W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > January 2008

Re: [whatwg] Video codec requirements changed

From: Federico Bianco Prevot <nocturndragon@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 19:29:48 +0100
Message-ID: <f08dcc830801071029i29e3c273n4ae6c9c7eeeed2e5@mail.gmail.com>
To: www-archive@w3.org
Cc: public-html@w3.org, whatwg@whatwg.org

Has anyone considered Bink video as a viable option?
http://www.radgametools.com/bnkmain.htm

>Bink is a "better-than-DVD" class codec - it compresses at higher
quality than DVD
>at up to three times the playback speed!
>Bink uses up to 16 MB less memory at runtime than other codecs.
>It has been licensed for over 3,800 games since 1999!

It is not open-source, but the good thing is that the codec is
licensed on a flat-fee basis.
Quoting their internet site:

>Our codecs are licensed on a flat-fee basis.
>RAD doesn't charge royalties - period. You pay one flat-fee to use Bink
>or Smacker in your product. 'Nuff said.

I really couldn't find any comparison versus any other codec,
compression and quality wise, but their site says:

>Bink is the best quality codec available. Bink creates incredible
looking video at extremely low
>data rates. 256x192 animations for the Nintendo DS can be compressed
all the way down to
>50 kps and still look great. 640x480 animations can be crammed into
200 kps with little loss.
>At higher data rates, Bink can play HD video (1280x720) at 900 kps
(DVDs use a 1000 kps
>data rate for 640x480 video).

And even more important:

>Another nice feature of Bink is that it's technology was completely
independently developed.
>We are not based on any MPEG or other committee standards (our
techniques are quite
>different, in fact) of any kind, so the IP is safe, encumbrance-free,
>and (best of all) entirely royalty free.

There are probably problems with open-sourcing it, but it might be
worth trying to contact RAD and see if this could be a walkable road.

-- Federico BP


On Dec 11, 2007 3:39 AM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
>
> I've temporarily removed the requirements on video codecs from the HTML5
> spec, since the current text isn't helping us come to a useful
> interoperable conclusion. When a codec is found that is mutually
> acceptable to all major parties I will update the spec to require that
> instead and then reply to all the pending feedback on video codecs.
>
>    http://www.whatwg.org/issues/#graphics-video-codec
>
> --
> Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
> http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
> Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
>
Received on Monday, 7 January 2008 18:29:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:18:12 GMT