Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Graphics Software

Nancy Goes Head-to-Head With MPEG-4 176

Posted by Hemos from the battle-head-to-head dept.
Justin Rossi writes: "EE Times has an article about Nancy, 'the lightest video codec' which is taking Asia by storm and finally bringing streaming Video to handheld devices. What I wonder is how it shall fare against MPEG-4, Ogg Tarkin, and MC-10."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Nancy Goes Head-to-Head With MPEG-4 More

Nancy Goes Head-to-Head With MPEG-4

Comments Filter:
  • .. headache for the massive groups of people who encode DiVX movies anyway?

    If streaming media became a reality on handheld devices, all of these movies would have to be re-encoded and released for such mediums.

    At least the file sizes would be smaller ;)

    • Probably not (Score:5, Insightful)

      by autopr0n ( 534291 ) on Tuesday December 04, 2001 @07:58AM (#2653206) Homepage Journal
      The benefit of this codec is it's ease of computation, not necessarily it's image quality/bandwidth ratio.

      Anyway, since it's so quick to encode (you can do it real-time on a 50mips machine... so cell phone, pda, whatever) You'll probably be able to convert the files as fast as you can copy them to the device, or if you want to stream the videos to a cell phone you can have your computer decode them and then reencode them for broadcast.

      Unfortunately this thing seems to be a lot more tied up legaly then MPEG :( It could be a cool way to put videos on my iPaq (Mpeg is still a little choppy)
      • Do we have any specifications??
        How fast is it ??? Whats the compression ratio?

        Also, I somehow do not know how catchy the video email is going to be . Does this mean streaming video ??
  • If the video codec really is all it's cracked up to be, then it looks like WE HAEV A WINNAR. I doubt that MPEG-4 can hold up for very long against something which achieves similar results in a tiny fraction of the memory and CPU power without serious push from a monopoly or oligopoly.
    • If [...] then it looks like WE HAVE A WINNAR

      Bla.

      Has anybody actually seen it and compared it to existing solutions?

      Until then, both the article and the company's website [nancy.co.jp] are a little too light on details for me.
      • Maybe you weren't paying attention. With backers like Sharp, you're guranteed it's not vapor. The basis for the algorithm easily leads me to believe the specs. Floating point is too complex for phones. This thing doesn't require anything that a cheap, full features microcontroller can't do. The fact that other companies like Vodafone are interested also gives it credibility. I can see this thing getting messy though, being owned almost 3/4's by the chinese government.

        :(
        • The question is not what it requires, the question is what it produces. Producing shadows that vaguely look like a thing you're trying to describe doesn't require anything that someone with two working hands can't do, so would you call that a promising new digital video codec? And the idea that big names guarantee a non-vapor product is a joke.

    • Re:If it's as good as they say... (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      If the video codec really is all it's cracked up to be, then it looks like WE HAEV A WINNAR. I doubt that MPEG-4 can hold up for very long against something which achieves similar results in a tiny fraction of the memory and CPU power without serious push from a monopoly or oligopoly.

      Well every 6 months or so, someone announces a "NEW! REVOLUTIONARY! FAST! ULTRA-COMPRESSING!" video codec. Until now they failed to deliver their promises.

  • Hmmmm (Score:3, Informative)

    by Corporate Troll ( 537873 ) on Tuesday December 04, 2001 @07:49AM (#2653197) Homepage Journal
    I still don't get this hype about "video-on-cell-phone". Now correct me if I'm wrong but standalone "videophones" were "to be the future", they never catched on. Why would it be different for cell-phones even if you have the bandwith?

    I just can say: cool a new codec, which will perhaps allow me to watch some extra pr0n on this slow computer....but then I'm running Linux and this thing is proprietary, so implementation probability is about 10%. However the chinese got their hands in it, so not all is lost.

    • Re:Hmmmm (Score:5, Interesting)

      by autopr0n ( 534291 ) on Tuesday December 04, 2001 @08:01AM (#2653212) Homepage Journal
      Well, we never had the bandwidth for real videophones.. they were all choppy as fuck when they came out, but now that we do have the bandwidth people are doing video conferencing with webcams and such all the time. It just isn't exciting anymore.

      A cell phone with a cam and enough bandwidth (read 3g networks) might actually be popular since you'll actually be able to get a decent video feed.
      • Question: when was the last time you did videoconferencing?

        I know, I attended some courses back in 1998 that were given by means of videoconferencing, but that's about it. I also have a friend who is often in Mexico and uses a webcam to talk to his familiy here at certain times: apart from that....sorry, never saw a real life example.
        Video conferencing is still a very small nice.

        • All you need is an ISDN link for pretty nice quality. The problem is still cost. Both ends still often need to have the same equipment to ensure compatibility.
        • Here at school tons of kids have cheapo webcam/microphone setups that came with the computer. I know for a fact that people are using internet videophones.
    • japan has video payphones & video cellphones already due to their high bandwidth data comms rather then the 9600 we have here (uk!)
      • But do they use it? I mean, it's all nice to show off but if those phones are not really practical they are a non-issue. So you have video payphone, but you need to call your ma: now well ma has a normal phone (as most people do, even in Japan, I think), so the picture stays black. Unless a lot of people actually *use* it, it makes no sense.
        As a comparision, 5 years ago, I read in my cell phone manual something about SMS. I loved the idea and wanted to try it: bummer, to whom could I send it since virtually none of my friends had a cellphone. I send my first SMS about 2 years after the purchase of the phone, mostly because *then* cellphones were popular (and I had a dinosaur model *grin*)

    • Re:Hmmmm (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ugglan ( 21001 )
      Just think about it for a second. Stationary videophones failed because everyone knows pretty much what our friends look like (and if you didn't, you would after the first call).

      But cellphones are mobile. Suddenly we will have the ability to transmit snapshots and live moving images and sound of our current surroundings, wherever we are. This is personal live television (and more. much more.)
      • Best reply I got up until now: I didn't think of it as a handheld wireless webcam. Sounds fine, but on the other hand, how many times did you call a friend which you wanted to show him/her something in your surroundings. Most of the time you call someone to make an appointment or the like (well, I do...) I thought it would be nice to show text or something from a paper/screen but I don't think the quality will allow that (unless Nancy is *really* good).
        Well best idea so far, but not really an killer app...
        • You wouldn't want to just use this to show something to your friends. Maybe you see something somewhere that you'd like to look at yourself later. Kind of a camcorder built into your phone. This kind of thing would be awesome for parties, or for when you see that :P
          • Ehm....for plain snapshots a cellphone with integrated digital camera (cheap versions of course 640x480x24 in jpeg) would be more than enough. You don't need a fancy video codec for that.

            How many times do you want to temporary record some kind of moving video: I recon, when Aunt Stacy falls with her face in the aniversary cake I'm sure it will be great to see that a 100 times...but then you were probably not filming anyway ;-)

            • How many times do you want to temporary record some kind of moving video: I recon, when Aunt Stacy falls with her face in the aniversary cake I'm sure it will be great to see that a 100 times...but then you were probably not filming anyway ;-)

              Yeah, I mean just how useful were those portable video cameras in NYC on Sept 11? Oh, that's right, they happened to catch some of the most broadcast video clips of the attacks. And imagine what types of images we could've gotten if the people sending IM's and email from in and around the twin towers during the attacks happened to have a video cam on their cellphone where they could've snapped some stills or captured a bit of motion video.

        • how many times did you call a friend which you wanted to show him/her something in your surroundings.

          Many, many times. Just the other day I was looking at a new apartment and wanted a second opinion from my friend, I really wanted to be able to just quickly show her around the place, it would have been perfect with a mobile videophone.

          And I'm sure you will think of ways to use it too as soon as you realize that you actually can! What I'm getting at is that once the possibility is there and is simple/transparent enough, people will dream up a thousand uses for it. (Including 950 uses for sex of course.)

          • I'm still wondering when I personally could use it... Only on very very rare occasions, which most of the time are forseeable and thus a regular camera would do (or computer/webcam setup). Okay you lose the realtime, but you gain quality.

            Besides, how many times do you visit an Apartment in your life *and* want a second opinion of your friend? Even the most mobile people will not move more than once in a year. Even if this friend is an architect who could point out faulty stuff in the apartment, viewing over cell-phone won't give him a decent impression to make a good judgment. He'd better come in person and use your regular cell-phone to make an appointment. Also think of the lighting: notice how often normal pictures/normal video have bad lighting? This will not be good on a portable vidphone.

            I know this is slashdot, but real-life interaction beats any electronic interface man can invent.

            • Well, I go to the grocery store all the time and I usually come back with the wrong thing. Could this help?

              Also, what about Christmas|Birthday|Wedding shopping. There have been many times that I cannot explain what I am looking for to my wife|sister|mother|father (who's in the store). She calls me and shows me the product and I reply "No, the red one on the left". Very cool!
            • This all sounds a lot like the arguments against any massively successful new technology. Remember the best products don't fill needs, they create them. You don't need a cell phone. Ten years ago you got along just fine with payphones and your home, you just planned around the fact that sometimes you'd be out of touch. Similarly you don't need an always ready video broadcast / recording capability, but in five to ten years, you may very well want it pretty badly.
      • reminds me of that dilbert chapter. most people are ugly and you dont want to see them. id rather see an attractive looking person on the phone so he used the idea of digital representatives. sounds like an applicaple idea for this type

    • Re:phone sex (Score:3, Funny)

      by alen ( 225700 )
      Just imagine the possiblities for live phone sex shows. The porn industry will love this. And why have phone sex with your wife with only words? Soon she will be able to strip for you whereever you are in the world.
    • I still don't get this hype about "video-on-cell-phone". Now correct me if I'm wrong but standalone "videophones" were "to be the future", they never catched on. Why would it be different for cell-phones even if you have the bandwith?

      First, ever seen Earth: Final Conflict? The Globals they use are quite cool, and have a lot of functions other than just video chat, though it IS nice to see the person you're talking to.

      Other applications that spring to mind are calling home and looking at live feeds from your home security cameras, or interpreting the body language of people you're talking to.

      You could use it to show someone where you are (example use is construction sites, to shoe how done is done), or what you're talking about ('no no honey, THIS kind of margerine). Theoretically, you could use them as wireless webcams or videocameras, and take inventory of an area - documenting fire damage, for example, theft, or just before/after shots of your yard during a landscaping project.

      There are lots of applications that I can think of now, and probably more that could be thought of by people after the technology is commonplace.

      Me, I find the idea sort of exciting.

      --Dan

  • What a strange name for a video codec (Score:5, Interesting)

    by autopr0n ( 534291 ) on Tuesday December 04, 2001 @07:52AM (#2653201) Homepage Journal
    "Nancy"? Was it named after some coders girlfriend or something?

    From a CPU (and therefore an electrical) standpoint the algorithm is better because it uses much simpler mathematics. But I wonder what the video quality would look like. Is it comparable to Mpeg4 based codecs like DivX? This is great for handheld devices, but I doubt it'll make much of a dent on the desktop unless the image quality is a lot better. We already have way more CPU power then we know what to do with :P
    • It wouldnt surprise me a bit if it was named after someones girlfriend. However I dont see that as a bad thing. Just look at Debian, it was partly named after Ian's girlfriend Deborah and it turned out the be the best linux distribution ever.

      • yeh, 'partly' (Score:2, Interesting)

        by autopr0n ( 534291 )
        Debian actually sounds cool. I'd bet anything that if the distro were just called "Deborah" it wouldn't have much marketshare. Names really do affect people. Why do you think no one uses LISP even though it kicks ass?

        Actually what I think happened is that the people picked a cool sounding 'foreign' name, like if it had been developed here they might have called it "Ritsko", or "Miho", or "Daikatana", or something, which might sound cool to American ears but retarded to Japanese (at least for a video codec)

        • Why do you think no one uses LISP even though it kicks ass?

          Lots of people use Common Lisp [slashdot.org] and Scheme.

          • I'll take a karma bath for this, but who cares. I'm so close to the cap now anyway...

            Scheme, you'll note does not have such an obnoxious name, I wouldn't be surprised if it's used more then LISP eventually. Why do you think so many collages and universities jumped on the Scheme bandwagon in the early 90s, when LISP was right there?

            Because 'Scheme' sounds better then 'LISP'

            Its the same principle that's keeping GNU HURD (rhymes with turd!) from ever amounting to anything. If RMS had called it GNU Concura, or GNU KernalCloud or GNU Multitude it would have been a hit. (ok, there's a little sarcasm in there.)

        • offtopic?! (Score:1, Offtopic)

          by autopr0n ( 534291 )
          What kind moderation is that?

          Did they miss the whole second paragraph? And I directly replied to the above poster's point!

          Normally I don't complain about moderation but...

    • Re:What a strange name for a video codec (Score:5, Funny)

      by ayjay29 ( 144994 ) on Tuesday December 04, 2001 @10:42AM (#2653586)
      "Nancy"? Was it named after some coders girlfriend or something?

      Can't decide if you are sexist, assuming coders cannot be female, or I am homophonic, assuming coders cannot be lesbians.

    • "Nancy"? Was it named after some coders girlfriend or something?

      More likely someone's secret crush. As every geek knows, nothing get the ladies like naming proprietary codecs after them. Except maybe naming a virus after them.

    • "Nancy"? Was it named after some coders girlfriend or something?

      WTF is wrong with that? Every day I use a computer that contains chips inside it named Agnes, Paula, and Denise. :-)

    • Because the Nancy compression codec is a commercially-developed product, we have to ask this question: will they license the codec technology to Real Networks and Microsoft?

      Or to be more specific, will we see the upcoming RealOne program and (current and future versions) Windows Media Player capable of playing Nancy-compressed files through a new version of the streaming media player or through an add-on? (You can forget about Apple supporting Nancy given it will cut into QuickTime support.)

      If RealOne or Windows Media Player gets Nancy support, this new format could really explode in popularity. :-)
      • You are talkng complete bollocks. Apple positively encourages 3rd party codecs, providing compelte smapel code to write them, and will host them on their servers and automatically download them if the content needs them.
        If the Nancy lot want to drive adoption, they just need to wrap themselev sin the QT codec API.

        Of course, this woudl amke it very easy to compare them directly with MPEG, Sorenson H263, On2 et al, so if they don't so this they are likely to be the next Pixeleon.

        The gMedia player from generic media already has the low CPU/low colour/low res idea shipping on the Sony Clie - genreicmedia.com

  • Quicktime / realplayer? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by forgoil ( 104808 ) on Tuesday December 04, 2001 @08:00AM (#2653210) Homepage
    Two formats I can't play in my favorite player (which happens to be just the mediaplayer, but it's the same thing if you are using other players). Will this be the same thing all over again? I don't mind new formats, especially if they are good, but if I can't watch them where I want to, who cares? If the big companies has to buy licenses to get them in their devices, and then force all publishers to use their special software... you know the drill.

    I don't care if the software is closed source as long as protocols, codecs, formats, etc are open so anyone can implement and use them.
    • Well.. the QuickTime format is freely available, it is the codecs that are not. In fact codecs are the most difficult part of the whole process, the most expensive to develop, and the parts that make the most sense to sell in a capitalistic (or better said monetary reward based system). The Ogg video codec is a neat idea, and I am waiting to see if they have any real success.

  • Good enough for now? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by standards ( 461431 ) on Tuesday December 04, 2001 @08:02AM (#2653215)
    I think Nancy is well-suited for devices that don't try to be video devices - like cell phones and PDAs.

    In the relative scheme of things, non-video devices have low-resolution, low quality displays. And obviously the manufacturers of these devices are unwilling to spend significant CPU or board real estate for video purposes.

    Devices that need to deliver high-quality video won't bother with Nancy - as anything that isn't a cell phone will have the power and capability to use a quality codec.

    Nancy is just a stop-gap solution for delivering very low quality video to underpowered devices. As soon as the video demands increase, or as soon as the power of these devices rise, Nancy will be obsolete.

    • Cell phones (Score:1, Redundant)

      by YearOfTheDragon ( 527417 )
      As soon as the video demands increase, or as soon as the power of these devices rise, Nancy will be obsolete.
      That's true. But isn't that what happens with all technology?
      You can't blame 8086 because was powerless compared to a Cray.
      Each device has his marked and Nancy/Cell phones can get one. People is going to use cell phones video conference and then, not now, is going to need improved displays and high-quality video.
      Nancy is not just a stop-gap solution, Nancy is a good solution to cell phone video if is as good as Koichi Kato said.
    • For my money, i say there's always room for more efficient solutions. How many of us are running "obsolete"code in one place or another 'cause it happens to work better?

  • Market wont accept... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by macemoneta ( 154740 ) on Tuesday December 04, 2001 @08:04AM (#2653217) Homepage
    ...video conferencing on the desktop, which has been available for years. Why does anyone think that they will want it in their cell phone?

    • Re:Market wont accept... (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Rog7 ( 182880 )
      Because they can. When everyone says that videophones have already flopped they're assuming the concept just doesn't work or isn't as cool as well all thought it would be.

      What you're missing is that once something becomes cheap and convenient, it doesn't need to be supercool. This sounds like one more step towards mass-market feasibility.
    • This comment is not as obvious as it seems. The market will not accept the price performance trade-off it has been presented with on the desktop. Further, because of this price performance trade-off, no critical mass of users has built up to make it really worth it.

      The handheld market could change an important part of this equation by increasing the base of other users I could interact with. Further, if it is sufficiently low cost, people might not mind low image quality or slow frame rates. I hold up as my example jpeg photography which is used a lot on the net. The quality is not photographic, but because of convenvience, it is finding alot of uses. Alot of people have them; everyone can read them.
    • My mom doesn't have video-conferencing and probably neither does yours. That's the problem... I don't need (or really want) to see Joe in Purchasing in order to get my job done, but Sunday mornings it would be nice to see Mom. A nice video phone and we can chat and she can see her grandkids, etc.

      -Russ
  • Melanie Haber vs. Cinepak!
    Audrey Farber vs. MPEG2!
    Suzan Underhill vs. Sorenson!

    and tonights prize fight...

    Betty-Jo Bialowski vs. DiVX!

  • Uh...why? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by A_Non_Moose ( 413034 ) on Tuesday December 04, 2001 @09:31AM (#2653284) Homepage Journal
    Sharp was one of the early adopters of MPEG-4, introducing an MPEG-4 video recorder and a Zaurus with an MPEG-4 player in December 2000.

    Interesting, yes, but used where? The article does not say.

    They also talk about "block noise" which you can see in DivX quite readily if you have a large piece of video recorded at too low a bitrate.
    It is like watching a movie with a 1/4inch chicken wire overlay.

    One of the problems with DivX that I have noticed is that it does not handle low light secenes very well...and it seems there are algorithms that compensate, because now some encoders complain about bright/outdoor scenes "going white"...heh.

    oh, and this caught my eye...
    The company has demonstrated video transmission to a notebook PC at 512 kbits/second, to a PDA at 256 kbits/s and to a cell phone at 28.8 to 32 kbits/s.
    ...and to charter pipeline (aka charter "sipping straw") at (drum roll please) a max of 12Kbytes a second... Road kill on the information highway.

    People are going to ask which Mpeg4 codec is best, and, well that is an issue we will have to treat "Ginger"ly...hehehee
    • One of the problems with DivX that I have noticed is that it does not handle low light secenes very well

      Well like anything it depends a lot on what encoder is used. It sounds more like a problem with the encoder, or perhaps the person encoding decided to use a quicker integer algorithem rather then using floating point.
      • True, very true.

        If you take an encoder such as virtual dub (quite the capable app, just wish there was a mac port) even on the highest setting 6000Kb/s(?) the dark scenes improve in quality, somewhat.

        For instance the "dropping coconuts in CastAway".
        From the DVD/Mpeg2 it is a rather dark scene, but on the highest Mpeg4 setting it is dark & "muddy" and gets rather pixellated.
        I've noticed that while you can't see the "grid", there are still "striations/gradation/banding" (one of those words).

        Ironically, the ffmpeg codec for Quicktime 5 (happy 10th, btw) kicks ass if you have the pro version...some of the tricks (cache hints, preload --if you have a Gig of memory/lotsa time-- and use the high quality and single field) yield and excellent movie/presentation in full screen even for "smaller than normal" Mpeg4 clips.

        Quite literally I am surprised that this has not taken the Anime/cartoon "world" by storm.
        I saw (and later re-did a 1 cd) version of Titan AE; Barely could tell the difference between the two even before "tweaking" the player.
        I payed special attention to the high action scenes. Very little, if any, pixellation during high action scenes, freeze frames et al.

        Maybe I did not pay attention enough, but I wonder if this means a re-encode of all the Mpeg4 movies, or would the new coded just "resample" them live?

        Thought processes shutting down...coffee needed.

        Cheers.

        Moose.

        • From the DVD/Mpeg2 it is a rather dark scene, but on the highest Mpeg4 setting it is dark & "muddy" and gets rather pixellated. I've noticed that while you can't see the "grid", there are still "striations/gradation/banding" (one of those words).

          What you're seeing is Mach banding (Java demo [umb.edu]; explanation [loria.fr]) caused by the interaction between color quantization and the eye's high-pass edge detection filter. It kills the quality of anything played back at 15/16-bit high color. DVDs don't show this because the hardware decoder uses 24-bit or higher color, which eliminates most Mach banding.

    • ...and to charter pipeline (aka charter "sipping straw") at (drum roll please) a max of 12Kbytes a second...
      You must have an overburdened branch - my switch from @Home to Charter Pipeline went relatively smoothly (for such a major network shift) and my bandwidth is about what it was - 1.5-3Mbps.

  • What about compression rates? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by bogado ( 25959 ) <bogado&bogado,net> on Tuesday December 04, 2001 @09:33AM (#2653290) Homepage Journal
    I don't seem to find anywhere how well this "nancy" compares in the compression rate arena. How much does it compress with the same amount of lossiness? This is very important for this, because if yu don't care about the rate I could simply use gzip to compress my movies and have no loss at all.
  • I tried posting this earlier but my ISP was having some difficulties with /.

    Take a look at this:

    Macromedia Flash is a structured vector based web content player. It has the ability to display quite a few 2D alpha rendered polygons from a low bandwidth connection.

    Nancy is a codec that takes 1x1 to 32x32 polygon shapes and encodes them into polygon data. To decode this data it just renders the polygons and blends them to create the movie.

    So consider this. Wouldn't it be possible to use a Nancy encoder to embed fast 30 fps full-motion color videos into Flash that would still run on Joe Modem's 56k? Most "embedded Flash movies" today are black and white sihlouettes and color ones need connections much higher than 256 kbit/s just to view at a normal rate. This technology would not just only be good for cell phones, PDAs, and other portable devices because the desktop could use this too.
    • If you want a video-> flash converter, just write one to do that, I don't see why a Nancy encoder would be able output flash. I don't see why you would want to convert a Nancy file to flash anyway, I don't think it works the way you think it does.. it splits up the image into blocks and then encodes the blocks separately (kind of like lots of little JPGs).

      And secondly Joe blow already has a bunch of options for viewing 56k video over his 56k modem... ever heard of Realmedia or mpeg4 (windows media?) You could even do a java applet to decode Nancy video in real time (remember, it doesn't take much CPU power to do)

      And finally, you seem really confused about flash. It isn't a streaming format at all, flash files ".swf" are downloaded to your computer and then viewed (sometimes in parts, so you get a nice 'loading' screen). It doesn't matter what kind of connection you have, just what kind of CPU you have.
      • Actually, Flash can begin displaying objects as they come in through the stream. Your movies can check for particular frames being loaded before they advance to the next frame. Audio can be specifically set to stream.

        It's sometimes very difficult to do this properly over a variety of bandwiths so most movies opt to wait for the entire file to load before they begin playing (using a "loader" animation or equivalent), or plan specific pauses in the action of the movie for the loading of the rest of the movie to "catch up". Also, audio can be specifically set to play streamed from the file.

      • It isn't a streaming format at all, flash files ".swf" are downloaded to your computer and then viewed (sometimes in parts, so you get a nice 'loading' screen).

        Archon explained this quite well. I'd like to add that many Flash movies you find on memepool (all your base, hatten är din, hyakugojyuuichi, irrational exuberance, etc) preload their images and stream their audio or have slow intros (using little bitmap data) such that 32 kbps (the effective transfer rate of a 56K modem counting line noise and PPP and TCP overhead) can cover the first few scenes quite nicely. Look at "Pokerap 2" by Neil Cicierga [newgrounds.com]: It uses a simple spinning AOL CD to cover the loading of the first scene.

  • MPEG-4 was never meant to be a simple video compression format. It also supports a variety of extra features such as streaming 3D geometry, text-to-speech, etc. Check out MPEG-4, why use it? [telecomitalialab.com] to see some details about the extra features it offers.

    MPEG-4 has also had a huge number of research groups and commercial organisations working together on the standards.

    I'm not saying that these features are necessary, but this Nancy shouldn't really be able to kill MPEG-4 off if it only competes on one out of the many aspects of MPEG-4.


  • Competition = Better Codecs.

  • This is NOT going to replace DivX ;-) (Score:5, Interesting)

    by tweakt ( 325224 ) on Tuesday December 04, 2001 @09:54AM (#2653365) Homepage
    Nancy is aiming to displace MPEG-4 in applications that demand limited code space and extended battery life.

    It's a low power (power=not much cpu required) designed for mobile devices.

    The codec will run "even if CPU power is not high," said Kato. "A 50-Mips CPU can compress and decompress video at 30 frames per second with QCIF [176 x 144-pixel] resolution [using Nancy].

    QCIF is a postage stamp, don't get excited... my freakin webcam can do that type of compression right now, this acheives a smaller size I'm guessing. As far as quality is concerned, I don't think thats the main focus.

    Their goal is real-time, and low power cpu, and perhaps low bitrate... not highest quality, lowest overall size (MPEG4/DivX, etc)..

  • Nancy won't be "killing" MPEG-4, since the codecs are designed for two different fields. Perhaps some obscure Video Conferencing tool may use Nancy in the future (I guess those are on the border line), but I'd be very surprised if a codec aimed for PDA's gave us the video quality we're used to watching movies with.

  • i made such video codec too (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    me too made such i video codec.
    it runs at 9600 baud and takes a minimum of cpu time so it is well suited for cell phones and small pda`s.

    the algorithm to encode a video frame:
    b = a

    where b is the frame and a is the buffer to be transmitted to the cell phone.

    the algorithm to decode the video frame:
    a = b

    where a is the cell phones frame buffer and b is the buffer where the cell phone received the encoded frame.

    with 4 grayscale values and a 64x64 picture it
    runs at 1.17187 fps.

    great isnt it ?

    and dear slashdot editor:
    next time when posting such news please remember that most readers are interested in stuff like picture quality, resolution, and comparsions to existing video codecs.
    without them, the claims brought up are not standing on any ground or are not worth mentioning.
  • The link is here. [sharp-world.com]

    The machine sounds like a great gadget, but notice all the extras you need to purchase to make it fully functional -- such as the $200 recording card, another digital camera card ($200), video camera software ($40), another flash card to use the gadget as a phone, modem cards, LAN cards, PC link cables, PC link kits...
    which sounds a bit much

    The device itself goes for about $450 I believe.

    By the way, the web site (with an English section) for NOA, the creators of Nancy is here. [nancy.co.jp]

  • I wouldn't worry about Ogg Tarkin (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ca1v1n ( 135902 ) <snook.guanotronic@com> on Tuesday December 04, 2001 @10:28AM (#2653513)
    I've been waiting for the 1.0 release of Ogg Vorbis for a few years now. Yes, it's a nice CODEC, but the development timeline has been less than ideal for commercial adoption. Ogg Tarkin is still in extremely early development, without even alpha code to show for the effort. While most new audio CODECs have just been proprietary hacks of standard stuff to avoid patent royalties or optimize for streaming, video CODECs are making advances by leaps and bounds. MPEG-4 has the best compression ratio out there, though that may be at the cost of quality. I think that for handhelds and such things, processor requirements may be just as important as compression ratios, and those formats that keep this in mind will flourish.

    • Hrumf (Score:3, Informative)

      by xiphmont ( 80732 )
      >I've been waiting for the 1.0 release of Ogg >Vorbis for a few years now

      Really? Development only began in 1998, and nothing was even announced to the world until 2000 (right here in slashdot, a few months before we'd have liked word to leak out). No one has even known about it 'for a few years'. :-)

      >Yes, it's a nice CODEC, but the development >timeline has been less than ideal for commercial >adoption.

      MPEG required ~10 years. Our code has been production grade since beta1, and every bitstream make since May 8th, 2000 will work forever. That's less than two years from beginning to frozen. The '1.0' label is just waiting on a paper list of features that has grown over time.

      Hrumf. We should have just called 'rc1' 1.0 and no one would have known the difference.

      > Ogg Tarkin is still in
      > extremely early development,

      very true.

      > without even alpha code to show for the effort.

      Running Tarkin code exists; we actually have three competing implementations, two in CVS, and the 'w3d' module at cvs.xiph.org is the current frontrunner (and the one we're actively developing).

      But this is not release grade code.

      Monty

  • What a name (Score:2, Funny)

    by Syberghost ( 10557 )
    I can just see the advertising slogan now:

    "I'm a Nancy boy. Wouldn't you like to be a Nancy boy too?"
  • To the person who said Competition = Better Codecs.

    Perhaps. How many of you belligerent, or simply benign Linux users have been to a site which demand you have WIMP, REAL, or QT installed??

    Quick... which one of those players are on your platform?! None!!! Yes. You got it right.

    How many players would you like? What, you only need one... well in my pedantic rant then the answer is simple: open base level MPEG4! any player picks up any stream.

    While I find Sorensen encoded movie trailers rock, and streaming encoded Sorensen from CNN to be better than the WIMP or REAL alternatives in terms of image/audio QOS I don't like the fact that it is a closed system. That one must have QT to read the media.

    Not the idea behind the web... and other media should evolve into at least some modicum of openness and universal(ish) access.
    • Perhaps. How many of you belligerent, or simply benign Linux users have been to a site which demand you have WIMP, REAL, or QT installed??

      Quick... which one of those players are on your platform?! None!!! Yes. You got it right.

      Well, If you can't be bothered to install the Linux version of Realplayer or Mplayer I can't really feel sorry for you. Sorensen is a major sticking point though. The only Linux player is not freeware!

      I didn't really understand the rest of your comment unfortunatly. "Open base level MPEG4?" All your base are belong to Sorensen?

  • Not MPEG4 killer... (Score:5, Informative)

    by dserpell ( 22147 ) <dserpell@gmail.cEULERom minus math_god> on Tuesday December 04, 2001 @10:41AM (#2653581)
    Reading the article:
    MPEG-4 uses discrete-cosine-transform and motion-estimation technologies. By contrast, Nancy uses only the four fundamental processes of arithmetic (addition, subtraction, multiplication and division), along with comparison and bit-shift operation. This keeps its operation light, said Koichi Kato, chief technology officer at Office Noa.
    This is nosense... DCT is also only addition and multiplications (no divisions, so it have to be faster...) Also:
    The codec will run "even if CPU power is not high," said Kato. "A 50-Mips CPU can compress and decompress video at 30 frames per second with QCIF [176 x 144-pixel] resolution [using Nancy]. There is no other video codec in a software form that can encode and decode." The program for real-time video compression and decompression takes 30 to 40 kbytes of memory, "and consumes about one-tenth of the power compared with MPEG-4 operation," he added
    He shoud take a look at ffmpeg [sourceforge.net]'s libavcodec. In 240kbytes you have coder and decoder for: Video MPEG1/2/4, MSMPEG4, MJPEG, H263, RealVideo, AC3, Audio MPEG-Layer3... And with assembler routines for x86 and arm cpu's. Getting 30fps of QCIF at 50mips isn't as difficult...

    • Re:Not MPEG4 killer... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by cryptochrome ( 303529 ) on Tuesday December 04, 2001 @11:52AM (#2653996) Journal

      That's a rather glib response, and incorrect. Additions, subtractions, are fairly simple operationsm and bitshifts are blazingly fast (and equivalent to dividing or multiplying by factors of 2) - in contrast, multiplications, divisions, and others are substantially more complex. You can improve performance a LOT if you design your codecs with these guidelines in mind. Check out the research section (fast DCT approximations) of this site [jhu.edu] - Nancy isn't the only codec to keep this matter in mind.

      What I'd really like to know is - how well does nancy scale to higher resolutions? It could be competition for MPEG-4 even in the desktop arena. As someone who uses a 3-year-old laptop that can't really handle the &#($ing huge DivX files (which use pretty outdated technology across the board, whether you realize it or not), I welcome a codec that doesn't stress my system, and will save my battery life to boot.

    • Agreed!
      My Amiga 1200 barely managed 9 mips(not a good performance metric, I know) yet could decode MPEG1 at 25fps quarter screen, and that was to a slow planar display. The Nancy algorithm sounds strangely similar to MS-Video1 and Cinepak, so I'm not expecting quality to be anywhere near as good as even MPEG1...

  • Simplistic compression (Score:4, Insightful)

    by yabHuj ( 10782 ) on Tuesday December 04, 2001 @11:09AM (#2653763) Homepage
    ...if I my interpretation of the description is correct. They basically seem to break down each image into smaller bits and assemble them later - and only transmit the differences. So the textualized representation may read something like
    • first frame
    • left up (pos 0,0) is a 16x32 block, near black (rgb #111111).
    • next to it (pos 16,0) a 16x16 block, grayish (rgb #112211)
    • below that a block (pos 16,16) with 16x8 green-grayish (rgb #115511)
    • below that a block (pos 16,24) with 16x8 block, greenish (rgb #05BB05)
    • next frame (Logo background appears in the middle)
    • block change in middle (pos. 8,8), size 16x16, black (rgb #000000).
    • next frame (Logo starting with bright expanding spot)
    • block change in middle (pos. 16,16), size 1x1, white (rgb #ffffff).
    • next frame (dito)
    • block change in middle (pos. 14,14), size 4x4, white (rgb #ffffff).
    • ...etc...
    Something like a poor man's MJPG+MPEG. Maybe, if not using fix colors but linear gradients (4 values total = left-right and up-down) the quality can be a bit better.
    OTOH this compression is designed for mini-screens with waaaay sub-optimum quality anyway, so blockish compression is not an issue here? A close look at a demo and the algorithms would be interesting, agreed.
  • ...check the claims for MC-10. Is this all it is cracked up to be? If so, it is aMAZing. Are they charging an arm and two legs for it? 14 hours on a single DVD? That's two high quality movies on a CD, right? What's the catch? One thing, with the all of the emerging codec, I am wonder if DVD-R is the way to go...maybe I should put my library on DVD-RAM, DVD-RW, or DVD+RW after all.
    • 14 hours on a single dvd ? Well, I don't think they speak about 14 hours on a DVD-5. More likely they speak about DVD-18. Then each hour of high quality movie takes 1,2 gb. MPEG-4 can reach very high quality at these data rates, too. I think MC-10 is maybe a nice codec, but it is a wonder codec. I think they just want to collect venture capital for now.
  • Is there an open-source equivalent? A codec/server solution intended for small screens, low bandwith, and low processing power?

    • There's Ogg Tarkin [ogg.org] as was mentioned in the main post. Its by no means finished, but there were some pretty neat ideas banded around before it left the vorbis mailinglist for its own one (and I hence stopped reading about it..)

      Its not ready now, but keep an eye on it, it could well be what you're after.

  • No warez group is releasing anything in 'nancy' format, it'll never take off.

    The fact of the matter is that what gets used for warez wins.. MP3 for example was orignally the preserve of 'warez d00dz', as was divx ;)

    This article is nothing but marketing from Sharp..

    • On desktops, I'd agree with you. But you don't have a lot of choice over the software you get on a phone, and if a phone standard emerges, then other portable devices fall in line (e.g. the numebr of WML browsers for the Palm). This may take off in the arena it was designed for. If it is reasonable quality without making machines choke, then it may have some (small) impact on the desktop too.
  • I think one of the great applications for this would be handheld gaming systems. They already have somewhat lo-resolution, and the GBA's arm based processor is up to the task. Lets hope to see a picture perfect Resident Evil port to the GBA!
  • "There is no other video codec in a software form that can encode and decode," said Koichi Kato, chief technology officer at Office Noa.

    What's the definition of codec again? I forget.
  • I am running a C64 - this would be a "god"send for watching movies from the Internet for me!!!! I am anxiously awaiting the porting kings to release this for c64!!!!Internet is great!!! junis

Slashdot Top Deals

I've noticed several design suggestions in your code.

Close