Vp6 licence

[daWsOn_s]

Hello,
I have to publish some video online on my website. I was comparing the codecs and I discovered that none of the video sharing sites I know included YouTube use VP6/VP7 but Sorenson that is clearly worse than VP6 in quality. I was wondering why, all the program I use can convert only in Sorenson, only Flash CS3 encoder (not free of course) uses VP6, does this codec need to be payed for use? Because it's strange that everyone is still using the other one.

If that's right I won't definitely use Sorenson, but x264 that is now supported with Flash 9.

[Dark Shikari]

Youtube doesn't use VP6; it uses H.263.

[daWsOn_s]

I didn't say that Youtube uses VP6.

Can I use VP6?

[Dark Shikari]

I didn't say that Youtube uses VP6.

Can I use VP6?Oops, misread your post. I'm pretty sure almost all the major sites use VP6; I know Google Video does, as does Facebook and many others.

I'm not entirely sure... I've heard conflicting comments about many of the options. For example, I've been told that H.264 requires licensing fees, but on the other hand, I've also heard that its free until 2010. Not sure about VP6.

I don't think Flash supports VP7?

[daWsOn_s]

I don't know maybe not in Flash 9 right now.

I checked Google video and it uses Sorenson like Youtube:mad:

[slavickas]

iirc vp6 costs are per encoder and quite big,although per content there is no fees. plus h263/spark got bigger user base, at least that was issue long time ago :)