely show that the delivery of streaming or compressed AV content in an efficient manner might be a significant technological contribution beyond simply being a computer program. But it's probably moot anyway as far as MOUL is concerned because unlike VLC the copyright "owner" for CWE isn't located in Europe, so would need to contend a US interpretation of patent law.
Mac_Fife
OpenUru.org wiki wrangler

User avatar
Hoikas
Member
Posts: 284
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 8:38 pm

Re: Media Content Player (VP8 versus libavcodec)

Post by Hoikas » Fri Jan 03, 2014 8:17 pm

This whole issue is an awful muddled mess at this point. I don't trust Google as far as I can throw them, and I sure as heck don't want to ship ffmpeg/libav with CWE (even though Visual C++ can compile it as of the 2013 release). It's very tempting to port the libav Bink code to a CWE plBink project, but I'm not savvy enough to do that right now.
Image

jamie marchant
Member
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 5:13 pm
Contact:

Re: Media Content Player (VP8 versus libavcodec)

Post by jamie marchant » Tue Mar 04, 2014 3:36 pm

I have an idea but it would mean waiting a while longer before the missing videos would return to MOULa. What if we asked Cyan to convert the videos into something else like Ogg? That should be easier to play with OpenSource software

User avatar
Mac_Fife
Member
Posts: 1227
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 12:38 am
Location: Scotland
Contact:

Re: Media Content Player (VP8 versus libavcodec)

Post by Mac_Fife » Tue Mar 04, 2014 7:15 pm

We're good at waiting in this community - we get lots of practice at it. I think any solution would require Cyan to convert the videos into another format, but I guess they'd want to see that there was a workable way forward before committing effort to doing it - like a modified client with some dummy files wedged in using the proposed format as a proof-of-concept.

I guess that part of the original appeal of Bink was that is seems to produce very compact files compared to many of the other common formats, and back when internet download speeds were measured in hundreds of kilobits per second, file size was probably a big factor, else we'd maybe have had Quicktime files.
Mac_Fife
OpenUru.org wiki wrangler

User avatar
Hoikas
Member
Posts: 284
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 8:38 pm

Re: Media Content Player (VP8 versus libavcodec)

Post by Hoikas » Sat Nov 01, 2014 4:00 am

#458 (WebM using VP9 and Opus) is now open for discussion on the H-uru repository after contributions from Luna, Mystler, Branan, Deledrius, and myself. A true collaborative effort.
Image

jamie marchant
Member
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 5:13 pm
Contact:

Re: Media Content Player (VP8 versus libavcodec)

Post by jamie marchant » Sat Nov 01, 2014 3:38 pm

Great work guys :)

User avatar
Mac_Fife
Member
Posts: 1227
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 12:38 am
Location: Scotland
Contact:

Re: Media Content Player (VP8 versus libavcodec)

Post by Mac_Fife » Sat Nov 01, 2014 8:14 pm

Great effort!

From an ease of Cyan adoption point of view, anyone able to comment on build prospects on VS2003 as opposed to VS2013?
Mac_Fife
OpenUru.org wiki wrangler

User avatar
Luna
Member
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 2:37 pm

Re: Media Content Player (VP8 versus libavcodec)

Post by Luna » Tue Nov 25, 2014 10:23 pm

Mac_Fife wrote:Great effort!

From an ease of Cyan adoption point of view, anyone able to comment on build prospects on VS2003 as opposed to VS2013?
The instructions for building webm(http://www.webmproject.org/code/build-prerequisites/) actually lists vs2003 as possible option and current configuration output shows it as option so that shouldn't be a problem. Opus which we use for the audio only has a project for vs2010 so that will need some work.

Also there is free edition(with more features than express) of vs2013 now for opensource projects but I guess it would still be a lot of work for Cyan to switch :/

Post Reply

Return to “CyanWorlds.com Engine - Client & Plugin”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest