Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Firefox Gains Support for VP9 Video Codec

Comments Filter:
  • Someone encodes something in VP9 that I actually want to watch.
    • by Cryacin (657549)
      The world is safe for another 4 years...
    • YouTube (Score:3, Insightful)

      by tepples (727027)
      Once both Firefox and Chrome support VP9, YouTube's HTML5 player will probably be using VP9 to save your bandwidth, especially when viewers like you turn on 720p or higher resolution.
      • Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)

        by epyT-R (613989)

        h264 compresses better. Using vp9 for the same feed will waste bandwidth.

        • by tepples (727027)
          I thought VP8 was somewhere between H.264 baseline and H.264 main in rate/distortion terms and VP9 was on par with H.265. Correct me if I'm wrong though.
          • VP9 vs x264 (Score:5, Informative)

            by Taco Cowboy (5327) on Monday December 09, 2013 @11:58PM (#45647357) Journal

            Disclaimer: I am not the author of the following pdf

            http://iphome.hhi.de/marpe/download/Performance_HEVC_VP9_X264_PCS_2013_preprint.pdf [iphome.hhi.de]

            According to the above pdf

            "x264 encoder achieves an average gain of 6.2% in terms of BD-BR savings compared to VP9

            • I think that's less to do with the video standard than the very impressive quality of x264. It's taken years of tweaking to get it working so well.

          • Re:YouTube (Score:5, Informative)

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 09, 2013 @11:59PM (#45647369)

            nope, vp9 is based mostly on h264 minus certain areas that fall upon patents which makes it almost as good but worse. In exchange, you don't get into the royalty minefield that was in question for a while back.

            vp9 was great to force mpeg-la hand into making h264 royalty free indefinitely (at least for streaming) but it really serves little purpose now since that hand also served to stifle vp9 growth which is basically based off the premise of a royalty free h264 codec.

          • by epyT-R (613989)

            It's close, but h264 encoders are more mature, faster, and h264 is handled by accelerated playback devices. VP9 is fine if all you're doing is watching it in a browser or in vlc...and have a beefy cpu for HD.

      • by gl4ss (559668)

        ...yet it still rerererebbuffffeeeeeers better with flash.

        it's a common complaint nowadays how shitty chrome with html5 video is at buffering the vids. and the fucking piece of shit doesn't buffer fully now so if you don't have enough bw -or google doesn't have- then you're shit out of luck to view anything without pauses every 30 secs - because it will not buffer the video to the end when you have it on pause!

      • by Elbart (1233584)
        Just like Youtube immediately switched to VP8/WebM?
        • by tepples (727027)
          YouTube did switch to WebM on players that support it, so long as the partner or copyright claimant didn't choose monetization settings that require Flash Player.
    • Re:4 years later (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Tough Love (215404) on Tuesday December 10, 2013 @12:30AM (#45647535)

      Perhaps Youtube is something you want to watch. But riddle me this: what is it about open source video codecs that brings out the trolls?

      • Re:4 years later (Score:4, Interesting)

        by rsmith-mac (639075) on Tuesday December 10, 2013 @04:39AM (#45648441)

        This is just my $0.02, but if the trolls are anything like some of the rest of us, I have to assume it's because we're tired of the constant promotion of second-rate codecs that put ideology ahead of technical concerns.

        Patent-free video codecs are the ultimate case of NIH syndrome. The major patent free video codecs (Theora, VP8, etc) are largely attempts to recreate/modify existing MPEG video codecs to get around the patents of the aforementioned original MPEG codec.The end results are codecs that aren't appreciably novel compared to the MPEG codec they're going up against, and at the same time it's not even clear (from a legal perspective) whether these codecs really are patent-free, or if they're infringing on the MPEG-LA's patents anyhow. Which is not an attempt to inject FUD into any of this, it's just that there haven't been sufficient legal challenges, and in the meantime it's questionable that these codecs can be so very similar to the MPEG codecs and somehow not fall under the associated patents.

        At the same time the fact that these codecs are being pushed opposite the existing MPEG codecs only fractures the market and slows the adoption of new video technologies. We end up with Mozilla and Google flailing around with alternative codecs rather than buckling down and doing what's necessary to secure the rights to use the MPEG codecs in the first place, only finally doing the right thing after they've exhausted every other option. Web browsers should have fully supported H.264 years ago.

        It's the codec equivalent of generic colas. Yeah, they're similar, but they're not the same and they're not what most of us are after. And in the meantime it quickly gets tiring of being told how we're doing it wrong by buying the more expensive product. There are certain things in life that are worth paying for, and a good/novel video codec is one of those things.

        Which isn't to slag the patent free codec guys entirely. The video codecs have struggled, but the audio codecs have been outstanding. Opus is a roaring success, which I credit both to the development structure for the codec - involving many parties like the IETF early on while clearly shooting for novel/new audio codec - and the technical capabilities of the engineers who designed the codec.

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward
        • Re:4 years later (Score:5, Informative)

          by SuricouRaven (1897204) on Tuesday December 10, 2013 @06:27AM (#45648783)

          'Securing the rights' is not that simple. In the case of a single corporate vendor, it's just a matter of negotiating payment: Microsoft or Apple hands over the money in return for the appropriate license, no problem. For open-source browsers it's a lot more difficult because there is the issue of project forking and customisation.

          The Mozilla foundation could perhaps negotiate a cut-rate or even free license, yes. That's doable. But then what happens when someone else decides they would like to adapt Firefox? Now they can't, because they don't have permission to use those patented parts. It breaks the open-source development model: The code may be free, but you can't legally do much with it unless the MPEG LA grants permission, and they aren't going to give a free license to every five-employee company, let alone hobbyists and home users, and especially when many users are commercial. Plus that's only for the major browsers - are all the many obscure ones supposed to go begging for a free license and sublicensing (hah!) rights too? The only way out of this would be for the MPEG LA to simply relinquish all patent rights entirely, and that's not going to happen.

          • by JDG1980 (2438906)

            The Mozilla foundation could perhaps negotiate a cut-rate or even free license, yes. That's doable. But then what happens when someone else decides they would like to adapt Firefox? Now they can't, because they don't have permission to use those patented parts. It breaks the open-source development model: The code may be free, but you can't legally do much with it unless the MPEG LA grants permission, and they aren't going to give a free license to every five-employee company, let alone hobbyists and home

        • by thue (121682)

          > At the same time the fact that these codecs are being pushed opposite the existing MPEG codecs only fractures the market and slows the adoption of new video technologies. We end up with Mozilla and Google flailing around with alternative codecs rather than buckling down and doing what's necessary to secure the rights to use the MPEG codecs in the first place, only finally doing the right thing after they've exhausted every other option. Web browsers should have fully supported H.264 years ago.

          It is not

        • by steveha (103154)

          we're tired of the constant promotion of second-rate codecs that put ideology ahead of technical concerns.

          You say "ideology" as if it were just a difference of opinion. Free, open-source software under a free license cannot use patent-encumbered technology. It doesn't matter how good the technology is if you can't use it.

          it's not even clear (from a legal perspective) whether these codecs really are patent-free

          Actually, you are mistaken on this point. MPEG-LA spent over a year trying to put together a pat

        • by OdinOdin_ (266277)

          Better codecs are not required, most people consider standard TV good enough, DVD great and Blueray overkill. Many places are getting home Internet upgrades from 24MBit to 100MBit. Portable and general storage mediums are cheaper and more dense per Gb.

          We only have to wait another 10 or so years for the MPEG patents to expire (yeah right, I'm sure the standards will be in perpetual patent, as they phase in some new minor changes, when the 30 year old codec is great for use today). So in the grand scheme

      • I would love to use a new codec. I am sick and tired of installing Adobe flash on Linux machines. My issue is that major players don't update. So much of the video content I need is on Youtube. It seems to be the go to place for companies to post their instructional videos. Even educational videos are either on Youtube or posted in obsolete software. I am amazed at how many are still in Quicktime and RealPlayer formats. I am being sarcastic since people keep promising me better and faster video codecs, and
    • by tlhIngan (30335)

      Someone encodes something in VP9 that I actually want to watch.

      Actually, next-gen codec fights are on NOW.

      The war of VP8/h.264 is lost. Get over it, move on and try to get in the next gen. Whether it's h.265 or VP9 or some other codec, it's not decided yet.

      The time to move is NOW to get VP9 spec all complete (not a code based spec like VP8, but a proper spec that details everything on paper - "read the code" is NOT a valid solution here) and everywhere.

      Get demonstrations working and ready. Get on working gr

      • VP9 doesn't compete with h.265, it is 6% larger than h.264 and 112% larger than h.265. That's not even a competition.

  • by Animats (122034) on Tuesday December 10, 2013 @02:13AM (#45648039) Homepage

    Most of the remaining MPEG LA patents that matter run out in Q1 2014. They have others, but most of them are on features added to MPEG-4 late, ones that aren't needed in a browser's decoder, such as interlace support and decoding of images with errors.

    • by steveha (103154) on Tuesday December 10, 2013 @03:36AM (#45648251) Homepage

      Most of the remaining MPEG LA patents that matter run out in Q1 2014.

      That sounds great, but could you please provide a reference or two to support it?

      The sources I have seen suggest that it will be after 2020 before all the patents that affect even MPEG-2 will be gone. For example: this kuro5hin article [kuro5hin.org] lists 2023 as the year the last MPEG-2 patent runs out. And this page [swpat.org] lists 2027 as the year the last H.264 patents run out.

      If I'm understanding you correctly, you are saying that the most essential patents are running out, so it should be possible to make a patent-free coder and decoder that would cover a usable subset of the MPEG standards?

      Do you predict that a patent-free MPEG-2 decoder capable of playing DVDs would be possible within a year?

      • by Animats (122034)

        Do you predict that a patent-free MPEG-2 decoder capable of playing DVDs would be possible within a year?

        No, DVDs use some of the newer MPEG 4 features. But online video doesn't need all that stuff. Youtube, Netflix, etc. are probably within the base MP4 spec, for which the patents have mostly expired.

      • by Animats (122034)

        could you please provide a reference or two to support it?

        Here's a list compiled in 2011. [robglidden.com]. The last of the "orginal 27" patents expires on March 28, 2014. MPEG-LA has later patents, but maybe you don't need the technology they cover, or can attack those patents.

  • It's too bad that virtually 99% of sites will be using H264 AVC and AAC.
    • by Waraqa (3457279)

      It's too bad that virtually 99% of sites will be using H264 AVC and AAC.

      In spite of that, a leading video website such as youtube could affect the web more than all of these sites, especially if google refuses to add support for H.265 in Android and Chrome.

      • by BitZtream (692029)

        Yea, they'd totally drop support for the codec decoded in hardware, in favor of using a codec that has no hardware decode support even on their own devices ... yea, that'll be a great idea.

  • The greater the complexity in a system, the greater points of failure. All this movement of processing onto the client just leads to more client side security holes. HTML5 is so complex, there are so many potential points of attack, it is the NSA's wet dream to have all browsers compete on implementing it fully. If Firefox 17 had 0-days that the NSA could use to attack TOR (yeah yeah, it was the FBI, I completely believe that it wasn't a crumb the NSA gave them), I imagine a fully HTML5 compliant Firefox XX

  • It's great for the viewer because you have more detail in less bandwidth (smaller footprint) but it's a bitch at encoding and is slower than mp4,H264 or H265 in encoding speed. VP8 is still a good alternative as well since it's more mature and has wider support.

EARTH smog | bricks AIR -- mud -- FIRE soda water | tequila WATER

Working...