VP7 Free For Personal Use : 7.0.10.0 - Page 5

stephanV · 11th August 2005, 16:09

Ok... last post about this from me, unless this discussion gets split from the VFW VP7 topic.

Quote:

That's hardware related, imo not really relevant when discussing the accessibility of movies/docs/music/whatever files themselves.

I would say the accessibility of files is very much hardware related certainly if you are discussing time spans of ~20 years. Unless you are willing to transfer your files from storage medium to storage medium every X amount of years (which might be a good idea anyway though, since the reliability of burned CDs and DVDs is probably not that high). But they were just examples of things with which compatibility might be broken somewhere in the future and maybe are indeed not specificaly related to the issue at hand here. I was only stating that when it comes to technology it is not unusual that every now and then compatibility with past devices/software/OSs/standards is broken. I'm not cheering about this or anything, but it's a fact we have to deal with and for me 20 years from now requires too much fortune telling to make any assumptions on what we might be doing then.

Quote:

Open source compilers won't vanish suddenly.

Well no, but they might start supporting other things than C (or whatever language the code is released in). Come to think it, what you want is not source, what you want is a bit stream specification.

Quote:

The main point is that it is possible because it's open source. Whether someone does it is just a detail (an important detail of course).

Sorry thats not the main point. In 20 years the amount of people that are still interested in any codec technology that exists today (maybe codecs with good HW support should be excluded from that, MPEG1 seems to hold out still and is appoaching the 20 year boundary) will be very close to 0. The amount of people that still possess VP7 files will also be very close to 0. So the chance there is a. someone skilled enough and b. has the incentive to make a VP7 decoder is even closer to 0. So while you could compare something like MPEG1 to VHS, it is better to compare VP7 to V2000 (sorry On2

). It just does not have the wide acceptance as MPEG codecs. Now you could make a chicken-egg debate out of that and say On2 has no wide acceptance, because their specification is closed... and quite honestly, I have no good argumentation against that. But all I know is that having an open specification is not a guarantee for anything. You can take the development pace of Theora as example for that.

Basically On2 has already acknowledged that VP7 is not meant for long time archiving by not giving in to the request. They probably don't even intend it to be. But it's not like this doesn't count for a whole bunch of other (related and unrelated) things we use today.

DeathTheSheep · 12th August 2005, 01:48

Cool..........

I love topics about where we'll be in 20 years.... I had it for a French journal question once, and the class went wild with all the stuff they came up with!

Try it with your folks, guys, hehe. You'll see their views are just a bit different from yours (in all likelihood, that is).

C'mon people. This ain't a discussion 'bout what will happen in 20 years. Although it's often nice to contemplate such things, So much may change in 20 years that this whole forum would be useless.

<> Consider this: 20 years ago, VHS tapes were quite a novelty. Now, who still has their VHS videocassettes?

<> 20 years ago, in 1985, how many of you guys even had computers? Exactly how much of the vast world of computers has changed since then? Who still has a floppy-disk slot on their computer?

<> What's to say you'll use even similar technology to that which we use now? Remember the SLOOT compression system which could make movies 1KB in size? What happens if this comes about? DVDs would already be pointless by then.

IgorC · 12th August 2005, 16:13

Some people find sharpness setting not enough flexible. Sharpness 0 is smooth , sharpness 2 is less smooth but artefatcs appear. Other codecs have a psy mode or custom matrix. Maybe it will be more conviently to introduce some settings like psy mode. User will select what psymode to use personally.

SpaceV · 12th August 2005, 17:47

Hey I can remember that someone did reverse engineer the decoder form
the VP6 java viewer. So by decompiling that code,I guess its obfuscated, but nevertheless, it would still be POSSIBLE to use that as source, kinda.
(with tons of deobfuscating work)

What do you guys think?

Or,

On2 agrees to put the source into an escrow account and in the case of the Company going out of business or being taken over, that code gets released into public domain

Hows that?

Sirber · 12th August 2005, 19:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpaceV

On2 agrees to put the source into an escrow account and in the case of the Company going out of business or being taken over, that code gets released into public domain

Hows that?

When your compagny thinks about going out of business, well, it's not good. Usualy, another compagny buy them.

DeathTheSheep · 12th August 2005, 21:12

Exactly. And then what happens after being bought? Maybe that new big company would mess everything up for the codec and toss the code (remember Hardees?). Or maybe they simply wont be able to help much and the code (at least for the decoder) would be released anyway in desperation to attract more people.

But as of right now, as you might recall, On2 is most certainly alive (and reading/posting in this very thread) and speculation of what may be headed our way in 20 years (look 4 posts above), while fun, may not truly accomplish much.

On the other hand, as far as I can see it, if sales in the immediate future looked as if they had the potential to dramatically increase for On2 if the bitstream specs/ decoder code were released, then such code would indeed be released (in all likelihood, that is).

The laws of supply and demand, folks. Learn them!

19th August 2005, 13:54

is there any mailing list to which i can subscribe to to know about latest vp7 codec releases? i am using 7.0.8.0! also, recently, i tried 2-pass best quality encoding on a 2-hr. dvd movie with 1294 kbps bitrate, and 2nd pass showed 31 hrs. remianing in vdub, is this normal?

dimzon · 19th August 2005, 14:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by neo_anderson

i tried 2-pass best quality encoding on a 2-hr. dvd movie with 1294 kbps bitrate, and 2nd pass showed 31 hrs. remianing in vdub, is this normal?

yes, it's normal

Sharktooth · 19th August 2005, 14:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by neo_anderson

is there any mailing list to which i can subscribe to to know about latest vp7 codec releases? i am using 7.0.8.0! also, recently, i tried 2-pass best quality encoding on a 2-hr. dvd movie with 1294 kbps bitrate, and 2nd pass showed 31 hrs. remianing in vdub, is this normal?

best quality is SLOW...
how to get faster (twice or more) speed with almost the same quality?

!!!

DeathTheSheep · 20th August 2005, 00:47

Or you could simply encode with "Good Quality Fast Encoding," and use speed 2 or 3. It's still pretty darn good (by any standards, much less my own sight). Good luck.

23rd August 2005, 21:28

personally, i think vp7 is a better video compression solution than avc right now, as avc is still being developed and some annoying stuffs such as blocking still make it a little less awesome!

Sirber · 23rd August 2005, 21:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by neo_anderson

personally, i think vp7 is a better video compression solution than avc right now, as avc is still being developed and some annoying stuffs such as blocking still make it a little less awesome!

In my tests VP7 had more blocking than AVC.

DeathTheSheep · 23rd August 2005, 22:26

The new version of VP7 (7.0.8) has a much better deblocker; perhaps your tests are from a slightly older version.

Sirber · 24th August 2005, 16:06

pre 7.0.8.

Sirber · 25th August 2005, 03:12

I made a test. Q is is better but it oversized by 33% compared to AVC.

Sharktooth · 25th August 2005, 13:46

uh? weird... with 7.0.8 i had LESS oversizing problems.

DeathTheSheep · 25th August 2005, 23:46

Woah. Solution: narrow the quality range (only let the codec step between 10 or so quantizers).

Well, maybe not solution but still a viable option for tighter control.

Still, yeah, I haven't had ANY over-/undersizing problems. Hm... maybe I'm just lucky.

Sirber · 26th August 2005, 00:42

Well, my clip is the intro of one piece... not very long

It should be ok over a full file.

SpaceV · 27th August 2005, 18:50

who of you guys think we will see VP8, 9 etc and MPEG5 etc...

I personaaly think, we might very well be at the end, unless there is somethink completely different based on different technology but the
increase in bandwidth and storage will make a better video compression
basically useless. Once you get a 100mbit or 1gb connection at home and
the basic Dell PC comes with 1-2 TB of storage, who will need to fit a Movie onto less than 1GB?

Manao · 27th August 2005, 19:00

SpaceV : you're forgetting the move made toward high resolution / framerate / quality : tomorrow, HD DVD / bluray will be encoded at one / twice the framerate, and two / four time the resolution of the current DVD. Ripping that movie without too much losses ( to a DVD for example ), will need a powerful codec, and actual VP7 / h264 might not be up to that task.

Also, I've noticed that a hard drive is never big enough, so any bits that can be spared are welcome

Anyway, I'll stop there the OT

12th August 2005, 01:48	#82 \| Link
DeathTheSheep <The VFW Sheep of Death> Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Deathly pasture of VFW Posts: 1,149	Cool.......... I love topics about where we'll be in 20 years.... I had it for a French journal question once, and the class went wild with all the stuff they came up with! Try it with your folks, guys, hehe. You'll see their views are just a bit different from yours (in all likelihood, that is). C'mon people. This ain't a discussion 'bout what will happen in 20 years. Although it's often nice to contemplate such things, So much may change in 20 years that this whole forum would be useless. <> Consider this: 20 years ago, VHS tapes were quite a novelty. Now, who still has their VHS videocassettes? <> 20 years ago, in 1985, how many of you guys even had computers? Exactly how much of the vast world of computers has changed since then? Who still has a floppy-disk slot on their computer? <> What's to say you'll use even similar technology to that which we use now? Remember the SLOOT compression system which could make movies 1KB in size? What happens if this comes about? DVDs would already be pointless by then. __________________ Recommended all-in-one stop for x264/GCC needs on Windows: Komisar x264 builds! Last edited by DeathTheSheep; 12th August 2005 at 21:03.

12th August 2005, 17:47	#84 \| Link
SpaceV Registered User Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 61	VP6 Java applet Hey I can remember that someone did reverse engineer the decoder form the VP6 java viewer. So by decompiling that code,I guess its obfuscated, but nevertheless, it would still be POSSIBLE to use that as source, kinda. (with tons of deobfuscating work) What do you guys think? Or, On2 agrees to put the source into an escrow account and in the case of the Company going out of business or being taken over, that code gets released into public domain Hows that?

12th August 2005, 21:12	#86 \| Link
DeathTheSheep <The VFW Sheep of Death> Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Deathly pasture of VFW Posts: 1,149	Exactly. And then what happens after being bought? Maybe that new big company would mess everything up for the codec and toss the code (remember Hardees?). Or maybe they simply wont be able to help much and the code (at least for the decoder) would be released anyway in desperation to attract more people. But as of right now, as you might recall, On2 is most certainly alive (and reading/posting in this very thread) and speculation of what may be headed our way in 20 years (look 4 posts above), while fun, may not truly accomplish much. On the other hand, as far as I can see it, if sales in the immediate future looked as if they had the potential to dramatically increase for On2 if the bitstream specs/ decoder code were released, then such code would indeed be released (in all likelihood, that is). The laws of supply and demand, folks. Learn them! __________________ Recommended all-in-one stop for x264/GCC needs on Windows: Komisar x264 builds!

20th August 2005, 00:47	#90 \| Link
DeathTheSheep <The VFW Sheep of Death> Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Deathly pasture of VFW Posts: 1,149	Or you could simply encode with "Good Quality Fast Encoding," and use speed 2 or 3. It's still pretty darn good (by any standards, much less my own sight). Good luck. __________________ Recommended all-in-one stop for x264/GCC needs on Windows: Komisar x264 builds!

23rd August 2005, 22:26	#93 \| Link
DeathTheSheep <The VFW Sheep of Death> Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Deathly pasture of VFW Posts: 1,149	The new version of VP7 (7.0.8) has a much better deblocker; perhaps your tests are from a slightly older version. __________________ Recommended all-in-one stop for x264/GCC needs on Windows: Komisar x264 builds!

12th August 2005, 16:13	#83 \| Link
IgorC Registered User Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,315	Some people find sharpness setting not enough flexible. Sharpness 0 is smooth , sharpness 2 is less smooth but artefatcs appear. Other codecs have a psy mode or custom matrix. Maybe it will be more conviently to introduce some settings like psy mode. User will select what psymode to use personally.

19th August 2005, 13:54	#87 \| Link
neo_anderson Guest Posts: n/a	is there any mailing list to which i can subscribe to to know about latest vp7 codec releases? i am using 7.0.8.0! also, recently, i tried 2-pass best quality encoding on a 2-hr. dvd movie with 1294 kbps bitrate, and 2nd pass showed 31 hrs. remianing in vdub, is this normal?

23rd August 2005, 21:28	#91 \| Link
neo_anderson Guest Posts: n/a	personally, i think vp7 is a better video compression solution than avc right now, as avc is still being developed and some annoying stuffs such as blocking still make it a little less awesome!

24th August 2005, 16:06	#94 \| Link
Sirber retired developer Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Canada Posts: 8,978	pre 7.0.8. __________________ Detritus Software

25th August 2005, 03:12	#95 \| Link
Sirber retired developer Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Canada Posts: 8,978	I made a test. Q is is better but it oversized by 33% compared to AVC. __________________ Detritus Software

25th August 2005, 13:46	#96 \| Link
Sharktooth Mr. Sandman Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Haddonfield, IL Posts: 11,768	uh? weird... with 7.0.8 i had LESS oversizing problems. __________________ MPEG-4 ASP Custom Matrices: EQM V1(old), EQM AutoGK Sharpmatrix (aka EQM V2), EQM V3HR (updated 01/10/2004), EQM V3LR, EQM V3ULR (updated 04/02/2005), EQM V3UHR (updated 17/12/2004) and EQM V3EHR (updated 05/10/2004) Info about my ASP matrices. MPEG-4 AVC Custom Matrices: EQM AVC-HR Info about my AVC matrices My x264 builds. Mooo!!!

25th August 2005, 23:46	#97 \| Link
DeathTheSheep <The VFW Sheep of Death> Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Deathly pasture of VFW Posts: 1,149	Woah. Solution: narrow the quality range (only let the codec step between 10 or so quantizers). Well, maybe not solution but still a viable option for tighter control. Still, yeah, I haven't had ANY over-/undersizing problems. Hm... maybe I'm just lucky. __________________ Recommended all-in-one stop for x264/GCC needs on Windows: Komisar x264 builds!

26th August 2005, 00:42	#98 \| Link
Sirber retired developer Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Canada Posts: 8,978	Well, my clip is the intro of one piece... not very long It should be ok over a full file. __________________ Detritus Software

27th August 2005, 18:50	#99 \| Link
SpaceV Registered User Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 61	to start another lil discussion.... who of you guys think we will see VP8, 9 etc and MPEG5 etc... I personaaly think, we might very well be at the end, unless there is somethink completely different based on different technology but the increase in bandwidth and storage will make a better video compression basically useless. Once you get a 100mbit or 1gb connection at home and the basic Dell PC comes with 1-2 TB of storage, who will need to fit a Movie onto less than 1GB?

27th August 2005, 19:00	#100 \| Link
Manao Registered User Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: France Posts: 2,856	SpaceV : you're forgetting the move made toward high resolution / framerate / quality : tomorrow, HD DVD / bluray will be encoded at one / twice the framerate, and two / four time the resolution of the current DVD. Ripping that movie without too much losses ( to a DVD for example ), will need a powerful codec, and actual VP7 / h264 might not be up to that task. Also, I've noticed that a hard drive is never big enough, so any bits that can be spared are welcome Anyway, I'll stop there the OT