371–380 of 435 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There have been many attempts to make a market for free hardware, particularly in the mobile phone market. All have failed thus far.
Libre hardware is not the same as a device supporting only royalty free or otherwise libre codecs.
I'd rather have slightly larger files that don't take hardware acceleration only available on modern CPU to decode without dying (ie, h264). Streaming is creating incentives for bad video codecs that only do one thing well: stream. Other aspects are neglected. And it's not like any actual 4K content (besides porn, real, nature, or otherwise) actually exists. Broadcast and movie media is done in 2K then extrapolated a…
Huh? TV and movies are widely shot with 4K cameras these days. What is 2K? I've never even heard of a "2K" camera. Where did you get the idea things are being filmed in "2K" and being scaled to 4K? Genuinely curious where you're getting this information from. Or are you confused because 1080p refers to the vertical resolution while 4K refers to the horizontal resolution?
edit: here's another https://old.reddit.com/r/cordcutters/comments/9x3v4e/just_le...
Among other things, I have worked with and developed technology in the uncompressed professional imaging domain for decades. One of the things I always watch out for is precisely the terminology and language used in this release: "for equal perceptual quality" Put a different way: We can fool your eyes/brain into thinking you are looking at the same images. For most consumer use cases where the objective is to view i…
It's interesting that they are able to continue improving video compression. You'd think that it would have all been figured out by now. Is this continued improvement related to the improvement of technology? Or just coincidental? Like, why couldn't have H.266 been invented 30 years ago? Is it because the computers back in the day wouldn't have been fast enough to realistically use it? Do we have algorithms today tha…
I don't know much about H.266, but some of the advances in H.265 depended on players having enough RAM to hold a bunch of previous decoded frames, so they could be referred to by later compressed data. Newer codecs tend to have a lot more options for the encoder to tune, so they need a combination of faster CPUs and smarter heuristics to explore the space of possible encodings quickly.
It's interesting that they are able to continue improving video compression. You'd think that it would have all been figured out by now. Is this continued improvement related to the improvement of technology? Or just coincidental? Like, why couldn't have H.266 been invented 30 years ago? Is it because the computers back in the day wouldn't have been fast enough to realistically use it? Do we have algorithms today tha…
It's about the assumptions made during the standardization. Compared to 30 years ago, we now have better knowledge and statistics about what low level primitives are useful in a codec. E.g. jpeg operates on fixed 8×8 blocks independently, which makes it less efficient for very large images than a codec with variable block size. But variable block size adds overhead for very small images. An other reason can be common…
What kind of overhead?
The extra code shouldn't make a big difference if nothing is running it.
And space-wise, it should only cost a few bits to say that the entire image is using the smallest block size.
Is the worry just about complicating hardware decoders?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's Fraunhofer for you. In the early days of MP3, all MP3 rippers and players were built off of their implementation. Hardware and software companies had to license in order to play MP3 files. As such there was not native support for MP3's for quite some time. In the late 90's right around the explosion of MP3's on the internet, Fraunhofer was going after companies for doing so. In my humble opinion, that license…
> In my humble opinion, that license mess set back innovation in the portable audio space by a good 5 years. Or did it push it forward? If not for the licensing at the time, would it have been developed? Would it be allowed to be used by anyone just paying for the technology?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 720p or 1080p is fantastic video resolution, especially on a mobile phone. 720p is far from fantastic. It's noticeably blurry, even on mobile. 1080p is minimally acceptable, and is now over 10 years old. > Less than 1% of the population cares or wants higher resolution. That's a very bold claim. Have any studies or polls to back that up?
> 720p is far from fantastic. It's noticeably blurry, even on mobile. 1080p is minimally acceptable, and is now over 10 years old. Not OP. I would say these are far-fetched claims that need defending. Most blurriness of mobile video comes from the low bitrate it's encoded at. Basically nobody is watching Bluray quality 720p or 1080p materials on a phone - and that's the problem, not the resolution. My guess is that a…
On mobile, 720p starts to get shoddy once your screen hits 5 inches across.
So while 4k is situational, and encoding quality is more important than the extra resolution most of the time, 1080 vs. 720 is pretty clear-cut; 1080 should be considered the minimum for most content.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Software patents can exist, but are almost always unenforceable Wanna take the risk? You might end-up winning the lawsuit, but at this moment, there's a good chance for you to be already out-of-business.
As I understand it there has been no successful enforcement of a software patent so far, and it's ridiculously unlikely that I (as opposed to any other actor in this space) will be the first case. So yeah, I'll take that risk.
- in Europe: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/1702.html
- in US: https://web.archive.org/web/20061205050434/http://eolas.com/...
But as I said, if your startup is being sued by Dolby, whether the enforcement is successful or not is actually irrelevant. Showing that your work doesn't infringe a patent, or that Dolby's patent is invalid, is a money and time-consuming process (unsurprisingly, patents are not generally written to facilitate re-implementation or defense).
(Moreover, in the US, in some cases, the patent owner might even get a preliminary injunction ( https://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/matters/matters-9712.h... ), which might seriously and immediately harm your business. I don't know if such a thing exists in Europe).
Big tech companies like Dolby and IBM use a preventive racket-looking technique ; it involves trying to sell to potential infringers a "protective" subscription, but there's no preliminary analysis of whether there actually is any patent being infringed.
During broadcasting tech events like IBC or NAB, Dolby actually sends people to other company's booths for this ; and there's a famous story about IBM against small-at-this-time SUN : https://www.forbes.com/asap/2002/0624/044.html , whose gist is:
> "OK," [the IBM lawyer] said, "maybe you don't infringe these seven patents. But we have 10,000 U.S. patents.
> Do you really want us to go back to Armonk [IBM headquarters in New York] and find seven patents you do infringe?
> Or do you want to make this easy and just pay us $20 million?"
It's interesting that they are able to continue improving video compression. You'd think that it would have all been figured out by now. Is this continued improvement related to the improvement of technology? Or just coincidental? Like, why couldn't have H.266 been invented 30 years ago? Is it because the computers back in the day wouldn't have been fast enough to realistically use it? Do we have algorithms today tha…
Early pc's had separate and very expensive mpeg decode boards just to decode dvd, creative sold a set, the cpu simply couldn't even handle mpeg 2. I know its hard to believe but there was a time when playing back an mp3 was a big ask, all these algorithms could be made long ago, but they would have been impractical fantasy. Only now are we seeing real partial cheated resolution ray tracing in modern high end gaming hardware now which is a good comparison, ray tracing has been with us for a long time, only hardware advancement over decades has made it viable.
It amused me that they claimed 4k uhd h265 is now 10GB for a movie, that's garbage bitrate, they always ask too much of these codecs.