[theora-dev] Wikipedia article
remco47 at gmail.com
Sun Aug 9 18:10:39 PDT 2009
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 2:20 AM, Jonathan Harker<jon at jon.geek.nz> wrote:
> Remco wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 6:46 PM, Jonathan Harker<jon at jon.geek.nz> wrote:
>>> Please let me know if I've missed out some juicy details, or got
>>> anything wrong, or whatever (or feel free to wade in yourselves!)
>> "As the only mature royalty free video codec (as of July 2009)"
>> This doesn't seem right to me. Isn't MPEG 1 video also royalty free?
> It's entirely possible; I've left things that I don't know anything
> about. Wikipedia has more than it's share of know-it-alls and trolls.
I think we can be confident enough that MPEG 1 and Dirac aren't
patent-encumbered. The MPEG 1 patent situation is explained in the
Wiki article for MPEG 1, and Dirac was made by the BBC and a license
for its patents have been granted to the community. However, Dirac
isn't exactly mature (or is it?), and MPEG 1 is already showing signs
of decomposition. ;)
>> In the "Playback Performance" section, it is said that there are no
>> mainstream hardware decoders for Theora. I'd like to see a mention of
>> a non-mainstream hardware decoder.
> Can you point me at one? That would be a good mention.
I didn't know about one, but "no mainstream" implies that there may be
a non-mainstream decoder. The Theora site lists some resources on
hardware encoding and decoding:
Here is some stuff from Google:
It's all preliminary, so definitely not mainstream.
>> Are there really only two video editors capable of editing Theora?
> There are bits of the article I have left because I don't know whether
> its accurate and haven't researched it.
Of course. Don't view my comments as criticism of you. :) I'm only
commenting on the article. It may very well be true that there
currently are only two video editors with Theora-support. I was mainly
asking this here on the list, so that someone could refute that idea.
More information about the theora-dev