Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Google Chrome + open-source video codec? [ was Re: [videoblogging] Re: Youtube and HTML5

Expand Messages
  • B Yen
    ... If Google delivers Chrome with an open-source On2 codec, does that mean a codec plug-in is NOT required? (I.e., it s built into the browser). What about
    Message 1 of 9 , Aug 31 8:33 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      > - In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman <jay.dedman@...> wrote:
      > >
      > > All the discussions around HTML5 have been abstract around here. Not
      > > many good examples to point to its promise. We did say it'll take
      > the
      > > big boys to start adopting it...so:
      > > http://www.youtube.com/html5
      > >
      > > With Google buying On2 (the codec company who open sourced
      > > Ogg/Theora)...this could be a good sign.
      > > "The app shown in the video is coded in javascript and html and runs
      > > in a web browser." NO FLASH!?
      > >
      > > From what I understand, if web browsers adopt the standard of
      > > HTML5...then you could get around the incompatibility issues.
      > Youtube
      > > would play on the iPhone because it would not use Flash. You could
      > > make an iPhone-like app on a webpage...and not worry about being
      > > accepted to through the Apple store. It all just goes back to the
      > > web...versus what software you have installed on your computer.
      > >
      > >
      >

      If Google delivers Chrome with an open-source On2 codec, does that
      mean a codec plug-in is NOT required? (I.e., it's built into the
      browser).

      What about all the videos encoded in h.264 (& other formats)..are we
      back to the codec/player wars? Educate me here. We have QT (which
      could play .mov, .mp4, .avi) & WMP (which could play .wmv, .avi, etc),
      which was an Apple VS Microsoft battle. Is Google jumping in, with an
      open-source solution: Chrome + On2?

      I dabbled a bit in some Physics conferences, & each conference has its
      own "pet solution". One place was an Apple fan, & used QTSS for
      lecture video delivery:

      http://strings07.blogspot.com

      One recent conference is using Real Video (which is drawing some
      complaints) PLUS .mp4, to ensure cross-platform compatibility. An
      attendee is complaining about why there is this multitude of
      solutions, & why can't there be a single solution (say .mp4).

      On Aug 24, 2009, at 11:09 AM, elbowsofdeath wrote:
      > Despite my complete lack of enthusiasm for Theora, I still get very
      > excited about html5 video tag, and some other things that are
      > proposed for html5. Recently nightly builds of Webkit on Leopard,
      > and Safari in Snow Leopard, feature hardware-accelerated
      > transformations of web page elements whih are really lovely and
      > smooth. Combine these with video and there are some lovely
      > possibilities. All sorts of fancy stuff that could be done in Flash
      > already, but this way it looks nicer, is smoother, doesnt eat the
      > CPU and the tools to make the stuff dont cost loads money. I am
      > looking forward to Flash losing ground, all the things it can do
      > should really be part of web standards and handled by the browser,
      > for numerous reasons I have already hinted at.
      >

      The QTVR (quicktime virtual reality) group is complaining about the
      demise of Apple's support for QTVR. Platforms like Vista 64-bit
      simply can't play .mov QTVR panoramas. Followup solutions were done
      in Javascript & FPP (Flash Panorama Player), the latter being the most
      popular.

      There is a video based VR solution

      http://www.vrhotwires.com/spherical.html
      http://www.vrhotwires.com/MalaysiaPanVid/monkeyfall/LucidViewer/index.html

      Seems to be done from web browser only. Is this Flash?

      I'm interested in pushing the envelope, in bringing LIVE events (like
      solar eclipse) as an immersive web experience..that captures the
      "moment". I just got back from China for the solar eclipse:

      http://www.eclipse-chaser.com/2009/index.html

      There are .mp4 iPod compatible videos (still need to convert them, so
      they can play back on Pangea app on iPhone) & 360x180 deg panoramas.
      Still doesn't capture the excitement of a solar eclipse. Like 3
      minutes before totality, where the light gets really STRANGE & your
      heartbeat rises.

      How about a fancy PC with linked GPUs (crosslink & SLI), running a
      fancy projector which can immerse the user in a virtual world of sight/
      sound? Sounds complicated & expensive. In the future, such solutions
      might become consumer items.

      From last year at SIGGRAPH 2008:

      http://www.flickr.com/photos/chimpanzee/2770595766/in/set-72157606777402578/
      http://www.flickr.com/photos/chimpanzee/2770595876/in/set-72157606777402578/
      http://www.flickr.com/photos/chimpanzee/2769749675/in/set-72157606777402578/
      http://www.flickr.com/photos/chimpanzee/sets/72157606777402578/


      On Aug 24, 2009, at 11:09 AM, elbowsofdeath wrote:

      > Hello,
      >
      > I am returning due to these technologies sparking my interest, along
      > with the looming release of Snow Leopard which Im sure will give me
      > something to talk about.
      >
      > That youtube demo is interesting, especially when I compare CPU use.
      > The html 5 example uses way less CPU than the flash version of
      > youtube. With a busy site like youtube, this has the capacity to
      > reduce waste of electricity in quite a big way.
      >
      > Im not quite sure about your compatibility example, because the work
      > was already done on that issue when youtube started using h264. They
      > can serve the h264 via flash on the desktop, but on the iphone they
      > can use the video tag to point to the same h264 file without using
      > flash.
      >
      > When I tried that youtube test on Safari on Mac it was using a h264
      > video with the html5 video tag, not sure if it uses a different
      > format when it detects firefox. These codec choices for html5 are
      > going to remain messy and get in the way of things. If the 2010 h264
      > licensing details turn out to suck then I suppose that will
      > encourage people to look at alternatives more.
      >
      > It will certainly be interesting to see what Google do with On2. I
      > would not get my hopes up too much about theora though, even if
      > Google plan to use it on youtube or in Chrome browser, its still not
      > going to work on the iphone and things. So at the very least h264
      > versions of the videos still need to be made for iphone & other
      > hardware devices, and I doubt Google want to have to host and encode
      > lots of different versions of all their videos. Now that h264 is
      > pretty much everywhere, it will be a lot easier for all concerned,
      > from viewers to producers, if the h264 new licence terms dont suck
      > much, and we just stick with this format.
      >
      > Despite my complete lack of enthusiasm for Theora, I still get very
      > excited about html5 video tag, and some other things that are
      > proposed for html5. Recently nightly builds of Webkit on Leopard,
      > and Safari in Snow Leopard, feature hardware-accelerated
      > transformations of web page elements whih are really lovely and
      > smooth. Combine these with video and there are some lovely
      > possibilities. All sorts of fancy stuff that could be done in Flash
      > already, but this way it looks nicer, is smoother, doesnt eat the
      > CPU and the tools to make the stuff dont cost loads money. I am
      > looking forward to Flash losing ground, all the things it can do
      > should really be part of web standards and handled by the browser,
      > for numerous reasons I have already hinted at.
      >
      > Here is the demo that impressed me, but you will only see the magic
      > if on a recent webkit nightly on Leopard or Safari in Snow Leopard:
      >
      > http://www.satine.org/archives/2009/07/11/snow-stack-is-here/
      >
      > Cheers
      >
      > Steve Elbows
      >
      > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman <jay.dedman@...>
      > wrote:
      > >
      > > All the discussions around HTML5 have been abstract around here. Not
      > > many good examples to point to its promise. We did say it'll take
      > the
      > > big boys to start adopting it...so:
      > > http://www.youtube.com/html5
      > >
      > > With Google buying On2 (the codec company who open sourced
      > > Ogg/Theora)...this could be a good sign.
      > > "The app shown in the video is coded in javascript and html and runs
      > > in a web browser." NO FLASH!?
      > >
      > > From what I understand, if web browsers adopt the standard of
      > > HTML5...then you could get around the incompatibility issues.
      > Youtube
      > > would play on the iPhone because it would not use Flash. You could
      > > make an iPhone-like app on a webpage...and not worry about being
      > > accepted to through the Apple store. It all just goes back to the
      > > web...versus what software you have installed on your computer.
      > >
      > > Jay
      > >
      > > --
      > > http://ryanishungry.com
      > > http://jaydedman.com
      > > http://twitter.com/jaydedman
      > > 917 371 6790
      > >
      >
      >
      >



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Jay dedman
      ... Yes, this is what Firefox currently does. Ogg/Theora codec is in the browser...so an .ogv file will play without downloading a codec. This is possible
      Message 2 of 9 , Sep 1, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        > If Google delivers Chrome with an open-source On2 codec, does that
        > mean a codec plug-in is NOT required? (I.e., it's built into the
        > browser).

        Yes, this is what Firefox currently does. Ogg/Theora codec is in the
        browser...so an .ogv file will play without downloading a codec. This
        is possible because Firefox doesnt have to pay a patent fee for the
        codec.

        Google could do the same if they chose to opne siurce the newest
        codecs (like VP7) made by On2.

        > What about all the videos encoded in h.264 (& other formats)..are we
        > back to the codec/player wars? Educate me here. We have QT (which
        > could play .mov, .mp4, .avi) & WMP (which could play .wmv, .avi, etc),
        > which was an Apple VS Microsoft battle. Is Google jumping in, with an
        > open-source solution: Chrome + On2?

        Yes. But Google could make a big charge here since it controls Youtube
        which is often seen as the default "video on the web" platform.

        Jay



        --
        http://ryanishungry.com
        http://jaydedman.com
        http://twitter.com/jaydedman
        917 371 6790
      • elbowsofdeath
        The mp4 battle wasnt exactly Apple vs Microsoft, although that was probably the most visible front. h264 .mp4 won on most fronts, I think it might even be
        Message 3 of 9 , Sep 1, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          The mp4 battle wasnt exactly Apple vs Microsoft, although that was probably the most visible front. h264 .mp4 won on most fronts, I think it might even be included in Windows 7, need to check.

          The next phase of the battle has a lot to do with how the h264 battle was won in the browser - flash. One thing that may unite all the other corporations is a desire to do away with reliance on flash. But this could end up being a very long struggle, the chance to do it quickly has already been lost, the need for browsers to support a specific format for html5 video having been removed from the spec.

          It will take quite a dramatic worsening of h264 licensing terms & costs to turn the tide against h264 in my opinion. Maybe if google made some codecs available to everyone who makes web browsers, something will happen eventually, but so much hardware now supports h264 that it would still be an uphill struggle.

          Whatever Google do with youtube, they are unlikely to drop support for things like h264 in a hurry, so unless they are able to make the user experience radically better using a different format, I dont think it will help that much, but who knows.

          Plus we are now in an era where lots of people are building up sizeable content libraries in formats such as h264, and thats bound to slow the pace of change. I am not sad about this state of affairs, I droned on here for years with hope that h264 would make the landscape cleaner and end the format nightmares, and whilst things arent perfect, they are so much better now than in 2005.

          Cheers

          Steve Elbows

          --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman <jay.dedman@...> wrote:
          >
          > > If Google delivers Chrome with an open-source On2 codec, does that
          > > mean a codec plug-in is NOT required? (I.e., it's built into the
          > > browser).
          >
          > Yes, this is what Firefox currently does. Ogg/Theora codec is in the
          > browser...so an .ogv file will play without downloading a codec. This
          > is possible because Firefox doesnt have to pay a patent fee for the
          > codec.
          >
          > Google could do the same if they chose to opne siurce the newest
          > codecs (like VP7) made by On2.
          >
          > > What about all the videos encoded in h.264 (& other formats)..are we
          > > back to the codec/player wars? Educate me here. We have QT (which
          > > could play .mov, .mp4, .avi) & WMP (which could play .wmv, .avi, etc),
          > > which was an Apple VS Microsoft battle. Is Google jumping in, with an
          > > open-source solution: Chrome + On2?
          >
          > Yes. But Google could make a big charge here since it controls Youtube
          > which is often seen as the default "video on the web" platform.
          >
          > Jay
          >
          >
          >
          > --
          > http://ryanishungry.com
          > http://jaydedman.com
          > http://twitter.com/jaydedman
          > 917 371 6790
          >
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.