41–50 of 153 posts
Standard MPEG-1 MPEG-2 MPEG-4 Visual MPEG-4 AVC MPEG-H HEVC Bitrate vs previous 25% less 25% less 30% less 60% less The table at the end is hiding one factor : the computation cost of each new codecs. Have we really found new better ways to compress videos, or is it just Moore's law in action ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can't just dismiss it and hope that it is. The MPEG LA has been successful with their other patent pools. They've got a good chance of being successful with this one as well. That's what happened to VC-1. Microsoft tried to release VC-1 on royalty-free terms but the MPEG LA formed a patent pool and then it was no longer royalty-free.
> You can't just dismiss it and hope that it is. Probably not. The better way is to do a review and have ready rebuttals of fake patent claims. I didn't exactly look into how it was done for DASH, but its big users like YouTube and Netflix should have done it. > The MPEG LA has been successful with their other patent pools. And completely unsuccessful with many others. There was the same type of list put out by MPEG-…
No. They didn't succeed in forming a patent pool for VP8 or VP9. It was one of their "pools in formation" but was never established. The DASH patent pool is beyond that stage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You can't just dismiss it and hope that it is. Probably not. The better way is to do a review and have ready rebuttals of fake patent claims. I didn't exactly look into how it was done for DASH, but its big users like YouTube and Netflix should have done it. > The MPEG LA has been successful with their other patent pools. And completely unsuccessful with many others. There was the same type of list put out by MPEG-…
> There was the same type of list put out by MPEG-LA trolls for VPx No. They didn't succeed in forming a patent pool for VP8 or VP9. It was one of their "pools in formation" but was never established. The DASH patent pool is beyond that stage.
And if they'll fail, there should be some concerted effort to make a patent unencumbered alternative.
The idea that private companies were responsible for the majority of the innovation that led to these video compression standards is a complete fabrication. The majority of the work was done by the grad students of the professors who are on the standards committee. Private companies then race to patent or buy up anything that's tangentially related during the draft period, so that they can sign on and receive royalti…
You can buy a $50 SBC today with 4k HEVC decode HW blocks, enabled out of the box. For me, that puts the technology deep into the established box, and last I checked, whoever is making the IP core for it neither the many manufacturers shipping it are the least bit concerned. This post sounds like scaremongering.
https://ngcodec.com/news/2017/10/21/why-we-are-supporting-vp...
The simplicity of VP9's licensing versus the complexity HEVC's licensing probably has a lot to do with that.
> Here are a few, out of close to 180 standards: MP3 for digital music (1992), MPEG-2 for digital television (1994), MPEG-4 Visual for video on internet (1998), MP4 file format for mobile handsets (2001), well mp3 was mostly frauenhofer, not mpeg (yes they created the standard, etc. but the most patentable work was done by the frauenhofer) also the date... on 1992 it was not (yet) called mp3. it's silly to actually n…
It was called MPEG2 Layer III, right? And the licensing around mp3 is why many Linux distributions didn't offer mp3 in the default install, without adding "non-free" repositories. We also saw open standards emerge, like Ogg Vorbis and FLAC (although neither were widely adopted by hardware vendors compared to Apple's AAC/ALAC)
Or is this guy just an incredibly skilled troll with 30 years of experience in pulling the wool over people's eyes? I don't think so, though. He really seems to think that imposing massive amounts of friction on a system somehow makes it work better.
Wow. Just wow.
I mean, I'm not unsympathetic to the argument that patents can promote advancements by funneling money to inventors, however weak it starts sounding when you look at actual events in certain spheres. But the claim seems to be that nobody is going to bother to research improvements in an interesting, impactful technical area because they'll no longer be able to (1) invent something, (2) hire an army of lawyers, then (3) profit. Er, okay. Let the people who will only work with that sort of path go do their ICOs instead.
The idea that private companies were responsible for the majority of the innovation that led to these video compression standards is a complete fabrication. The majority of the work was done by the grad students of the professors who are on the standards committee. Private companies then race to patent or buy up anything that's tangentially related during the draft period, so that they can sign on and receive royalti…
And so what do you think is the solution? Do you think that "Only by becoming a Technical Committee can MPEG [...] stay competitive in the market." is true, or what could be a valuable alternative?
Though obviously, everything's too good to be true. Just like MPEG seems to be hitting the end, some day the AOM will hit the end, too. The world changes. Something else will emerge and impact the business model. It may be worse, or maybe it'll be a return to norms. Could just be another one of those things that cycles every so often.
With audio codecs, it doesn't look like we ever really needed much in the way of commercial entities, since Vorbis and Opus have been outperforming the competition for a long time now.
The idea that private companies were responsible for the majority of the innovation that led to these video compression standards is a complete fabrication. The majority of the work was done by the grad students of the professors who are on the standards committee. Private companies then race to patent or buy up anything that's tangentially related during the draft period, so that they can sign on and receive royalti…
So your comment is also missing a major part ofthe picture.
In the past it was common that researchers would go to research institutes such as the Fraunhofer institutes, and do research there. The research would be published, patented, and licensed. From the fees, the Fraunhofer institutes fund themselves.
Now this is being replaced by companies doing the research in-house, where it's often kept as trade secret, or, if it's patented, never licensed to competitors. This limits innovation.
I'm not sure how we can protect the German research societies, but it'd be a shame to see this continue. Research done by companies is inherently unfair, and gives them a competitive advantage.
In this case, of course, Google opened their codecs, but for example with Waymo's self-driving technology, that won't happen. Ideally, every carmaker could license the best selfdriving technology as soon as it exists.
This is relevant to this discussion because the Fraunhofer group has previously created mp3 and AAC, and those patents have funded hundreds of further openly available research projects