On2's VP6 [Archive] - Doom9's Forum

phrentec

24th April 2003, 06:35

I believe Doom9 was able to get a copy of vp4, with a dongle of course since they wouldn't let me have one without signing, and we have seen it in the MPEG-4 Codec shoot-out 2002 2nd installment with videoframeshot comparisons of scenes from saving private ryan. maybe you can ask Doom9 if he can get vp6 or vp5 from on2 as well for the first 2003 codec shootout.

regards.

Doom9

24th April 2003, 08:35

I've tried to get vp5 for testing for two codec comparisons now.. they didn't even bother to reply.

phrentec

24th April 2003, 10:08

How about try getting a group of Doom9 team members to email them for a test copy of the codec with a limited license for the comparison, all you need is to get them to send you the application and then send it and if you get several team members to request it, it will definitely cross their eyes then. also you might try showing them the number of vistors this site gets per day or tell them that you'll put a good word in for them in the comparison.;)

Sirber

24th April 2003, 13:11

on2 is mad because Doom9 got VP4...

Doom9

24th April 2003, 18:36

sirber is correct there.. upper management didn't like the codec getting out.. I was kinda lucky to get it. I've had a contact on the development team but he couldn't give me the codec without permission from above either... so I'm stuck.

Tommy Carrot

25th April 2003, 01:10

But why did they made the codecs, if they don't let the ppl to use it. I mean, ON2 codecs are mainly ignored, if the video-compression is the topic (except VP3, but that is very far from being competitive). They work against themselves with these strict regulations.

A codec have to be WAY better, if they want charge the users for it. But i hasn't see any proof for that, because they don't permit any comparison.

/I know their main target is set-top boxes, but i don't see bright future for them with this attitude/

Sirber

25th April 2003, 02:30

I know that's crazy. I never heard of on2 before when VP3 went opensource.

ECY

25th April 2003, 14:34

probably because they were formally known as The Duck Corporation
those guys also made the Truemotion codec before the changed name

Sirber

26th April 2003, 21:37

I just watched a 500kbps video clip encoded with VP5, it's almost DVD quality!!! The sound wasn't good...

[edit]

It's at 1000kbps. So it's bad. Every codecs are good at 1000kbps :(

Neo Neko

28th April 2003, 11:58

Throw some toons at it. VP3 will shine. It can do quite well. Just not as well as MPEG4 can do for it's intended material. But I still keep VP3 handy.

C0mPr355

28th April 2003, 23:01

hola Doom9

on2 forum lurker here...

to answer many of the questions regarding why we haven't open sourced the crap outta VP5 or VP6...well thats pretty simple...we have to have money before we can do these types of things. We are not a billion dollar corporation or a bunch of guys just getting together on our free time to make a codec. So in that respect we have to get the bigger fish first and become profitable before we can even think about giving everything away for free. You guys forget that we are COMPETING with the likes of Real, Microsoft, Divx, etc.... who have had an established base in their fields for a VERY VERY long time. To go against something like that is not an easy feat to say the least. So just be patient and know that some kewl things are coming.

As far as getting a hands on test of the VP5 codec I have no idea on that atm Doom. You will have to wait a bit. It would be nice, but then again things aren't up to me.

Sirber

28th April 2003, 23:53

If you want to compete against Real, Microsoft, Divx, etc., you have to let people try things. We can use real's codecs and Microsoft's codecs for free, at home, that's why they are popular. How can we deciede to buy a product if we can't test it before? At home I use Real's codecs. If I had a compagny, and I needed a streaming technology, what do you think I'll use?

BTW, I'm not flaming :)

Doom9

29th April 2003, 00:54

@C0mPr355: well.. if you can give people a nudge I think it would be good for on2 as well... after all it's free publicity and a lot more people than usually visit my site come to read the codec comparisons. And your primary competitors are all participating (most are even helping me with encoding tips and settings).

Sirber

29th April 2003, 03:04

@Doom9

What codecs will be included in your next comparison?

Will it be:

DivX 5.0.5, XviD-dev, SBC, RV9, WMV9, VP3, VSS H264 ?

Maybe I'm dreaming... :confused:

29th April 2003, 23:11

Also include Kludge :D :D :D :D :p.

Sirber

30th April 2003, 00:39

Are you talking about that?

http://www.techwood.org/kludge/

I hope not :scared:

iwod

30th April 2003, 11:52

Originally posted by Sirber
If you want to compete against Real, Microsoft, Divx, etc., you have to let people try things. We can use real's codecs and Microsoft's codecs for free, at home, that's why they are popular. How can we deciede to buy a product if we can't test it before? At home I use Real's codecs. If I had a compagny, and I needed a streaming technology, what do you think I'll use?

BTW, I'm not flaming :)

you took words out of my month.....

Sirber

30th April 2003, 14:29

It's the same thing for Sorenson...

C0mPr355

30th April 2003, 21:48

sirber:

I couldn't agree with you more. I should have specified that I am merely a compression engineer and not a higher up. So in a sense I am the low man on the totem pole :|

But either way I will talk to everyone about this as the race for best codec is getting harder and harder to differentiate.

More in a bit...

30th April 2003, 22:32

Kludge is a new video codec based on XviD, with 3 goals:
1) Be buggy
2) Be incompatible with EVERYTHING (including older and newer versions)
3) Be better than DivX 6 once it comes out

I think we currently have something like 1.2dB gain over XviD.
Planned features:
random borrowing of h.264 features
wavelet keyframes

:D

slavickas

30th April 2003, 23:15

Originally posted by mf
Kludge is a new video codec based on XviD, with 3 goals:
1) Be buggy
2) Be incompatible with EVERYTHING (including older and newer versions)
3) Be better than DivX 6 once it comes out

I think we currently have something like 1.2dB gain over XviD.
Planned features:
random borrowing of h.264 features
wavelet keyframes

:D

really!!! well i suggest replace entropy coder, imho the best thing in h.264 is cabac

p.s. where can i get it?

Sirber

30th April 2003, 23:36

Looks crappy...

H264 will beat everything anyway... RV9 still have a chance ;)

1st May 2003, 12:08

Originally posted by slavickas
p.s. where can i get it?
New versions are released on #xvid. Our latest version is v0.0003alpha, which has a qpel decoding bug :D.

Edit: it was 003 not 004 ;).

Sirber

1st May 2003, 15:11

@mf

Are you the creator of that codec?

1st May 2003, 15:24

Originally posted by Sirber
Are you the creator of that codec?
My idea, sysKin's creation :).

Sirber

1st May 2003, 15:35

I don't understand why...

XviD isn't good enough? Can't wait for H264? :confused:

1st May 2003, 15:37

Originally posted by Sirber
I don't understand why...

XviD isn't good enough? Can't wait for H264? :confused:
MPEG4 is too restrictive, and we need something to compete with DivX6 :p.

Sirber

1st May 2003, 15:52

What is DivX 6? Never heard of.

And what about H264?

[edit]

DivX 6.0: First details

Hanover (mg) - Jordan Greenhall, joint founder and CEO von DivXNetworks betrayed 6,0 on the CeBIT first background information to DivX. The next version of the popular video codec should be available at the earliest in the year 2004. The efficiency of the coding of videos is to double itself at least compared with DivX 5,0.

Not compatibly to H.264
Momentarily DivX 6,0 is planned as proprietaerer standard, which does not lean against the MPEG4-Nachfolger H.264. DivXNetworks does not see Baseline"coding a large qualitative jump for H.264 compared with MPEG4 in things".

According to data of Jordan Greenhall is the most important reason, which speaks against H.264, the expensive conversion of the software codec to a hardware chip set. Only if these serious lack are solved, DivX the H.264-Standard could approximate.

DivXLabs: Free developer platform
For the further development of DivX DivXNetworks plans the establishment of DivXLabs. Similarly the project open DivX DivXLabs under control of DivXNetworks is to bundle free groups of developers and develop DivX further.

DivX devices
Within the range of the hardware Player DivXNetworks sees its largest wachstumschancen, particularly in Europe, where DivX is most popular. DivXNetworks locked therefore with chip sentence manufacturers such as Philips, Texas Instruments and Sigma Design contracts for the production from signal processors to DivX 5.

Beside the DivX DVD equipment of the Danish manufacturer KiSS with it already soon further models are to be equipped also of other manufacturer. DivX-6-Geraete are to be sold starting from 2005.

Doom9

2nd May 2003, 00:43

the list of codecs has been finalized some time ago...

Sirber

2nd May 2003, 01:07

And? Where can I see the list?

Doom9

2nd May 2003, 07:25

bleh.. how many times do I have to tell it.. ongoing comparisons are not being discussed. You'll see it when the comparison is online.

2nd May 2003, 14:43

Originally posted by Doom9
the list of codecs has been finalized some time ago...
Alas, Kludge will have to wait till next time :p.

Sirber

7th May 2003, 18:36

@mf

Any binary?

@C0mPr355

Any news?

8th May 2003, 13:22

Originally posted by Sirber
@mf
Any binary?
http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=79527

Lobuz

12th May 2003, 18:33

On2 have released VP6 codec. But like with previous versions there are only sample clips and comparison to WM9, DivX5 ,QuickTimeMPEG4. And PSNR values seems to be a little higher.

Regards
Lobuz

ciper

12th May 2003, 19:27

...and might be a repetition of what has been said already.. but the plain truth is that if it's not known among the comunity... will never be used .. look at mp3 .. hardware was made because of it's big acceptance and the codec was freely distributed.. Mpeg4 and company (xvid and divx) .. also big acceptance, hardware is starting to show up .. now .. VP6 .. "IT'S A WONDERFULL CODEC .. IT WILL COMPRESS 50 TIMES MORE THAN MPEG4, IT WILL CURE CANCER .. " ok sure .. can i try it myself? Will it be so worthy that i will feel like reencoding my whole movie collection to it?

Sorry .. but only the word of it's developers (comercial department) is not enough and everyone knows it .. because it tends to be parcial! Why not release a version with a dongle ? or a watermark?

greets to all

C0mPr355

12th May 2003, 21:07

"if it's not known among the community then it will never be used"

-i would have to disagree with you there. Just because it is not known well in the open source community, does not mean that it is not accepted by the rest of the world.

vinouz

12th May 2003, 23:26

And what do you feel about the first VP6 samples they give ?
(still downloading : 56k modem)
..

Tommy Carrot

13th May 2003, 01:39

IMO, vp6 is practically useless, just like any ON2 codec. If the people cannot try it, the codec is not exists.

The community is not 'open source community', just people, who want to compress their materials, and they don't even thinking about vpX, if they search solutions, because they don't even know about them.

BTW, even VP4 is better than mpeg4 (at least in the hyping states of ON2), so VP6 is indeed 4 times better than xvid/divx! You don't need to try it to believe this, ON2 told this! BUY NOW! :D :D :D

Sirber

13th May 2003, 01:41

Sold ;)

Doom9 tryed one time VP4, but I don't remember the quality...

Tommy Carrot

13th May 2003, 01:56

iirc, he find it inferior to divx. But i don't care, ON2 told it's better! :D

Sirber

13th May 2003, 02:01

What is iirc?

They all say they are better than others. It's up to you to test and choose.

Tommy Carrot

13th May 2003, 02:06

iirc = If I Remember Correctly

Anyway, we cannot try vp4/vp5/vp6. So we can believe, or we can laugh at the absurd statements. You can choose. ;)

outlyer

13th May 2003, 02:31

Originally posted by C0mPr355
-i would have to disagree with you there. Just because it is not known well in the open source community, does not mean that it is not accepted by the rest of the world.
In the first place, people reading this forum can be considered a community, they're in fact. There's a video enconding community and a DVD Backup community (amongst other "sub-communities").

I'm quite certain that you've misunderstood some of the points here. (almost) no one is asking you to go opensource, as you seem to believe, you don't need to do it to become popular.

A video codec doesn't have to be opensource to get adepts, look at WMV9 or DivX. Some people, like myself, would prefer open source solutions but, I certainly will use the codec which I find to look better. (BTW going free would be nice, but i won't ask either for this as making business around free software is really hard)

But... as said all over this thread, how can I decide how good is VP6? movies from an official source aren't a good reference, as companies will, most certainly, select the samples which look better (you know, there's not a good all-around codec, so they'll perform better with some movies than others).

A codec without a test version will have a hard time convicing users.

But it gets even worst. ON2 hurts itself not allowing Doom9 to use its codecs on the comparisons. Come on, they got mad beacause the VP4 affair? OK, but this site is one of _the sites_ (or plainly THE site). Avoiding Doom9's tests, IMHO, turns the Doom9's Community against them (and note that I'm talking in third person, about ON2, not about you ;))

Just my 2 cents.

Gaia

13th May 2003, 10:29

Just one little thing, most people here seems to think that all codecs are made for encoding captures or DVD's. It depends were do you live but in some countries encoding is already illegal and new laws are coming in Europe especially. So you think companies are making their codecs just to support piracy? Hah.

It just seems that companies like On2 couldn't care less about movie encoders. They want to make profit like every company. I bet if you're working for some company and you are intrested of On2's products you will get versions for testing etc. Doom 9 is about DVD backup, you are not going to get many new customers if your codecs are tested here. Do you think serious companies visit Doom 9 if they are looking solution for their needs? I don't think so.

I really can't understand what this all bashing is about.

Just remember that there are so many other uses for video codecs than just encoding movies. Just be happy that there are free and open source alternatives and use whatever codec you like.

vinouz

13th May 2003, 10:48

Still it didn't answer the question.
Did someone TRY the examples ?
HOW did it look like to their point of view.

Enough babbling about opensource etc...
There are zillions of threads about that.
ON2's VP6 isn't open source.
They didn't give any VfW codec.
But they give a player and some examples.
And I think the X-Men2 trailer is something quite available if anyone wants to compare.
That's maybe an unfair comparison as they may have chosen the most obvious trailer just because it's the most compressable for their codec. And I still doubt it was the case. (although they probably tweaked the encode ... ?). But we still can compare.

So what. Is it so hard to answer ?
(for my own case, I simply can't, as I seem to have directshow problems, and the player won't allow me to play the contents (and mpc gives me 32*?? resolutions for everything I feed into it.... strange but off topic))

Sirber

13th May 2003, 14:04

Originally posted by Gaia
Just one little thing, most people here seems to think that all codecs are made for encoding captures or DVD's. It depends were do you live but in some countries encoding is already illegal and new laws are coming in Europe especially. So you think companies are making they codecs just to support piracy. Hah.

It just seems that companies like On2 couldn't care less about movie encoders. They want to make profit like every company. I bet if you're working for some company and are instrested of On2's products you will get versions for testing etc. Doom 9 is about DVD backup, you are not going to get many new customers if your codecs are tested here. Do think serious companies visit Doom 9 if they are looking solution for their needs? I don't think so.

I really can't understand what this all bashing is about.

Just remember that there are so many other uses for video codecs than just encoding movies. Just be happy that there are free and open source alternatives and use what ever codec you like.

Real is a streaming compagny too, and it's here too on Doom9. If I had to choose for a streaming solution, I think I would choose Real because I tested their products and I like it, for my low bitrates and high one. On2 will never cross my mind, because I don't have a (f... word) idea what it's like.

This is my 5 cents :)

Your opinion is valid too, but IMHO, I think in general people check the quality not the "Do they do illegal thing with it?" :)

outlyer

13th May 2003, 16:45

Originally posted by Gaia
most people here seems to think that all codecs are made for encoding captures or DVD's
Well, this site is about DVD backups, what would you expect? :D

shlezman

13th May 2003, 17:02

placing a sample video stream is a little white lie that covers a big one.
In my experience in the industry I've seen it several times (and done it as well), when you have something to hide ... Show something else. When you have a real pearl, you release a demo-version with time/frames/whatever limitation you want.
No one will take the "Duck Corporation" seriously. There are several companies (that I dont wish to mention) that brag around with amazing specs, and no prove. The only reason ON2 is discussed here is the VP3 release, otherwise no one would even know they exist.

Gaia

13th May 2003, 17:43

Originally posted by shlezman
placing a sample video stream is a little white lie that covers a big one.
In my experience in the industry I've seen it several times (and done it as well), when you have something to hide ... Show something else. When you have a real pearl, you release a demo-version with time/frames/whatever limitation you want.
No one will take the "Duck Corporation" seriously. There are several companies (that I dont wish to mention) that brag around with amazing specs, and no prove. The only reason ON2 is discussed here is the VP3 release, otherwise no one would even know they exist.

I agree with you, but you know software can be cracked and i was really not talking about On2 here. It was more general opinion about video codecs and i think that in future you will see somekind of 3rd party tests in PC mags or more "professional" sites.

Doom9

13th May 2003, 18:36

well.. I would personally only use codecs that I have properly tested and I have met too many codecs in my career to know never to trust marketing babble nor samples. But hey, it's their property so they can do whatever they want. Of course, the devil's advocate in me thinks that if you have nothing to hide you will not object to your product being tested and thus given free publicity... after all.. the worst publicity is no publicity at all. But I rest my case. Come the next comparison I will send the same latter asking for a review copy of their codec again and that will be the end of it from my side.

vinouz

13th May 2003, 19:28

After trying these samples (how I hate their proprietary player. That they don't release the codec, OK, but why not give a dshow filter....), I'm not that impressed.
BTW, I'm amused by the mention _speex_ in the name of the low bitrate samples....
A company so restrictively closing it's baby, again relying on an open source arm....

Anyways, no one answered here about the quality. I didn't compare. Simply I'm not flabbergasted by the quality of the so said 800+ kbit/s encodes of football play...

IMHO