Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums - Reply to Topic

Thread: Video codecs: the smartphone angle Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
2014-03-18 06:12 PM
four
Quote:
Originally Posted by four View Post
VP9, still in the works, is already (!) getting support from chipmakers...
...and browser makers as well
http://www.electronista.com/articles...cation.center/
2014-03-04 08:52 PM
four
Video codecs: the smartphone angle

Video codecs have a long and convoluted history. Just to mention the main players/events:

The first standardized and wildly used was MPEG-2 that is used in DVDs.
After some "low key experiments" in the form of DivX, XviD, etc., the codec development efforts were split between Microsoft and the rest.
These two codecs WMV9 and H.264 were both present at the competition announced by Sony for the codec to be used in future Blu-ray discs.
It is hard to find out in details what happened during that competition, but the outcome we all know: both became mandatory in the BD standard
(WMV9 was re-christened VC-1). Both were also present in the short-lived competitor to BD - HD DVD.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VC-1

To be used, codecs have to be licensed.
Special patent pools are assembled that decide how much the licenses cost and who gets what share.
MPEG-2 is known to be the most expensive in this list and cost more than other video codecs combined.
Every commercial player - software (WinDVD, PowerDVD, etc.) or hardware (Sigma Designs, Realtek, etc.) - pays those licensing fees.
Same applies to audio codecs.

When Google purchased YouTube, they decided to create a modern high efficiency open source (aka free to use) codec.
This would allow using free software to watch YouTube, aka no license fee for a decoder/player was needed.
For that, they bought in 2010 On2 Tech company and its VP7 codec. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VP8
That codec was improved and the next version VP8 was declared to not need licenses for decoding.

Nokia crushed that party.
They refused to FRAND-license their patents needed for VP8 distribution
http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/24/41...-patents-frand

So, Google set out to re-work the codec - VP9 - and find workarounds to Nokia patents. And that's were we are now.
The VP9 codec is expected to be comparable in quality/efficiency with the next generation HEVC (H.265) codec.
http://www.trustedreviews.com/opinio...odes-explained

VP9, still in the works, is already (!) getting support from chipmakers (at the software level so far).
So, PowerVR GPUs - used in iPhones and many non-integrated CPU/GPU gadgets - has support for VP9 built-in
http://semiaccurate.com/2014/02/26/i...-powervr-gpus/
And so does MALI-graphics in the latest ARM CPUs.

Bottom line: internet technologies nowadays have a big influence on mundane and boring elements like developing video codecs.
Chipmakers believe that not supporting VP9 might have a negative efect on sales in the near future (due to the popularity of YouTube)...

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome