Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


+ - Should there be standard for HD video?->

Submitted by kidjan
kidjan (844535) writes "A posting about VP8 quality and HD video:

"what really irks me about this WebM debate isn't that there's a legitimate competitor to H264--competition is always a good thing, and I welcome another codec to the fold. What bothers me is that we would let bogus metrics and faulty data presentation dominate the debate. At this point, I see no indication that VP8 is even remotely on par with a good implementation of H264--perhaps it can be sold on other merits, but quality simply isn't one of them. This could change as the VP8 implementation improves, but even the standard itself is roughly equivalent to baseline profile of H264.

Putting that whole debate aside and returning to the notion of a high definition video standard, using these methods--and in particular, a box plot--one can establish that a video at least meets some baseline requirement with regard to encoder quality. The blu-ray shots above are a pretty clear indication that this industry needs such a standard. More importantly, consumers deserve it--it's not right for people to shell out cash for some poorly-encoded, overly-quantized, PSNR-optimized mess.""

Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:H.264 IS OPEN SOURCE!!!! (Score 1) 372

by kidjan (#32119156) Attached to: Canonical Explains Decision to License H.264 For Ubuntu
I don't agree. If I tell you that you can use my software, but only under the condition that you distribute the source code, or make code that utilizes my code open source as well, then that is obviously stipulating "what terms they can give out the software or derived works to other people."

Comment: Re:I have seen the comparisons... (Score 5, Insightful) 372

by kidjan (#32118274) Attached to: Canonical Explains Decision to License H.264 For Ubuntu
Are you serious? In particular, No contest, Theora gets whooped. So do most h264 implementations, compared to x264 for that matter, which is probably why most companies these days are moving towards that encoder implementation.

Comment: Re:H.264 IS OPEN SOURCE!!!! (Score 1) 372

by kidjan (#32118002) Attached to: Canonical Explains Decision to License H.264 For Ubuntu

We can argue symantecs till the end of time but isn't a patented, open-source piece of software an oxymoron? I mean I am not exactly jumping for joy and screaming yay that I can use it because I might have the patent trolls jump all over me.

No, it's not even remotely an "oxymoron"; open source isn't about giving up your property rights. It's about _respecting_ property rights. This is why open source projects _include a license_, and that license stipulates how people may use the project in detail. How is me requiring people open source projects that use my property any different than me requesting they pay me to use my property? In either scenario, I am putting forth the stipulations for use. If you're against paying to use property, so be it, but don't make the mistake of thinking open source code is devoid of property rights.

Comment: That article is wrong. (Score 2, Informative) 372

by kidjan (#32117774) Attached to: Canonical Explains Decision to License H.264 For Ubuntu
First of all, H264 is not a "closed-source..codec"--this is complete nonsense. The standard itself is completely published and documented, and there is nothing stopping open source projects from creating H264 encoder and decoders. And have they ever--hands down, the best H264 encoder implementation today is x264, which is licensed under the GPL. The patent issue is totally separate, but let's not conflate "patented" with "open source." The real issue with H264 is who will pay royalties for the patents. For Windows 7 and OSX, MSFT and APPL pay those royalties. In the case of Ubuntu, it makes it easier for commercial entities to distribute Ubuntu if they know royalties and licensing fees are already being handled. So to be honest, this just makes Ubuntu an easier sell to PC manufacturers because they aren't liable for royalty costs or hidden "gotchas"

Be sociable. Speak to the person next to you in the unemployment line tomorrow.