Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

No, you can't do that with H.264

bemasc.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 79 posts

Re: No, you can't do that with H.264

#51

Post by jon_dahl »

chrischen wrote: post #50

I'm making a service for indie filmmakers to self distribute films and this has been a big pickle. I was making an encoder for them to download using ffmpeg but then realized I may have wasted my time because of the licensing of h264. So the problem became: do I take the cost and encode their video or do I let them send the video prencoded for me. I had assumed that if they had encoding software that they have alread…

You can license H.264, for the purpose of encoding video, for free or cheap, if your volume is modest. [1]

Whoever handles the video distribution (you or your customers) also needs to license the codec. This too is free or cheap. It could all change in the future, but who knows if that will happen.

Personally, I'd be more worried about other parts of the encoding chain. What format are you using? MP4 requires a license. What audio codec? Both AAC and MP3 require a license, and they're more expensive out of the gate. And what about decoding inputs? You need to license decoders for whatever input you accept.

[1] http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Documents/AVC_TermsS...

Re: No, you can't do that with H.264

#52

Post by jon_dahl »

H.264 is a far superior codec to Theora. For a large site, distributing video in Theora would significantly increase bandwidth costs, and would hurt user experience. I've seen the articles that claim that the two are basically the same, but it just isn't true - you can cherry-pick cases that look close, but those cases are a minority.

That said, the world needs an open-source video codec, and I'm glad that Mozilla is taking a stand here. MPEG-LA is much more likely to offer favorable licensing terms if it doesn't have a monopoly on web video.

Re: No, you can't do that with H.264

#53

Post by jrockway »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #32
eelco wrote: post #2

Well, so how much does the licensing actually cost? On their website MPEG LA mentions there are certain thresholds to "minimize the impact on lower volume users" ( http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/Intro.aspx ). If you're running an consulting business using this format is it so weird to pay a little (or maybe nothing?) to use it? I'm pretty sure you can find outrageous (and oftentimes unlawful) things in…

From wikipedia (but it actually happened!): In August 1999, Unisys changed the details of their licensing practice, announcing the option for owners of Billboard and Intra net Web sites to obtain licenses on payment of a one-time license fee of $5000 or $7500. Such licenses were not required for website owners or other GIF users who had used licensed software to generate GIFs. Edit: I am completely opposed to web sta…

I am completely opposed to web standards including proprietary codecs. HTML5 should have Theora (or some other open gratis and libre codec) as the standard which all browsers wishing to be HTML5 compliant must be able to handle - this does not stop anyone from using h264 if they wish to. What it does is ensure that the web remains as free and open to use as possible.

You seem not to realize that Apple and Microsoft are the ones writing the "standards". Their goal is use HTML5 to make money, not to make the web "more free" or something.

Our only hope is that Google takes a stand.

Re: No, you can't do that with H.264

#54

Post by jrockway »

robin_reala wrote: post #35
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would buy a company that makes video codecs that don't infringe on the MPEG patents for 133 million dollars. Coincidentally, so did Google: http://www.on2.com/blog/2009/08/google-and-on2-to-improve-vi...

Here’s hoping for the dream scenario: Google release VP8 as a open and free format with a patent indemnity clause, then migrate YouTube over to it. They also release open specifications for a VP8 hardware decoding part, an OpenCL codec, and help Adobe bundle support into Flash for Microsoft and Apple browsers. Happy days!

I think Flash is on the way out now. If anything, Google would just release their own plugin.

Re: No, you can't do that with H.264

#55

Post by jrockway »

alextgordon wrote: post #24
qjz wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But there are no barriers to adopting Theora practically overnight, once the market expresses an interest. Vorbis seems to be well supported after an initial wait-and-see period.

Apple and Microsoft are the barriers. Neither one is going to adopt Theora.

If people are willing to download malware to look at porn, why wouldn't they download a new video codec?

Re: No, you can't do that with H.264

#56

Post by jrockway »

jon_dahl wrote: post #52

H.264 is a far superior codec to Theora. For a large site, distributing video in Theora would significantly increase bandwidth costs, and would hurt user experience. I've seen the articles that claim that the two are basically the same, but it just isn't true - you can cherry-pick cases that look close, but those cases are a minority. That said , the world needs an open-source video codec, and I'm glad that Mozilla i…

H.264 is a far superior codec to Theora. For a large site, distributing video in Theora would significantly increase bandwidth costs, and would hurt user experience.

Would it hurt user experience as much as not having ads or never being able to charge for accounts? Because that's what using the free version of h.264 implies.

Re: No, you can't do that with H.264

#57

Post by alextgordon »

jrockway wrote: post #55
alextgordon wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple and Microsoft are the barriers. Neither one is going to adopt Theora.

If people are willing to download malware to look at porn, why wouldn't they download a new video codec?

On the iPhone, they can't. On the desktop, it's more likely that they'll click the back button than download a codec, install it, relaunch their browser and navigate back to your site.

Re: No, you can't do that with H.264

#58

Post by archon810 »

IgorPartola wrote: post #26
qjz wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But there are no barriers to adopting Theora practically overnight, once the market expresses an interest. Vorbis seems to be well supported after an initial wait-and-see period.

And what if you have around 8 petabytes of video ( http://beerpla.net/2008/08/14/how-to-find-out-the-number-of-... ) in H.264? What would you do, double your storage? How long would that take to re-encode anyways. The reason why Youtube is using H.264 instead of Theora is because they already have the videos in that format.

I posted that about 1.5 years ago - these numbers are much, much bigger now.

Re: No, you can't do that with H.264

#60

Post by chrischen »

jon_dahl wrote: post #51
chrischen wrote: post #50

I'm making a service for indie filmmakers to self distribute films and this has been a big pickle. I was making an encoder for them to download using ffmpeg but then realized I may have wasted my time because of the licensing of h264. So the problem became: do I take the cost and encode their video or do I let them send the video prencoded for me. I had assumed that if they had encoding software that they have alread…

You can license H.264, for the purpose of encoding video, for free or cheap, if your volume is modest. [1] Whoever handles the video distribution (you or your customers) also needs to license the codec. This too is free or cheap. It could all change in the future, but who knows if that will happen. Personally, I'd be more worried about other parts of the encoding chain. What format are you using? MP4 requires a licen…

It is cheap, but the scary thing is building the app dependent on H.264, and letting them control things.

I'm actually trying to figure out whether or not to have the user encode everything, and absolve me of any of the encoding details, or licensing everything myself and doing it for them.

Right now I'm planning to have the filmmakers encode and send me final deliverable product, but to ensure a standard of quality, I'm also requiring videos to use H.264/AAC or dolby digital, or Vorbis/Theora. Still ironing out the details, but obviously part of my service can be absolving them of licensing issues so I'm still not sure which way to go.

Also it's a pay-to-download service for films, so all videos will probably be longer than 12 minutes. Pretty sure I can't get it for free.

Post reply on HN