Re: [whatwg] Video proposals

Asbjørn Ulsberg said:

> I'm no format, video, encoder or law expert, but how does MPEG-4 fit? I
>  know that it's at least considered to be the best alternative for
> professional video by most video camera vendors as well as producers in
>  the professional video and broadcasting world. Theora is nice because
> it's   FOSS, but I believe e.g. H.264 is a lot better in quality and
> will also   prove better in hardware decoding support in the coming
> months/years.

As I said before, I think we have a lot better chance at getting a common,
cross-browser, cross-platform format with MPEG 4.  The reason WHAT WG
proposed Theora is *because* it is FOSS, not for quality, size, ease of
implementation, or anything else (as far as I know).  Presumably, it would
be the easiest to implement since the source is freely available to modify
and it's similar to Flash video, since Theora is a superset of the VP3
codec that FLV is / was based on.  However, Håkon said that at least one
major vendor would not implement Theora.  I think that is a problem for
Theora supporters if said unnamed vendor sticks to their guns.

If all the browser vendors would implement MPEG4, that would be as viable
as Theora.  There are open source MPEG4 encoders, as well as proprietary
ones.  If the vendors have their licenses in order and web developers have
free tools to create the content, I don't see any reason to oppose MPEG4
(or any cross-platform codec that may exist).  Quality doesn't have to be
through the roof, but good compression should be a high priority for
whatever codec is eventually used.

If we can query the browser vendors to see what their thoughts on MPEG4
are, I'd like to hear what they think.  I'm okay with a vendor-decided de
facto standard, even if the spec suggests Theora, as long as it is
standard across all browsers and platforms and it's free for developers to
create the content.

Robert <>

Received on Monday, 19 March 2007 21:56:24 UTC