Blu-Code vs. Cinevision

[keatonatron]

Hello all,

I was hired on as a one-man Blu-Ray authoring team, and got to buy all the equipment I wanted on the boss's credit card.

I started out with a basic Scenarist BD set-up, using cinevision for my encoding. So far, the results are pretty good.

However, we've decided we want to get some more quality out of our encodes, and now I'm looking into noise-reduction filters. Cinevision has "world famous" DVO filters built in, but I can only use them if I upgrade to the pro version of the software. I've been investigating alternatives, and Sony's Blu-Code is on sale right now for half the price of the cinevision upgrade. Looking at the documentation, Blu-Code has noise-reduction filters included and sounds like it might be a bit more powerful than Cinevision (5-pass encoding!). Does anyone here have any experience with the two, or any input on how they compare? I'm leaning towards getting Blu-Code because it's cheaper right now and sounds better, but I've never used it or seen it's results and would hate to invest the money blindly -- and asking the sony and sonic reps which is better won't get me anywhere ;)

Thanks for any insight.

[mp3dom]

Surely BluCode is better than CineVision. But as far as I know, BluCode is a 2-pass VBR (max) encoder. I've never tried the BluCode noise-reduction, generally I think you can have better results with AviSynth or other restoration tools. BluCode is better than CineVision in almost all fields (grain retention, color banding preservation, fades and so on). Have presets for almost any footage and can remote decks (HDCAM/SR) so you can digitize your footage using the encoder and then start the analysis pre-pass with other PCs. You can do distribute encoding if you have a good LAN. It works with AVI/MOV (uncompressed, 8bit or 10bit as source) but also can use DMO filters that works in YUY2 colorspace. Not tried but maybe it can works with ProRes too (frequently used on Mac side). The only 'drawback' of BluCode is that - for what I know - is not updated frequently.
I think you can ask for a demo-station so you can try yourself with a footage that you know so you can evaluate the pro/cons of each encoder.

[rik1138]

Definitely try it out yourself first. I'm sure Sony can work out something to loan you a machine/software for a trial period. I know Sonic can give you a trial of the DVO filters if you ask as well.

There's also the Cinemacraft encoder that some people swear by. That's the one that I know can do multi-pass encoding I think up to any number you tell it to (but anything over 4 or 5 is kind of redundant, and usually 2 or 3 is good for most work).

Also, this should go without saying, but make sure you really _know_ how to use these tools... If this is for work that's going to be sold to the public, the reviewers will rip it apart if there's any evidence of grain removal, edge enhancement, etc... And they know exactly what to look for. They'd rather see full-on film grain than any evidence it was filtered out.

[kieranrk]

I suppose I must suggest x264 if you're having problems with grain retention if you haven't tried it already:

http://www.x264bluray.com/

[keatonatron]

Hey everyone,

Thanks for the replies! I've been lurking around doom9 for years now, but this is my first time starting a thread.

I didn't know x264 could be used for professional authoring--I'll take another look at it!

And I had spent some time with Avisynth, but found it too cumbersome for a large-volume workflow and too limited with the programs and formats it can be used with (that might change with x264...). It was also hard to find recent information geared for Blu-ray (all forum discussions seemed to be based around anime for DVD).

My company gets many titles that are being released world-wide, and we are the exclusive distributor for our region. Recently we had a title that was shot on film with strong grain--I left it in on purpose to preserve authenticity. However many of our other titles have been shot digitally, and some times the path they take to get to us adds a considerable amount of digital noise (editor converts it, puts it on tape, sends it to the buyer who copies it to another format, takes it off tape, sends it to us...). These titles are hard to encode well, which is why I would like to remove the digital noise.

My work flow often ends with me finding the total amount of space I have for the video, and encoding with as high a bitrate as possible to fit. Cinevision is great at estimating how much space will be needed for the encode--I assume Blu-code does something similar. Is there a way to do this with the other solutions provided above? (without having to calculate bitrate by hand...)

P.S. About 5-pass encoding: I misunderstood. The documentation said Blu-code can "...detect regions within a file that are difficult to encode, and then perform up to 5 encodes using user-defined bit rates". It means 5 different encodes of the same video, using different settings that can be compared later, but I thought it meant 5 passes.

[mp3dom]

Yes, about 5 'zones' of different settings you're right. You can choose up to 5 automatic re-encodes with different settings. BluCode will calculate the distortion of the image and re-encode accordingly. Then you can choose which of the 5 automatic re-encodes needs to be kept.
Regarding the bitrate estimation, BluCode gives you an estimation by excess. At the beginning it tells you the max final size but if the image it too simple or (for example) a black screen the final size will be lower. This doesn't happends with grainy movies obviously, but in general with flat or CGs images.

[rik1138]

I didn't know x264 could be used for professional authoring--I'll take another look at it!


Be careful using x264 for discs you intend to sell. The software is not licensed by the Blu-ray consortium for use on discs sold in the US. It's illegal to use it for Blu-rays sold in this country. I don't know about other countries, but if you are making discs sold in various regions, might be best to avoid it...

If your company has a legal dept, have them look into it if you really want to use it.

It's great for personal use, but I'd be cautious before using it on retail projects...

[Stereodude]

I'm sure you have references for those claims right?

[rik1138]

Our legal dept certainly does. We were specifically told not to use unlicensed software for products being released for retail sale. The 3 major studios we work with also told us the same. The studios are quite familiar with x264 in particular, several of them have even done testing with it, so it's not like it's just an arbitrary 'don't use any software', I specifically asked about x264, and was told, in no uncertain terms, to absolutely NOT use it.

My understanding is that the video codecs used on Blu-ray (in the specific configuration for blu-ray, not just AVC in general) are _patented_. Not sure what makes you think copyright/patent infringement is okay... But our legal dept says it is not... You have to license the format in order to use it for retail use. (If x264 is now licensed, then maybe it's okay... But I doubt it will be free at that point... There's a reason professional software is so expensive...)

Like I said, if you don't believe me (and I would never expect anyone to take _my_ word for any of this), contact your legal dept. I'm not lawyer, nor do I pretend to be one. That's why we hire them. I'm quite comfortable following the advice of 4 different legal teams. I'm just offering a warning for people.

Contact the Blu-ray consortium, I'm sure they'd be happy to give you all the information you want on the matter. I mean, seriously, this is about the possibility of being sued. Are you really going to just trust someone's claim on a forum one way or the other?

I do believe you (as in, any company that want's to use x264 or some other unlicensed product) can pay the license fee on a per-use basis if you really want to use it. No idea if that's possible or what it costs, but something to look into. And, again, this applies to US sold discs, I have no idea about issues with other countries.

Basically all I'm saying is check with a lawyer with experience in these matters. They'll know exactly what you can and can't do with any unlicensed software... There's various things that can affect it I believe, like duration of the video used (it might be okay for something like a menu loop or a 1-minute trailer), the number of discs being manufactured, and how they are being distributed... Trying to weed through the details of all of this is like trying to read and understand the spec in an afternoon... :cool:

[amtm]

I think what you are confused on is that if you use x264 you have to pay for the MPEG-LA licenses yourself. So, yes, if you used x264 to encode a Blu-Ray that you distribute commercially you would get in trouble if you didn't work out the proper licensing. The reason that you don't have that issue with Blu-Code or Cinevision, etc is that the companies who make those products have already worked out the MPEG-LA licensing already so you don't have to cover it.

[Nevilne]

http://x264licensing.com

[Stereodude]

http://x264licensing.comThat's to license the commercial use of x264. However, it doesn't cover the MPEG LA side of distributing h.264/AVC video streams.

[rik1138]

I think what you are confused on is that if you use x264 you have to pay for the MPEG-LA licenses yourself. So, yes, if you used x264 to encode a Blu-Ray that you distribute commercially you would get in trouble if you didn't work out the proper licensing. The reason that you don't have that issue with Blu-Code or Cinevision, etc is that the companies who make those products have already worked out the MPEG-LA licensing already so you don't have to cover it.

Yeah, I mentioned that at the end... I wasn't sure if that was possible or not... I just know that x264 isn't licensed, so to use it you have to get a license somehow...

[amtm]

You just talk to mpeg-la like all the other commercial companies that use it.

[rik1138]

I'm not aware of any companies that use it for full commercial releases in the US... Can you list some and the titles they've released? That would probably be helpful information...

[Mr_Khyron]

I'm not aware of any companies that use it for full commercial releases in the US... Can you list some and the titles they've released? That would probably be helpful information...

http://www.x264bluray.com/x264-encoded-releases

[rik1138]

http://www.x264bluray.com/x264-encoded-releases

None of those were released in the US. Notice they are all foreign titles by foreign distribution companies.
Kino Świat is in Poland
The second title is a German release
Dynit Srl is in Italy

These titles:
"Keeper'n til Liverpool" (english: The Liverpool Goalie )
"Kommandor Treholt og Ninjatroppen" (english: New Norwegian Hope )
"Koselig med peis" (english: Norwegian Cozy )
Appear to all be released in Norway. I can't find them easily online at all...

Since none of those are released in, or even made in, the US, their requirements for licensing are going to be completely different (if they exist at all).

I'm asking about the US... Are there any full discs encoded with x264 sold _IN THE US_? That would give you a company name of someone that's been through the licensing process if you want to find out what's involved and what the limitations are...

[amtm]

I'm not aware of any companies that use it for full commercial releases in the US... Can you list some and the titles they've released? That would probably be helpful information...

For Blu-Ray releases probably none but I never said any US Blu-Ray titles were using x264. But there are US companies using x264 right now with all the proper MPEG-LA licensing. I'm sure you've heard of Google, Facebook, Hulu and Sorenson Media? Also, Avail Media is a company that does IPTV and VOD using x264. If the lawyers at your company don't know how to work out securing the proper licenses from MPEG-LA for using x264 in commercial works they sound rather incompetent. All you have to do is go to the MPEG-LA's site and click the big button that says "Request A License" then you select "AVC/H.264" from the dialog that pops up. Then you follow the instructions on the page you get redirected to and within 3 business days you receive your hardcopy license. Now if you use x264 for a Blu-Ray you are properly "licensed" to do so. Like I said, one really has to question the competency of a legal department that can't follow such simple steps.

[rik1138]

For Blu-Ray releases probably none but I never said any US Blu-Ray titles were using x264.

You wrote above "like all the other companies that use it" in a sub forum and thread specifically about encoding video for Blu-ray. If "all the other companies" are not using it for Blu-ray, then it doesn't really apply to conversation (unless the process, contracts and payments are exactly the same. I would think licensing for VOD is different than licensing for BD, but maybe not...)

But there are US companies using x264 right now with all the proper MPEG-LA licensing. I'm sure you've heard of Google, Facebook, Hulu and Sorenson Media? Also, Avail Media is a company that does IPTV and VOD using x264.
Again, the conversation is about Blu-ray specifically, to my knowledge none of those companies are releasing a lot of Blu-ray titles.

If the lawyers at your company don't know how to work out securing the proper licenses from MPEG-LA for using x264 in commercial works they sound rather incompetent.

I'm quite certain they know exactly what we would need to do to get a license for us if we wanted to use it. Kind of surprised I have to actually state this, but our legal dept does not work for the members of this forum, so I'm not seeking advice from them for people here, sorry. _We_ aren't licensed to use the software, so we don't use it. We have no desire to seek a license for it since we have other software for the job.

All you have to do is go to the MPEG-LA's site and click the big button that says "Request A License" then you select "AVC/H.264" from the dialog that pops up. Then you follow the instructions on the page you get redirected to and within 3 business days you receive your hardcopy license. Now if you use x264 for a Blu-Ray you are properly "licensed" to do so.

Now, that's probably the most useful information anyone has posted in this thread... But I'm curious, is that all there is to it? Or is there a payment involved? My understanding was that it isn't free to do this... People keep blindly suggesting member download and use x264 on their projects because it's free... But they seem to forget that you have to have to pay Mpeg-LA for the privilege of using it...

Like I said, one really has to question the competency of a legal department that can't follow such simple steps.

I don't understand where this statement even comes from... No one made any comment about a legal dept not _being able_ get a license. All I ever said was that we aren't licensed, not that we can't figure out. We simply don't care. I was trying to help someone else. Unless you are talking about the legal dept of the original poster... You aren't clear about that.

There's a big difference between not having a license, and not being able to figure out how to get one...

[MasterNobody]

Be careful using x264 for discs you intend to sell. The software is not licensed by the Blu-ray consortium for use on discs sold in the US. It's illegal to use it for Blu-rays sold in this country.
There's a big difference between not having a license, and not being able to figure out how to get one...
There's a big difference between "illegal to use" and need of paying MPEG-LA license fee.

[rik1138]

There's a big difference between "illegal to use" and need of paying MPEG-LA license fee.

Not really... Just downloading x264 and using it on a commercial disc in the US is illegal. Whenever someone asks about software to encode video for Blu-ray, software like x264 frequently gets mentioned. But no one seems to be concerned with mentioning that if you just download the software and start using it, you can get sued. If it's just for personal use (which is the main use for a majority of the members on this board I think), then there's no problem. But it's a safe assumption that if the debate is between 1 of 2 or 3 $10,000+ pieces of software that the end user is making commercial titles, and may not be aware of the licensing requirements for using non-licensed software.

And, when I wrote that, I wasn't aware that the end user could license the software, I thought it had to be licensed by the person/company that wrote the software (in fact, I'm still not completely sure about that... Just taking the word of other forum members here). In which case, yes, it would be completely illegal to use it for a commercial disc.

[Stereodude]

Illegal != can get sued. They're not the same. Unless I missed something patent infringement in the US is a civil mater, not a criminal one.

[setarip_old]

@Stereodude

Hi!

The simplest definition of the word "illegal" is "against the law" - whether the law is the Criminal Code or the Civil Code...

[amtm]

And, when I wrote that, I wasn't aware that the end user could license the software, I thought it had to be licensed by the person/company that wrote the software (in fact, I'm still not completely sure about that... Just taking the word of other forum members here). In which case, yes, it would be completely illegal to use it for a commercial disc.

Of course the end user can license it. How exactly do you think the commercial users of x264 do not get sued by MPEG-LA? Do you think Google, Facebook, Hulu, etc are.run by idiots who wouldn't know about such licensing matters? Your posts are sounding more trollish and like blatant FUD as you go on and you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

[rik1138]

Of course the end user can license it. How exactly do you think the commercial users of x264 do not get sued by MPEG-LA? Do you think Google, Facebook, Hulu, etc are.run by idiots who wouldn't know about such licensing matters? Your posts are sounding more trollish and like blatant FUD as you go on and you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

Once again, this about Blu-ray, not VOD. I have no idea who uses x264 for ANY commercial use. If Google, Facebook, Hulu, etc do, then great for them. What makes you think I would have any idea of their business? I know nothing about the workings of VOD or the companies that do it. If the licensing is similar, cool... But I have no idea if it is or not (nor do I really care, as it's not something I'm ever going to do).

You want to talk about being trollish? Who was the one that started insulting people in this thread? I _KNOW_ what I'm talking about as it's _MY_ business. That's why I'm talking about Blu-ray, in a thread talking about making Blu-ray video (not VOD), in a sub forum about making Blu-ray discs. You are going out of your way to mention companies that have nothing with the conversation at hand, other then maybe the use the same software (but for a completely different purpose)... How is that not trollish?

I'm simply advising people not to use unlicensed software for commercial production. How is that trollish? How is that FUD? You have now resorted to insulting me, the original poster, the legal dept of the original poster (or yourself if you meant the legal dept of the company I work for). I have never tried to license the software, or even look into licensing it, so how would I know the process? I just know you can't use the software for commercial use without it being licensed (regardless of who does the licensing).

You provided some great info about the process and how to do it... Then you proceed to suggest I'm an idiot for not know the process or that it can be done... Real nice.

you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

And where does this statement even come from? All I've been saying in this entire thread about x264 is that you can not use it for commercially released Blu-ray discs without it being licensed. Is that, or is that not, true?

No, I do not know _who_ is allowed to license it (writer or eu), but it does need to be licensed. I.e., it's not a free solution to making commercial Blu-ray discs encoded with AVC video.

[amtm]

You want to talk about being trollish? Who was the one that started insulting people in this thread? I _KNOW_ what I'm talking about as it's _MY_ business. That's why I'm talking about Blu-ray, in a thread talking about making Blu-ray video (not VOD), in a sub forum about making Blu-ray discs.

Sorry, you don't know what you're talking because if you did you would know that VOD and Blu-Ray distribution fall under the exact same sublicense category of end-user paid content under the AVC License terms. If you still don't believe me read this ( http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/avc/Documents/AVC_TermsSummary.pdf ).

The AVC Patent Portfolio License is divided into two principal parts (see Diagram): (a) sublicenses granting the right to manufacture and sell AVC encoders and decoders with the right of End Users to use them for personal and consumer (including internal business) purposes without remuneration but not for other uses (left half of the Diagram)2, and (b) sublicenses granting video content or service providers the right to use decoders and encoders for other uses of AVC Video[b] (right half of the Diagram)3.

Someone using x264 for distributing commercial Blu-Rays would get a sublicense under the bolded (b) part.

From the AVC Patent Portfolio License to define what "Title-by-Title" means:

Title-by-Title AVC Video - shall mean Commercial AVC Video which is Sold to an End User in connection with the End User's request for the specific content represented by the Title of AVC Video and for which an End User is obligated to pay any form of remuneration. Title-by-Title AVC Video shall include, but is not limited to, [b]AVC Video contained on physical media, pay per view, video on demand and digital internet, mobile or other downloads or streams requested by the End User and paid for by the End User either on a transaction-by-transaction or any other basis.

And, when I wrote that, I wasn't aware that the end user could license the software, I thought it had to be licensed by the person/company that wrote the software (in fact, I'm still not completely sure about that... Just taking the word of other forum members here).

So have I now shown you enough evidence that the end users in the US can get the proper license to distribute Blu-Rays encoded with the x264 even though the software itself does not come with a license? You get a part (b) sublicense under the subcategory of Title-by-Title end-user paid content and you are perfectly "legal".

[rik1138]

Sorry, you don't know what you're talking because if you did you would know that VOD and Blu-Ray distribution fall under the exact same sublicense category of end-user paid content under the AVC License terms.

See, the problem here is that I never stated I knew the terms of licensing the software.

I only stated that I know the software has to be licensed. PERIOD. That's ALL I've ever said. And, with that comment, I do know what I'm talking about. It _does_ need to be done. I then went on to say that I know nothing of the licensing process as it's something I've never tried to do...

I think the problem here is that you think I care about all of this... I don't. _I'm_ not the one trying to use the software. I'm not trying to license it. I don't really care if Blu-ray and VOD licensing are the same. Your comments sound like you are trying to win an argument that simply doesn't exist. I've never _doubted_ any of this, just stated that _I_ don't know about the details of it (and again, don't care to know, as it has nothing to do with my part of the business...)

Neither me nor the company I work for are trying to do any of this, have never tried to do any of this, and don't care to do it in the future. So, of course I have no idea how the process works... I just know it needs to be done, and that's why I suggested to the OP that he look into the process. In all honesty, you shouldn't even be talking to me or commenting directly on my posts... Just providing the detailed information for others reading the thread would be enough.

But thanks again for providing the info, I'm sure there are some here that will find it valuable. And it's the kind of information that should be referenced by anyone that tries to recommend unlicensed software to people doing commercial work... Many people probably don't even realize this process has to be done.

[amtm]

First off I will apologize for being so harsh on you as looking back it was not really justified and I'm sorry for that. But, if we look back at your original post it was full of misinformation and had no such qualifications about it being okay to use if you obtain the proper licensing:

Be careful using x264 for discs you intend to sell. The software is not licensed by the Blu-ray consortium for use on discs sold in the US. It's illegal to use it for Blu-rays sold in this country. I don't know about other countries, but if you are making discs sold in various regions, might be best to avoid it...


First off, AVC is not licensed from the Blu-Ray consortium so that statement has no bearing on using x264 in the first place. Secondly, even without a MPEG-LA license it is not necessarily "illegal" to distribute Blu-Rays in the US as there are a number of exceptions to having to pay license royalties. For example, you could make a Blu-Ray of Big Buck Bunny and not owe any license royalties since it falls under their "less than 12 minutes and you owe no royalties" exception. Now obviously, this won't be a common case but it needs to be pointed out that there are always exceptions. The ultimate issue was that you made a guns-blazing, black-and-white "it's teh illegal!!" response that didn't contain any qualifications to your statements that didn't put your postings in this thread in a very good light.

I've never _doubted_ any of this, just stated that _I_ don't know about the details of it (and again, don't care to know, as it has nothing to do with my part of the business...)

Then next time if you really don't know then it's probably best not to make authoritative statements like you did which ended up being incorrect. Secondly, did you doubt by your own words:

(in fact, I'm still not completely sure about that... Just taking the word of other forum members here)

"Not completely sure about that" is pretty much a weasel word way of saying you doubt what was said.

But thanks again for providing the info, I'm sure there are some here that will find it valuable. And it's the kind of information that should be referenced by anyone that tries to recommend unlicensed software to people doing commercial work... Many people probably don't even realize this process has to be done.

Then it's a good thing that the x264 licensing (http://x264licensing.com/faq) page says this in their FAQ:

No, it does not. You will need to get a separate patent license from MPEGLA, see: http://www.mpegla.com for more info .


I would assume most commercial customers who are going to use x264 are going to go through x264 licensing company whose page explicitly mentions they need a license from MPEG-LA and I'm sure when contacting them to work out the licensing that they also will mention that you need a license too. I would figure most commercial companies are not going to just ignorantly assume that x264 can be used without paying royalties. If they are, they need better management.

[rik1138]

First off, AVC is not licensed from the Blu-Ray consortium so that statement has no bearing on using x264 in the first place. Secondly, even without a MPEG-LA license it is not necessarily "illegal" to distribute Blu-Rays in the US as there are a number of exceptions to having to pay license royalties.

The Blu-ray consortium does their licensing through MPEG-LA. So either statement is accurate. You can license through either organization, but in the end it's handled by MPEG-LA.

And, in my second post I did state that there are exceptions based on content. My original post was just a blanket statement saying 'be careful about using it', as in- do some research, don't just download it and use it because someone on this forum said so.

A lot of people on this forum doing this kind of work aren't the people that obtain licensing for companies. It's very easy for someone here to download some software, use it on a disc and hand it off to the company for distribution without ever thinking twice about it. Most authors/compressionists don't even _KNOW_ there's licensing involved, as it's not their job. If part of their job is acquiring the software itself, then they should know, but that's not always the case.

The original poster may not even be distributing in the US (or other countries where licensing is required), so none of this may even apply to him.

In the end, it's better to advise him that's it's 'illegal without licensing' and have him look into the legalities of it _himself_ (or his legal dept) than taking any advice from someone on a forum. Even going to MPEG-LA himself. If he's not the legal dept, he shouldn't even be attempting that. MPEG-LAs contracts and information might be written in fairly plain English, but as a rule legal documents are difficult to fully understand on a first read-through. :cool: Best leave that to the paid professionals (lawyers).

Then next time if you really don't know then it's probably best not to make authoritative statements like you did which ended up being incorrect.

I made a statement that would prompt the op to look into the legality of using the software. Most of the time, the statement is true (if you just download the software and use it for a full-length commercial feature to make a profit). Sure, there are limitations to the 'illegal' statement, but since _I_ don't know those details (and you'd be an idiot to take advice on those details from an internet forum), my statement will make him look into it (which I specifically told him to do in my first post: "have your legal dept look into it")

"Not completely sure about that" is pretty much a weasel word way of saying you doubt what was said.

Nothing weaselly about it. I do COMPLETELY doubt what was said. NOTHING posted in this entire thread will convince me that anything said in this thread is accurate as I will never take legal advice from a forum. So, I'm still not completely sure about any of it. In order to be completely sure, I'd have to either read (and fully understand) the documentation on the the MPEG-LA website, or have our legal dept do it. But, as I've said before, I don't really care. If I have to license x264 someday, _I_ won't be doing it, someone else in the company will...

It's much safer to just tell people to contact MPEG-LA and get the information, rather than trying to give out legal advice yourself.

I would assume most commercial customers who are going to use x264 are going to go through x264 licensing

Ahh, you know what they say about assuming things...

Most commercial _companies_ would do this, yes. But most individual authors/compressionists would not. x264 is free, which means, to most people, that I can just download and use it, no questions asked. It's like clicking the 'agree' box on an EULA... How many people do you know that actually read what the EULA says? If a software is free, it's free... That's all they notice. It's just not something they think about, and don't even realize it's required (licensing the use of a codec).

whose page explicitly mentions they need a license from MPEG-LA

I'm a little confused here, looking at x264's main page:
http://x264.nl/
and their Blu-ray specific page:
http://www.x264bluray.com/
I don't find any mention of licensing what-so-ever... Maybe I'm just not seeing it (which would be a problem too, it should be a clearly identifiable link), but I don't see anything where licensing or MPEG-LA is mentioned.

I wasn't aware you had to 'license' x264 to download the software and use it to encode video... I'm not really sure what you mean by that. There doesn't seem to be any info about that on their software download site... An end-user trying to encode video for blu-ray is going to be using those two sites, one for downloading the software, and the other for info on the BD encode, that's all...

[amtm]

The Blu-ray consortium does their licensing through MPEG-LA. So either statement is accurate. You can license through either organization, but in the end it's handled by MPEG-LA.

No, either statement is not accurate because as you said it's handled by the MPEG-LA.


And, in my second post I did state that there are exceptions based on content. My original post was just a blanket statement saying 'be careful about using it', as in- do some research, don't just download it and use it because someone on this forum said so.

No, that's not what your first post was. You explicitly said, with no qualifiers, that using x264 for encoding Blu-Rays was illegal. You made no statement about "be careful about using it". That's an after the fact attempt to justify your black-and-white, misleading statement.


A lot of people on this forum doing this kind of work aren't the people that obtain licensing for companies. It's very easy for someone here to download some software, use it on a disc and hand it off to the company for distribution without ever thinking twice about it. Most authors/compressionists don't even _KNOW_ there's licensing involved, as it's not their job. If part of their job is acquiring the software itself, then they should know, but that's not always the case.

Most professional companies involved in the distribution and replication of DVDs/Blu-Rays/etc do know about MPEG-LA licensing. If they don't, they are most likely incompetently run.


The original poster may not even be distributing in the US (or other countries where licensing is required), so none of this may even apply to him.

Yes, he may not and then, yes, no license is needed.


In the end, it's better to advise him that's it's 'illegal without licensing' and have him look into the legalities of it _himself_ (or his legal dept) than taking any advice from someone on a forum. Even going to MPEG-LA himself. If he's not the legal dept, he shouldn't even be attempting that. MPEG-LAs contracts and information might be written in fairly plain English, but as a rule legal documents are difficult to fully understand on a first read-through. :cool: Best leave that to the paid professionals (lawyers).

Great, but you didn't say "illegal without licensing" you just said "illegal". It wasn't until you were called out that you started to backpedal with weasel word statements.


I made a statement that would prompt the op to look into the legality of using the software. Most of the time, the statement is true (if you just download the software and use it for a full-length commercial feature to make a profit). Sure, there are limitations to the 'illegal' statement, but since _I_ don't know those details (and you'd be an idiot to take advice on those details from an internet forum), my statement will make him look into it (which I specifically told him to do in my first post: "have your legal dept look into it")

Yes, you eventually stated that in a very FUD manner.


Nothing weaselly about it. I do COMPLETELY doubt what was said. NOTHING posted in this entire thread will convince me that anything said in this thread is accurate as I will never take legal advice from a forum. So, I'm still not completely sure about any of it. In order to be completely sure, I'd have to either read (and fully understand) the documentation on the the MPEG-LA website, or have our legal dept do it. But, as I've said before, I don't really care. If I have to license x264 someday, _I_ won't be doing it, someone else in the company will...

So you aren't even convinced by the MPEG-LA's own documents?


It's much safer to just tell people to contact MPEG-LA and get the information, rather than trying to give out legal advice yourself.

Great, but you didn't do that. You backpedalled and tried to claim you said to do that after you got called out.


Ahh, you know what they say about assuming things...

Most commercial _companies_ would do this, yes. But most individual authors/compressionists would not. x264 is free, which means, to most people, that I can just download and use it, no questions asked. It's like clicking the 'agree' box on an EULA... How many people do you know that actually read what the EULA says? If a software is free, it's free... That's all they notice. It's just not something they think about, and don't even realize it's required (licensing the use of a codec).

Then, as I said, those people are incompetent if they don't know about MPEG licensing.


I'm a little confused here, looking at x264's main page:
http://x264.nl/
and their Blu-ray specific page:
http://www.x264bluray.com/
I don't find any mention of licensing what-so-ever... Maybe I'm just not seeing it (which would be a problem too, it should be a clearly identifiable link), but I don't see anything where licensing or MPEG-LA is mentioned.

I posted you the link to the x264licensing.com page which is the home page of x264 LLC. That was the reason the term "x264 licensing" in the statement had a link highlight on it. x264.nl is not an official page.


I wasn't aware you had to 'license' x264 to download the software and use it to encode video... I'm not really sure what you mean by that. There doesn't seem to be any info about that on their software download site... An end-user trying to encode video for blu-ray is going to be using those two sites, one for downloading the software, and the other for info on the BD encode, that's all...

You don't but most of the companies that use it commercially have worked with x264 LLC.

[mp3dom]

I think the x264 licensing site is mainly intended for those companies who want to sell/make profit from AVC encoders based on x264 core, not for a 'final' authoring house. In that case the company should pay MPEG-LA (and x264 too for commercial use)
Take as example FixedStars and its AccelCoder X which is based on x264. They have paid x264 as a license and probably they've already paid MPEG-LA.
I'm not sure that an authoring house that have bought Accelcoder X needs to pay MPEG-LA again.

[rik1138]

No, either statement is not accurate because as you said it's handled by the MPEG-LA.
You can get a license through the Blu-ray consortium without ever having to talk to MPEG-LA. MPEG-LA handles the licensing FOR the consortium. So the company trying to get the license never had to deal directly with them. Or you can go directly to MPEG-LA. Either one will work. How is that not accurate?

No, that's not what your first post was. You explicitly said, with no qualifiers, that using x264 for encoding Blu-Rays was illegal. You made no statement about "be careful about using it". That's an after the fact attempt to justify your black-and-white, misleading statement.
In my very first post about using x264, I state it's illegal to use it, and that if you really want to use it, have your legal dept look into it.
Is it it illegal to just download and use the software commercially in the US? Yes, it is.
At the time I wrote that, I didn't know the end user could license it, and I've admitted that and explained it several times since...

Most professional companies involved in the distribution and replication of DVDs/Blu-Rays/etc do know about MPEG-LA licensing. If they don't, they are most likely incompetently run.
Once again, I agree with you that the COMPANIES would know. You've obviously never worked for a company that makes discs though. An employee of the company could download software and use it WITHOUT TELLING ANYONE under the impression that since it's free, it's safe to use. That's where the problem occurs.

And it has nothing to do with a company being incompetent. It would be nice if you could post one response without calling people or companies incompetent, idiots or weasels... The name calling really makes you look childish, and just trying to get your way...

Great, but you didn't say "illegal without licensing" you just said "illegal". It wasn't until you were called out that you started to backpedal with weasel word statements.
Again, as I've said repeatedly, I didn't know the end user could license it... Why is that so hard for you to understand? I thought the licensing had to be obtained from the software vendor themselves. I've never tried to backpedal or 'weasel' out of anything. I've clearly _admitted_ I didn't know it was possible.

Yes, you eventually stated that in a very FUD manner.
If that's how you see it, great. I want people to think 'Oh crap, I could loose my job or get sued for using this!' It'll make them look into it properly, not by listening to advise from a forum.

So you aren't even convinced by the MPEG-LA's own documents?

Again, LIKE I ALREADY SAID, I've never read MPEG-LAs documents. It's obvious you really aren't reading my posts, just finding key words to try to start an argument with... I've never even been to MPEG-LA's website. It's nothing _I_ care about. _I'm_ not trying to license the software. So, no, I'm not convinced as I don't care to look into it. If you are right, then great, anyone that really wants to verify it will be able to.

Great, but you didn't do that. You backpedalled and tried to claim you said to do that after you got called out.
Again, read my first post. What do you think 'get advise from your legal dept' means?
And AGAIN, I DIDN'T KNOW THE END USER COULD LICENSE IT. I THOUGHT THE SOFTWARE VENDOR HAD TO GET THE LICENSE. :rolleyes:

Then, as I said, those people are incompetent if they don't know about MPEG licensing.
Why would they be considered incompetent for not knowing something that's not part of their job description? Do you honestly every person that's hired to do video compression knows all the details of licensing the software and codecs to do the job? If you do, then you are very much mistaken. Many people are hired into some of these positions with no experience at all. And they don't actually obtain the software, so they have no idea what the process is.

I will agree that you should never download software to use at your job without the permission of your employer, but as you can imagine, that's not reality...

I posted you the link to the x264licensing.com page which is the home page of x264 LLC. That was the reason the term "x264 licensing" in the statement had a link highlight on it. x264.nl is not an official page.

That's licensing for using the source code of x264 in a video encoder... That has nothing to do with end user using the compiled code.
x264.nl is the download site provided by the developer of the software to download Windows binaries (and others). That's the only 'official' (approved, endorsed, whatever you want to call it) web page for downloading the software provided by the developers of the program, and from the links on the Blu-ray encoding page.
There's no mention of licensing the codec from MPEG-LA if you want to use the already compiled binaries for blu-ray work (which is what we've been talking about this whole time...) anywhere on those sites (the sites a compressionist would go to to download the software and use it).

You don't but most of the companies that use it commercially have worked with x264 LLC.

Again, I'm sure _companies_ would, but you still seem to be missing the point that an employee would download this, thinking it's free (and being told to use by people claiming it's free to use) without even consulting the company.

[Ghitulescu]

Illegal != can get sued. They're not the same. Unless I missed something patent infringement in the US is a civil mater, not a criminal one.

The simplest definition of the word "illegal" is "against the law" - whether the law is the Criminal Code or the Civil Code...

If it's not a criminal law involved, then there's no obligation to sue, unless one wants to. Sometimes that one may loose and this sets a dangerous precedent in the case-law (like Betamax).

[Biggiesized]

The only 'drawback' of BluCode is that - for what I know - is not updated frequently.

Any idea what version they're on now?