- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 07:26:58 +1100
Incidentally, I agree that recording audio should best be kept to an uncompressed format, because I can see great browser applications for audio editing. As for choosing a single codec - if we end up not being able to agree on a single compressed codec for audio/video streaming, we will get into a situation where all your involved parties in a video or audio conference have to use the same browser (or select from a restricted group of browsers only) for a live communication. I guess it's workable, but kinda strange for an open platform like the Web. Cheers, Silvia. On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 7:20 AM, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1 at gmail.com> wrote: > In deed for audio all browsers except IE9 currently support WAV in > their media elements, which makes it a reasonable recording format and > acceptable for saving to the server. For communication between browser > instances - in particular when used for conferenceing - I can see the > need for a compressed format. > > Speex is a reasonable low-bandwidth codec, but for speech only and not > for general audio. I would wait with choosing a low-bandwidth codec > until the IETF's new "Internet Wideband Audio Codec" [1] Working Group > finalizes their codec definition, since that will be a low-bandwidth > codec not restricted to speech. It will be an unencumbered codec > called "Opus" and is making great progress, see > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/codec/current/msg02029.html . > > Cheers, > Silvia. > > [1] http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/codec/charter/ > > On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 6:51 AM, Kevin Marks <kevinmarks at gmail.com> wrote: >> For Audio at least, supporting uncompressed should be possible and >> uncontroversial, as there are clearly no patent issues here. Anyone serious >> about recording and processing audio would not consider recording compressed >> audio nowadays. T >> There are several widely used raw audio formats (.au, WAV, AIFF, AVI) that >> can wrap into a filestream, and there are of course the issues of sample >> rate, channel count and bit resolution, but compared to codec issues these >> are relatively straightforward from an engineering point of view, and not >> tied up with licensing issues. >> Raw video is more of a problem at present, given common bandwidth >> constraints, but if we are interested in providing for image manipulation >> APIs, having pixel formats that map to video better than RGBA may be needed. >> The enumeration at >> http://developer.apple.com/quicktime/icefloe/dispatch020.html >> may be helpful here. >> On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Nils Dagsson Moskopp >> <nils-dagsson-moskopp at dieweltistgarnichtso.net> wrote: >>> >>> Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1 at gmail.com> schrieb am Thu, 25 Nov 2010 >>> 20:01:37 +1100: >>> >>> > Also, implementing WebM or Ogg Theora encoding is just as royalty-free >>> > as decoding them, so Mozilla, Opera and Google wouldn't need to worry >>> > there. >>> >>> Slightly offtopic: Anyone considering the low-bandwith audio use case? >>> Surely, speex might be useful here ? even a throttled UMTS connection >>> suffices for VoIP. >>> >>> > So, the browsers would implement support for those codecs for which >>> > they already implement decoding support - maybe with the exception of >>> > Chrome which decode MPEG-4, but may not want to encode it, since it >>> > might mean extra royalties. >>> >>> And probably less WebM content, too boot. Decoding, but not encoding >>> MPEG formats could certainly fit into a royalty-free formats agenda, >>> depending on the level of aggressiveness Google is wishing to take. >>> >>> > It would be nice if we could all, say, encode WebM, but I don't see >>> > that happening. >>> >>> I see what you did there. >>> >>> >>> Greetings, >>> -- >>> Nils Dagsson Moskopp // erlehmann >>> <http://dieweltistgarnichtso.net> >> >> >
Received on Saturday, 27 November 2010 12:26:58 UTC