From mjs at apple.com Sat Jul 4 07:09:24 2009 From: mjs at apple.com (Maciej Stachowiak) Date: Sat, 04 Jul 2009 07:09:24 -0700 Subject: [theora] Some questions about Theora IP Message-ID: <7E37F91F-A6E3-417D-BB5C-1ECE093A7484@apple.com> Hello Theora developers, I'm doing some cursory research into Theora's IP status in preparation for asking Apple to reconsider the possibility of shipping an implementation. I have a few questions and I'm hoping knowledgeable people can help out. 1) What are the terms of any patent licenses or disclaimers, and do they have field of use restrictions or limitations on code for which the patents are licensed? I found the following patent license in the original VP3.2 source: . This appears to have a sort of field-of-use restriction on the patent license terms; products that don't support the original VP3 bitstream do not get the patent grant. The patent license is also limited to the VP3.2 code itself and derivative works thereof. I also found this promise of patent non-assertion: . This doesn't have a field-of-use restriction, but it does appear to limit the promise not to assert to the original VP3 code and modifications to that code. While looking for info, I found this thread from 2004 asking if On2's patents on Theora were licensed for independent implementations: . There didn't seem to be a clear conclusion at the time. Does anyone have further info on this? Are there additional agreements between On2 and Xiph besides the above documents? Note: I expect that in practice, On2 isn't looking to stop independent implementations, and perhaps didn't intend the limitation on the patent disclaimer at all. However, companies have been known to suddenly become more litigious (for example if they get axquired), and in such a case I would expect a literal reading of the patent license and the promise not to assert. It also seems important for the patent status to be really clear for purposes of the W3C Patent Policy, if Theora were to be required by HTML5 or other specifications. I'm not sure a royalty-free patent license that doesn't cover independent implementations would be good enough. Perhaps whoever did the negotiating with On2 could get them to publish a clearer statement. 2) Is there any public information about what patents On2 holds that may read on Theora? (This information isn't essential but I couldn't find it stated anywhere.) 3) Has anyone done any research to determine if there might be patents that read on Theora held by parties other than On2? I know this is a sensitive topic, and anyone who has that kind of info might not be able to share it. But if anyone has done even partial research, that would be very useful. I'm wondering for example if anyone has done some of the more obvious obvious checks, like studying the patents that are known to apply to MPEG-2 Video, MPEG-4 Part 2, or H.264/AVC, since Theora has a roughly similar basic design. 4) Has On2 ever said anything about whether parties besides them hold patents on VP3? Thanks, Maciej From xiphmont at xiph.org Sat Jul 4 11:29:56 2009 From: xiphmont at xiph.org (xiphmont at xiph.org) Date: Sat, 4 Jul 2009 14:29:56 -0400 Subject: [theora] Some questions about Theora IP In-Reply-To: <7E37F91F-A6E3-417D-BB5C-1ECE093A7484@apple.com> References: <7E37F91F-A6E3-417D-BB5C-1ECE093A7484@apple.com> Message-ID: <806dafc20907041129n7fbe4c75m6953875846e9a50e@mail.gmail.com> Hi Maceij, This got asked to me from a few different directions, so I'll reply to you and the list. Chris Double sent the question first, so I'll just paste the reply: "Heh, why do these things always get asked the day before a long holiday weekend :-) The lawyers were gone yesterday! "More seriously, I'm going to pop this one past the SFLC (and it will be a little while probably, as our main contact in the SFLC really did leave on vacation yesterday) just to be sure before saying anything 100% official, but I'm not too worried about it. I'm going to ask first only because no one has asked the question in that exact form before, and given that it's Apple, I want to have a lawyer's name behind the response." Monty From mjs at apple.com Sat Jul 4 14:34:21 2009 From: mjs at apple.com (Maciej Stachowiak) Date: Sat, 04 Jul 2009 14:34:21 -0700 Subject: [theora] Some questions about Theora IP In-Reply-To: <806dafc20907041129n7fbe4c75m6953875846e9a50e@mail.gmail.com> References: <7E37F91F-A6E3-417D-BB5C-1ECE093A7484@apple.com> <806dafc20907041129n7fbe4c75m6953875846e9a50e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8A8B2EE1-7B7D-4B5D-B134-69E4B4C1B305@apple.com> On Jul 4, 2009, at 11:29 AM, xiphmont at xiph.org wrote: > Hi Maceij, > > This got asked to me from a few different directions, so I'll reply to > you and the list. Chris Double sent the question first, so I'll just > paste the reply: > > "Heh, why do these things always get asked the day before a long > holiday weekend :-) The lawyers were gone yesterday! > > "More seriously, I'm going to pop this one past the SFLC (and it will > be a little while probably, as our main contact in the SFLC really did > leave on vacation yesterday) just to be sure before saying anything > 100% official, but I'm not too worried about it. I'm going to ask > first only because no one has asked the question in that exact form > before, and given that it's Apple, I want to have a lawyer's name > behind the response." Since lawyers are now involved, I'll be patient in waiting for the reply. :-) Regards, Maciej From mjs at apple.com Sat Jul 4 14:57:37 2009 From: mjs at apple.com (Maciej Stachowiak) Date: Sat, 04 Jul 2009 14:57:37 -0700 Subject: [theora] Some questions about Theora IP In-Reply-To: <806dafc20907041129n7fbe4c75m6953875846e9a50e@mail.gmail.com> References: <7E37F91F-A6E3-417D-BB5C-1ECE093A7484@apple.com> <806dafc20907041129n7fbe4c75m6953875846e9a50e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6A4DDBFC-FFED-4978-A154-0C37757C038E@apple.com> Hey Monty, If I may tack on another question: 5) Would xiph.org be willing to consider standardizing Theora through an organization like SMPTE? I believe this would require many of the potential holders of possibly overlapping patents to formally take a position. On Jul 4, 2009, at 11:29 AM, xiphmont at xiph.org wrote: > Hi Maceij, > > This got asked to me from a few different directions, so I'll reply to > you and the list. Chris Double sent the question first, so I'll just > paste the reply: > > "Heh, why do these things always get asked the day before a long > holiday weekend :-) The lawyers were gone yesterday! > > "More seriously, I'm going to pop this one past the SFLC (and it will > be a little while probably, as our main contact in the SFLC really did > leave on vacation yesterday) just to be sure before saying anything > 100% official, but I'm not too worried about it. I'm going to ask > first only because no one has asked the question in that exact form > before, and given that it's Apple, I want to have a lawyer's name > behind the response." > > Monty From rrw at kynesim.co.uk Sun Jul 5 16:11:10 2009 From: rrw at kynesim.co.uk (Richard Watts) Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 00:11:10 +0100 Subject: [theora] Some questions about Theora IP In-Reply-To: <806dafc20907041129n7fbe4c75m6953875846e9a50e@mail.gmail.com> References: <7E37F91F-A6E3-417D-BB5C-1ECE093A7484@apple.com> <806dafc20907041129n7fbe4c75m6953875846e9a50e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A51330E.8040403@kynesim.co.uk> xiphmont at xiph.org wrote: > Hi Maceij, > > This got asked to me from a few different directions, so I'll reply to > you and the list. Chris Double sent the question first, so I'll just > paste the reply: [snip] .. and, as a company intending to produce an independent implementation of Theora (optimised for STBs), we'd quite like an answer to this too - many thanks for chasing! Richard. From jfcwilson at yahoo.com Sun Jul 5 21:25:34 2009 From: jfcwilson at yahoo.com (James Wilson) Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2009 21:25:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [theora] Commercial use and distribution of Theora codec? Message-ID: <236672.30654.qm@web45506.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Hello, ? I know that Theora is marketed as patent-free and free to use for any purpose, but a fellow over at Xvid.com told me that Theora in fact is based on MPEG tech, and therefore has some deep elements that people might eventually go after me for if I use it to encode commercially distributed video, and bundle the decode files with the game. Besides? that, I belive the license of theora allows commercial distribution. Am I right? So, what's the deal with this? ? Thanks alot, ? James -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/theora/attachments/20090705/898c094d/attachment.htm From xiphmont at xiph.org Sun Jul 5 21:45:19 2009 From: xiphmont at xiph.org (xiphmont at xiph.org) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 00:45:19 -0400 Subject: [theora] Commercial use and distribution of Theora codec? In-Reply-To: <236672.30654.qm@web45506.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <236672.30654.qm@web45506.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <806dafc20907052145v420011e8w5f9e58b9ef60693d@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 12:25 AM, James Wilson wrote: > Hello, > > I know that Theora is marketed as patent-free and free to use for any > purpose, but a fellow over at Xvid.com told me that Theora in fact is based > on MPEG tech No. >, and therefore has some deep elements that people might > eventually go after me for if I use it to encode commercially distributed > video, and bundle the decode files with the game. Theora's been being used in games for nearly 10 years now. > Besides? that, I belive the license of theora allows commercial > distribution. Am I right? Yes, our license allows distribution for any purpose. Monty From cristian.adam at gmail.com Mon Jul 6 14:08:00 2009 From: cristian.adam at gmail.com (Cristian Adam) Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 23:08:00 +0200 Subject: [theora] thusnelda Visual C Inline Assembly Message-ID: <4A5267B0.4070201@gmail.com> I'm pleased to announce that the port of the GCC (AT&T) inline assembly optimized code to Visual C (Intel) inline assembly code is now available in SVN. Thusnelda SVN branch is located here: http://svn.xiph.org/branches/theora-thusnelda For more information regarding Visual Studio 2005/2008 compilation read: http://svn.xiph.org/branches/theora-thusnelda/win32/VS2005/README http://svn.xiph.org/branches/theora-thusnelda/win32/VS2008/README Cheers, Cristian. From pitulloz at yahoo.com Tue Jul 7 21:07:48 2009 From: pitulloz at yahoo.com (Yanito Candra) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 21:07:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [theora] HTML 5 drops open-source video codec Message-ID: <889352.29331.qm@web111410.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Link here http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-318208.html Will H264 become web standard in the future? From pitulloz at yahoo.com Tue Jul 7 21:08:56 2009 From: pitulloz at yahoo.com (Yanito Candra) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 21:08:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [theora] HTML 5 drops open-source video codec Message-ID: <936790.57824.qm@web111404.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Link here http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-318208.html Will H264 become web standard in the future? From xiphmont at xiph.org Tue Jul 7 21:11:14 2009 From: xiphmont at xiph.org (xiphmont at xiph.org) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 00:11:14 -0400 Subject: [theora] HTML 5 drops open-source video codec In-Reply-To: <889352.29331.qm@web111410.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <889352.29331.qm@web111410.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <806dafc20907072111o278a27b5n50985673506463a8@mail.gmail.com> > Will H264 become web standard in the future? Given that the patents likely won't run out before I'm dead.... probably not. Monty From gmaxwell at gmail.com Tue Jul 7 21:15:21 2009 From: gmaxwell at gmail.com (Gregory Maxwell) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 00:15:21 -0400 Subject: [theora] HTML 5 drops open-source video codec In-Reply-To: <889352.29331.qm@web111410.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <889352.29331.qm@web111410.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 12:07 AM, Yanito Candra wrote: > > Link here http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-318208.html > > Will H264 become web standard in the future? False dichotomy. In terms of HTML5 standardization H.264 is even worse off than Theora is, since encumbered technology is forbidden as a matter of W3C policy. The standard merely recommends nothing now, rather than something specific. The real question should you be asking "is proprietary flash the future of the web?" because everyone being stuck using flash is the real risk of not having a just-works-everwhere baseline for the video tag. The headline is also misleading: Theora and Vorbis were removed as a recommendation from the HTML5 draft over a year ago now. All the video tag adopters so far, except for Apple, have shipped it anyways. Right now Theora is the #1 codec for video tag adoption, both in terms of content provider support and client support, as far as I know. From theora.list at soulrebel.in-berlin.de Wed Jul 8 02:35:51 2009 From: theora.list at soulrebel.in-berlin.de (Hannes Hauswedell) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 11:35:51 +0200 Subject: [theora] HTML 5 drops open-source video codec In-Reply-To: References: <889352.29331.qm@web111410.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200907081135.52248.theora.list@soulrebel.in-berlin.de> Am Mittwoch, 8. Juli 2009 06:15:21 schrieb Gregory Maxwell: > On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 12:07 AM, Yanito Candra wrote: > > Link here http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-318208.html > > > > Will H264 become web standard in the future? > > False dichotomy. In terms of HTML5 standardization H.264 is even worse > off than Theora is, since encumbered technology is forbidden as a > matter of W3C policy. > > The standard merely recommends nothing now, rather than something specific. > > The real question should you be asking "is proprietary flash the > future of the web?" because everyone being stuck using flash is the > real risk of not having a just-works-everwhere baseline for the video > tag. > > The headline is also misleading: Theora and Vorbis were removed as a > recommendation from the HTML5 draft over a year ago now. All the video > tag adopters so far, except for Apple, have shipped it anyways. > > Right now Theora is the #1 codec for video tag adoption, both in terms > of content provider support and client support, as far as I know. It all really depends on Google. As http://youtube.com/html5 shows, all major video-content the world cares about could soon be available as h264-in-html5. And proprietary flash-fallback already exists for that. Also, sooner or later, Mozilla would allow Codec-Plugins to not be laughed at. OTH should google reencode its content to theora, than by summer next year it will be de-facto-standard whether or not the W3C recommend it. Kind of a sad state for billion-people network to depend so strongly on the decisions of a single company, but I guess thats the way it is right now. Are there plans to create more pressure on Google? What about a compaign? If I understood the W3C-discussions correctly, Wikimedia and Mozilla are already in, the FSFs (with less lobying power) would definitely be in aswell. Something a long the lines "Free Youtube" or "Liberate Youtube" or a more general "PlayOGG"-Campgain, or "Open Standards Web"... If Mozilla and wikipedia prominently linked to the compaign, it would sure a get a lot of attention. Regards Hannes From silviapfeiffer1 at gmail.com Wed Jul 8 04:50:01 2009 From: silviapfeiffer1 at gmail.com (Silvia Pfeiffer) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 21:50:01 +1000 Subject: [theora] HTML 5 drops open-source video codec In-Reply-To: <200907081135.52248.theora.list@soulrebel.in-berlin.de> References: <889352.29331.qm@web111410.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <200907081135.52248.theora.list@soulrebel.in-berlin.de> Message-ID: <2c0e02830907080450s5c8336bes91e26ffa0a0e99db@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 7:35 PM, Hannes Hauswedell wrote: > Am Mittwoch, 8. Juli 2009 06:15:21 schrieb Gregory Maxwell: >> On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 12:07 AM, Yanito Candra wrote: >> > Link here http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-318208.html >> > >> > Will H264 become web standard in the future? >> >> False dichotomy. In terms of HTML5 standardization H.264 is even worse >> off than Theora is, since encumbered technology is forbidden as a >> matter of W3C policy. >> >> The standard merely recommends nothing now, rather than something specific. >> >> The real question should you be asking "is proprietary flash the >> future of the web?" because everyone being stuck using flash is the >> real risk of not having a just-works-everwhere baseline for the video >> tag. >> >> The headline is also misleading: Theora and Vorbis were removed as a >> recommendation from the HTML5 draft over a year ago now. All the video >> tag adopters so far, except for Apple, have shipped it anyways. >> >> Right now Theora is the #1 codec for video tag adoption, both in terms >> of content provider support and client support, as far as I know. > > It all really depends on Google. As http://youtube.com/html5 shows, all major > video-content the world cares about could soon be available as h264-in-html5. > And proprietary flash-fallback already exists for that. Also, sooner or later, > Mozilla would allow Codec-Plugins to not be laughed at. > > OTH should google reencode its content to theora, than by summer next year it > will be de-facto-standard whether or not the W3C recommend it. > > Kind of a sad state for billion-people network to depend so strongly on the > decisions of a single company, but I guess thats the way it is right now. > Are there plans to create more pressure on Google? What about a compaign? If I > understood the W3C-discussions correctly, Wikimedia and Mozilla are already > in, the FSFs (with less lobying power) would definitely be in aswell. > Something a long the lines "Free Youtube" or "Liberate Youtube" or a more > general "PlayOGG"-Campgain, or "Open Standards Web"... > If Mozilla and wikipedia prominently linked to the compaign, it would sure a > get a lot of attention. Right now in the W3C, Apple is the one keeping Theora from becoming baseline codec. If it goes into the standard, YouTube may be keen to follow - but they don't have to. However, all new sites will likely deploy in Theora, possibly weakening YouTube's monopoly. I think it may be easier to get Apple to adopt Theora than to get YouTube to adopt it - YouTube require a lot more effort to do all that transcoding! Cheers, Silvia. From maikmerten at googlemail.com Wed Jul 8 05:08:34 2009 From: maikmerten at googlemail.com (Maik Merten) Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 14:08:34 +0200 Subject: [theora] HTML 5 drops open-source video codec In-Reply-To: <2c0e02830907080450s5c8336bes91e26ffa0a0e99db@mail.gmail.com> References: <889352.29331.qm@web111410.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <200907081135.52248.theora.list@soulrebel.in-berlin.de> <2c0e02830907080450s5c8336bes91e26ffa0a0e99db@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A548C42.9060103@googlemail.com> Silvia Pfeiffer wrote: > YouTube require a lot more effort to do all that > transcoding! Personally I could live with YouTube just encoding future content to Theora and leaving the rest as it is - I wouldn't be surprised if there were statistics saying that > 90% of videos watched on YouTube are not older than a month or something like that. So if they just start encoding (without looking back) things would most likely already look nice a month later. Maik From tdbuman at gmail.com Wed Jul 8 09:40:12 2009 From: tdbuman at gmail.com (Thomas de Buman) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 18:40:12 +0200 Subject: [theora] Theora 1.1 rate controller Message-ID: <75e400e80907080940l4b791a32pda029570c3507db5@mail.gmail.com> Hello everyone, I'm currently developing an adaptive videoconferencing application based on Ekiga which uses TFRC as a congestion control mechanism to adapt the video encoding rate according to the quality of the network experienced. My goal was to use the open-source Theora codec for video transmission. Unfortunately, it seemed that Theora 1.0 did not properly implement any correct CBR mode. The encoding rates can be adjusted "on-the-fly" during encoding by adjusting the "target_bitrate" and the "keyframe_target_bitrate" variables of the "theora_info" structure, but the resulting average bitrate is largely below the target bitrate desired. Furthermore, the bitrates vary depending on the amount of motion captured, which is a typical VBR feature. Here are the bitrates I measured (VGA resolution): tx = target_bitrate (Mbps); ox = max rate observed at output of encoder (Mbps; approximation) tx: 0.7 --> ox: 0.7 tx: 1.0 --> ox: 0.9 tx: 1.6 --> ox: 1.1 tx: 2.0 --> ox: 1.3 tx: 4.0 --> ox: 2.4 tx: 6.0 --> ox: 3.4 tx: 8.0 --> ox: 5.6 I also tested Theora 1.1 Thusnelda but no considerable improvement coud be noticed, though I found contradictory information: "According to Xiph.org's Ralph Giles, the most noticeable improvement in 1.1 is proper rate control, particularly for fixed bit rate encoding, where the user specifies either the number of bits per second desired in the output (a common use case for streaming applications), or the desired file size. "The 1.0 encoder relies a lot on heuristics, instead of trying to optimize directly the trade-off between quality of the coded images and the number of bits used to represent them," he said, "More significantly, the fixed bitrate mode in the 1.0 reference encoder didn't really work; it just guessed how to meet its target and often missed the requested bitrate, sometimes by quite a bit, which was a problem for streaming and fixed-size encodes." (http://lwn.net/Articles/326697) What is the exact behavior of rate controller in Theora and is or will be CBR possible to use? At least, adaptive quantization is implemented ( http://wiki.xiph.org/Theora) but apparently not correctly to support CBR, or am I missing something? I found that the quantizer values are adapted in oc_enc_select_qi() and oc_enc_calc_lamba() without being able to define the actual behavior of these functions... Having a constant bitrate that does not adapt to variations in the image content is really a crucial feature for my application. Thank you for your inputs and clarifications! :) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/theora/attachments/20090708/62341d01/attachment-0001.htm From wissler at gmail.com Wed Jul 8 10:12:19 2009 From: wissler at gmail.com (Shayne Wissler) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 11:12:19 -0600 Subject: [theora] HTML 5 drops open-source video codec In-Reply-To: <200907081135.52248.theora.list@soulrebel.in-berlin.de> References: <889352.29331.qm@web111410.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <200907081135.52248.theora.list@soulrebel.in-berlin.de> Message-ID: <8767c5580907081012s6b92815cqbd973e061f40dba2@mail.gmail.com> Has anyone considered that maybe Apple is right, and that in drawing too much attention to ogg/Theora you are asking for a patent suit? I mean, with ~40,000 patents filed each year, can you really say that they are not "encumbered"? It seems like the best way to protect yourself isn't by technically following the letter of the law, it's the "mutually assured destruction" tactic of having a huge patent portfolio so if you get sued you can likely counter-sue. Shayne From startx at plentyfact.org Wed Jul 8 10:04:25 2009 From: startx at plentyfact.org (startx) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 18:04:25 +0100 Subject: [theora] HTML 5 drops open-source video codec In-Reply-To: <2c0e02830907080450s5c8336bes91e26ffa0a0e99db@mail.gmail.com> References: <889352.29331.qm@web111410.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <200907081135.52248.theora.list@soulrebel.in-berlin.de> <2c0e02830907080450s5c8336bes91e26ffa0a0e99db@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20090708180425.04dd2591@chimlis.chimlis> On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 21:50:01 +1000 Silvia Pfeiffer wrote: > Right now in the W3C, Apple is the one keeping Theora from becoming > baseline codec. If it goes into the standard, YouTube may be keen to > follow - but they don't have to. However, all new sites will likely > deploy in Theora, possibly weakening YouTube's monopoly. I think it > may be easier to get Apple to adopt Theora than to get YouTube to > adopt it - YouTube require a lot more effort to do all that > transcoding! maybe thats a stupid question but is the video/theora implementation not done by the rendering engine? so if the webkit projects implements this, wouldnt apple look a bit stupid to take this bit out again for safari while all other webkit based browsers implement it? startx From justivo at gmail.com Wed Jul 8 10:26:09 2009 From: justivo at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ivo_Emanuel_Gon=C3=A7alves?=) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 18:26:09 +0100 Subject: [theora] HTML 5 drops open-source video codec In-Reply-To: <20090708180425.04dd2591@chimlis.chimlis> References: <889352.29331.qm@web111410.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <200907081135.52248.theora.list@soulrebel.in-berlin.de> <2c0e02830907080450s5c8336bes91e26ffa0a0e99db@mail.gmail.com> <20090708180425.04dd2591@chimlis.chimlis> Message-ID: On 7/8/09, startx wrote: > maybe thats a stupid question but is the video/theora implementation > not done by the rendering engine? The WebKit implementation doesn't use an internal decoder but instead relies on what the system has to offer. That's why Safari plays Theora when XiphQT is installed. -Ivo From giles at xiph.org Wed Jul 8 10:28:41 2009 From: giles at xiph.org (Ralph Giles) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 10:28:41 -0700 Subject: [theora] HTML 5 drops open-source video codec In-Reply-To: <8767c5580907081012s6b92815cqbd973e061f40dba2@mail.gmail.com> References: <889352.29331.qm@web111410.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <200907081135.52248.theora.list@soulrebel.in-berlin.de> <8767c5580907081012s6b92815cqbd973e061f40dba2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5d88ef650907081028m3c20e706w60a5f5f465b29ac8@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Shayne Wissler wrote: > Has anyone considered that maybe Apple is right, and that in drawing > too much attention to ogg/Theora you are asking for a patent suit? I don't see how avoiding that idea does anyone any good. Xiph.org exists to provide royalty-free technology. If we can't do that, we're not adding anything to society. -r From gmaxwell at gmail.com Wed Jul 8 10:30:50 2009 From: gmaxwell at gmail.com (Gregory Maxwell) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 13:30:50 -0400 Subject: [theora] HTML 5 drops open-source video codec In-Reply-To: <8767c5580907081012s6b92815cqbd973e061f40dba2@mail.gmail.com> References: <889352.29331.qm@web111410.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <200907081135.52248.theora.list@soulrebel.in-berlin.de> <8767c5580907081012s6b92815cqbd973e061f40dba2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 1:12 PM, Shayne Wissler wrote: > Has anyone considered that maybe Apple is right, and that in drawing > too much attention to ogg/Theora you are asking for a patent suit? I [snip] Lawsuit is always at least a theoretical risk. There is nothing that makes it go away completely. Theora is intended to be unencumbered. People have worked hard to make it so. They'll continue to do so. Yes, there would be less risk of an attack on Theora if few to no one used it. This would, however, defeat the purpose of Theora. Xiph exists so that people who author things don't have to pay or ask for permission form third parties for the privileged of reaching the public. This can only be achieved if the formats are widely adopted, their existence alone is insufficient. > yourself isn't by technically following the letter of the law, it's > the "mutually assured destruction" tactic of having a huge patent > portfolio so if you get sued you can likely counter-sue. Completely worthless against non-practicing entities (patent trolls) which are the source of the lions-share of the actual lawsuits in this space. You can't counter sue for patent infringement against a company that does little more than file patent lawsuits. Even real companies form patent troll shell companies (such as Lucent's "Multimedia patent trust") in order to do their dirty work. From mdale at wikimedia.org Wed Jul 8 11:02:28 2009 From: mdale at wikimedia.org (Michael Dale) Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 11:02:28 -0700 Subject: [theora] tool roundup for embedding, encoding & hosting Message-ID: <4A54DF34.5040303@wikimedia.org> Did a short blog post following up on Mozilla's 'call to action' at the OVA conference. http://metavid.org/blog/2009/07/07/help-build-a-better-internet-with-open-video/ Its more or less analogous to the http://wiki.xiph.org/Html5 page but in blog posting form & focused on the mv_embed solution ;) It points to the http://wiki.xiph.org/Html5 page as well and I hope that we can continue enhancing that page... but I don't know if that will fill the gap of a simple easy solutions tutorial site? Chris Blizzard was there ever any follow-up on Mozilla side around a making a well designed "make ogg video for the open Internet" promotion/tutorial site? peace, michael From blizzard at mozilla.com Wed Jul 8 14:17:51 2009 From: blizzard at mozilla.com (Christopher Blizzard) Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 17:17:51 -0400 Subject: [theora] tool roundup for embedding, encoding & hosting In-Reply-To: <4A54DF34.5040303@wikimedia.org> References: <4A54DF34.5040303@wikimedia.org> Message-ID: <4A550CFF.3090605@mozilla.com> On 7/8/2009 2:02 PM, Michael Dale wrote: > > Chris Blizzard was there ever any follow-up on Mozilla side around a > making a well designed "make ogg video for the open Internet" > promotion/tutorial site? It's on our list to help drive along with Mark and some of the PCF folks. We've just been busy with the 3.5 launch and then me traveling. (OVC, then california, back to boston, to guadec, finally home in a couple of hours.) It's at the top of my list to wrangle people and resources starting next week. Probably by the end of next week everyone will be sick of hearing from me. :) --Chris From jfcwilson at yahoo.com Wed Jul 8 15:15:18 2009 From: jfcwilson at yahoo.com (James Wilson) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 15:15:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [theora] [Theora] AVI Theora? Message-ID: <717985.24512.qm@web45507.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Hello, It's been a little while, but I've got some new info. I've tried doing this with Mencoder, ffmpeg, VLC player, and AVIdemux. None work. When I try to either convert a theora(ogm/ogv) file to AVI, while using?variations of "-vcodec copy" to keep theora comression, or just compress an AVI with Theora, it does one of several things, depending on settings and the program used: Creates a 0KB, 1KB, 5KB, 8KB, 10KB, or 297KB(the size of the input?OGV?file) file. None of these play. Any ideas? ? P.S. Ran a little late mailing David, and he didn't respond, so I guess he was busy after that day) ? Thanks, ? James -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/theora/attachments/20090708/f41f2c78/attachment.htm From chris.double at double.co.nz Wed Jul 8 15:20:53 2009 From: chris.double at double.co.nz (Chris Double) Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 10:20:53 +1200 Subject: [theora] HTML 5 drops open-source video codec In-Reply-To: <2c0e02830907080450s5c8336bes91e26ffa0a0e99db@mail.gmail.com> References: <889352.29331.qm@web111410.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <200907081135.52248.theora.list@soulrebel.in-berlin.de> <2c0e02830907080450s5c8336bes91e26ffa0a0e99db@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 11:50 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote: > Right now in the W3C, Apple is the one keeping Theora from becoming > baseline codec. On the positive side Apple have indicated a willingness to look into it. What's really holding things up is answer's to the questions they recently raised to Xiph. Chris. -- http://www.bluishcoder.co.nz From cristian.adam at gmail.com Wed Jul 8 15:20:57 2009 From: cristian.adam at gmail.com (Cristian Adam) Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2009 00:20:57 +0200 Subject: [theora] thusnelda Visual C Inline Assembly In-Reply-To: <4A5267B0.4070201@gmail.com> References: <4A5267B0.4070201@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A551BC9.8050309@gmail.com> ristian Adam wrote: > I'm pleased to announce that the port of the GCC (AT&T) inline assembly > optimized code to Visual C (Intel) inline assembly code is now available > in SVN. > I would like to point out that the C preprocesor define which enables the inline assembly code has been renamed from USE_ASM to OC_X86_ASM. If you have your own project files, make sure not to forget to update :) Cheers, Cristian. From mjs at apple.com Wed Jul 8 15:33:41 2009 From: mjs at apple.com (Maciej Stachowiak) Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 15:33:41 -0700 Subject: [theora] HTML 5 drops open-source video codec In-Reply-To: References: <889352.29331.qm@web111410.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <200907081135.52248.theora.list@soulrebel.in-berlin.de> <2c0e02830907080450s5c8336bes91e26ffa0a0e99db@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Jul 8, 2009, at 3:20 PM, Chris Double wrote: > On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 11:50 PM, Silvia > Pfeiffer wrote: >> Right now in the W3C, Apple is the one keeping Theora from becoming >> baseline codec. > > On the positive side Apple have indicated a willingness to look into > it. What's really holding things up is answer's to the questions they > recently raised to Xiph. To be clear, we're also planning to do some of our own research in addition to raising questions to Xiph. But answers to those questions would be extremely helpful. Regards, Maciej From xiphmont at xiph.org Wed Jul 8 17:03:23 2009 From: xiphmont at xiph.org (xiphmont at xiph.org) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 20:03:23 -0400 Subject: [theora] HTML 5 drops open-source video codec In-Reply-To: References: <889352.29331.qm@web111410.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <200907081135.52248.theora.list@soulrebel.in-berlin.de> <2c0e02830907080450s5c8336bes91e26ffa0a0e99db@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <806dafc20907081703x353e2856t34595293a9218d1a@mail.gmail.com> Our primary SFLC contact is attending GUADEC, where she also happens to be speaking about patents and Theora. She'll be back this weekend along with the other GUADEC folks and should have something to say then. Monty From silviapfeiffer1 at gmail.com Wed Jul 8 20:00:24 2009 From: silviapfeiffer1 at gmail.com (Silvia Pfeiffer) Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 13:00:24 +1000 Subject: [theora] tool roundup for embedding, encoding & hosting In-Reply-To: <4A550CFF.3090605@mozilla.com> References: <4A54DF34.5040303@wikimedia.org> <4A550CFF.3090605@mozilla.com> Message-ID: <2c0e02830907082000j19ada624y9953d17eb63cfa40@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 7:17 AM, Christopher Blizzard wrote: > On 7/8/2009 2:02 PM, Michael Dale wrote: >> >> Chris Blizzard was there ever any follow-up on Mozilla side around a >> making a well designed "make ogg video for the open Internet" >> promotion/tutorial site? > It's on our list to help drive along with Mark and some of the PCF > folks. ?We've just been busy with the 3.5 launch and then me traveling. > (OVC, then california, back to boston, to guadec, finally home in a > couple of hours.) ?It's at the top of my list to wrangle people and > resources starting next week. ?Probably by the end of next week everyone > will be sick of hearing from me. :) We had previously started on a site at new.annodex.net, but with the discussions around ogg.org, stopperd working on it. I have now started laying it out to be turned into ogg.org if people agree. The site is based on Wordpress, but uses Wordpress as a CMS rather than a blog. It is still very drafty, but it is supposed to get all the articles that Chris Blizzard mentioned in our discussions at OVA. The front page needs to not display articles but allow people to install for their platform (which will be behind the button on the top right) and point to the most important things people will want to do with Ogg: encoding, publishing, hosting. Then there should be a FAQ section, which can grow over time. I want to set it up such that Ogg people can all contribute and it's easy to add another article, which is why we chose Wordpress. I went and started doing this since I see the importance of having this site, but didn't see much else happening. If somebody else wants to take the lead on this and has better ideas for what to do and how, please go ahead. Cheers, Silvia. From silviapfeiffer1 at gmail.com Wed Jul 8 20:29:21 2009 From: silviapfeiffer1 at gmail.com (Silvia Pfeiffer) Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 13:29:21 +1000 Subject: [theora] HTML 5 drops open-source video codec In-Reply-To: <806dafc20907081703x353e2856t34595293a9218d1a@mail.gmail.com> References: <889352.29331.qm@web111410.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <200907081135.52248.theora.list@soulrebel.in-berlin.de> <2c0e02830907080450s5c8336bes91e26ffa0a0e99db@mail.gmail.com> <806dafc20907081703x353e2856t34595293a9218d1a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2c0e02830907082029p10a3c86bib1c8add9b4fdbce@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 10:03 AM, wrote: > Our primary SFLC contact is attending GUADEC, where she also happens > to be speaking about patents and Theora. ?She'll be back this weekend > along with the other GUADEC folks and should have something to say > then. > > Monty > Excellent - I think it is important that we get a legally sound answer to the raised questions and publish them. Cheers, Silvia. From invite+zrdoc1ddh16z at facebookmail.com Wed Jul 8 21:25:33 2009 From: invite+zrdoc1ddh16z at facebookmail.com (Asanka Dilruk) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 21:25:33 -0700 Subject: [theora] Check out my photos on Facebook Message-ID: <26a8c8332a93646f12cd58ed7e8b4cb8@localhost.localdomain> Hi theora at xiph.org, I set up a Facebook profile where I can post my pictures, videos and events and I want to add you as a friend so you can see it. First, you need to join Facebook! Once you join, you can also create your own profile. Thanks, Asanka To sign up for Facebook, follow the link below: http://www.facebook.com/p.php?i=669513480&k=Z6E3Q6TYVXZDUCD1QB63XQQQPQCF&r theora at xiph.org was invited to join Facebook by Asanka Dilruk. If you do not wish to receive this type of email from Facebook in the future, please click on the link below to unsubscribe. http://www.facebook.com/o.php?k=655bd5&u=100000095023405&mid=bf6e6bG5af31624312dG0G8 Facebook's offices are located at 1601 S. California Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94304. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/theora/attachments/20090708/75aca9f8/attachment-0001.htm From shirishag75 at gmail.com Thu Jul 9 09:30:22 2009 From: shirishag75 at gmail.com (shirish) Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 09:30:22 -0700 Subject: [theora] less change, lower bandwidth demands Message-ID: <511f47f50907090930y54a15d16uadf456897066d8ad@mail.gmail.com> Hi all, First of all kudos to all the developers for taking the efforts to make theora (an open video format). I am helping a group of people to get some uncompressed .avi's transcoded/encoded to .ogg theora. I was just reading something about the .flv format (the one which is used in youtube) "In .flv files the less change there is, the lower the bandwidth demands & vice-versa" Now if I know that my videos do not have much moving elements can I get similar bandwidth savings in theora ? If yes, how do I go about doing the same. -- Regards, Shirish Agarwal My quotes in this email licensed under CC 3.0 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ http://flossexperiences.wordpress.com 065C 6D79 A68C E7EA 52B3 8D70 950D 53FB 729A 8B17 From giles at xiph.org Thu Jul 9 09:52:11 2009 From: giles at xiph.org (Ralph Giles) Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 09:52:11 -0700 Subject: [theora] less change, lower bandwidth demands In-Reply-To: <511f47f50907090946s4326b548s1f8f28b6f7288163@mail.gmail.com> References: <511f47f50907090930y54a15d16uadf456897066d8ad@mail.gmail.com> <5d88ef650907090941j5ab3df4bh39f9938ca7fdce35@mail.gmail.com> <511f47f50907090946s4326b548s1f8f28b6f7288163@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5d88ef650907090952s361221d1va0678bbf2cccedcb@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 9:46 AM, shirish wrote: > ? ? ? ?Thank you for getting back so quickly. How do I go about doing this ? > I need a link or webpage where this is spelled out how to do . I'd need to know how you're encoding to tell you what to do. There's a list of transcoding methods at https://wiki.mozilla.org/Theora for example. -r From peter.harlow at gmail.com Thu Jul 9 11:05:58 2009 From: peter.harlow at gmail.com (Pete Harlow) Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 20:05:58 +0200 Subject: [theora] HTML 5 drops open-source video codec In-Reply-To: <2c0e02830907082029p10a3c86bib1c8add9b4fdbce@mail.gmail.com> References: <889352.29331.qm@web111410.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <200907081135.52248.theora.list@soulrebel.in-berlin.de> <2c0e02830907080450s5c8336bes91e26ffa0a0e99db@mail.gmail.com> <806dafc20907081703x353e2856t34595293a9218d1a@mail.gmail.com> <2c0e02830907082029p10a3c86bib1c8add9b4fdbce@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1ce131ee0907091105r6290f79fwb7c2c1ee6e278fd9@mail.gmail.com> Going back to the Google issue, this article http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8141964.stm suggests Google may be partnering with Adobe for some aspects of the Chrome OS, which may explain the lukewarm approach to