Nero Digital Pro NOT for Pros? [Archive]

View Full Version : Nero Digital Pro NOT for Pros?

Roco

6th January 2006, 21:00

"MPEG-4: Use of this product in any manner that complies with the MPEG-4 Visual Standard is prohibited, except for use by a consumer engaging in personal and non-commercial activities"

This is from the license agreement that you have to accept just before the installation of Nero Digital Pro. Unfortunately I saw this after I puchased this version. I sent them an email 3 days ago without response (except the automatic vefification).

Does anybody know more about this?
I want to know if there is a fee that will allow the commercial use of Nero Digital Pro e.g to compress an input video to mpeg4 and publish it.

Revgen

6th January 2006, 21:21

Roco

6th January 2006, 23:27

AFAIK and I could be wrong, but I believe NERO Digital Pro signifies that the codec utilizes proffesional features. Nero Digital, after all, is a low-priced version of a $9,000 Ateme codec.

However if you want to produce and distrubute proffesional content, you cannot use it for that. You would have to contact Ateme for a "real" pro version to use.

I hope you're wrong. As for Ateme, $9000 is a lot of money for an implementation of an existing format and a few modifications. They would deserve the money if they were the inventors of mpeg-4 or h264. With $9000 I could finance myself to make my own "better" implementation! :D

By the way, is there a demo version of Ateme's codec? Or you test drive Nero Digital and then buy Ateme's?

obieobieobie

7th January 2006, 00:21

$9000 for a codec? Surely it must be for some kind of encoding suite or something..

ChronoCross

7th January 2006, 00:50

$9000 for a codec? Surely it must be for some kind of encoding suite or something..

You right about that. It is a suite of professional tools as well as the appropriate licensing.

try this for a small view on what it might contain.

http://www.ateme.com/products/pcencoder.php

Revgen

7th January 2006, 04:02

I hope you're wrong. As for Ateme, $9000 is a lot of money for an implementation of an existing format and a few modifications. They would deserve the money if they were the inventors of mpeg-4 or h264. With $9000 I could finance myself to make my own "better" implementation! :D

By the way, is there a demo version of Ateme's codec? Or you test drive Nero Digital and then buy Ateme's?

You can also use X264 if you want to. It doesn't support some of the features that Ateme has like Interlacing, Alternative Colorspaces, and other high-end features. It also doesn't come with the technical support that a company like Ateme can provide. But, it does support most of what you need to distrubute content professionally. And it's quality is about on par with Ateme. However, if you do need any help, the Doom9 community is always here.:)

foxyshadis

7th January 2006, 07:57

If you sell content encoded with x264 or a decoder for it you would still need a license from the MPEG-LA (which is part of the cost of ateme's suite).

7th January 2006, 09:55

If you sell content encoded with x264 or a decoder for it you would still need a license from the MPEG-LA (which is part of the cost of ateme's suite).
Are you sure about that and where did you get that information from? I thought you'll need to pay royalties for commercial distribution of encoded video according to the participation fees (http://www.mpegla.com/news/n_03-11-17_avc.html) no matter what encoder you use. That is separate from the encoder/decoder royalties, which the codec manufacturers need to pay. (What about x264 encoder royalty, by the way, does the user need to pay something for it?) There is a note about the codec manufacturer paying royalties on behalf of other licensees, but I doubt it applies if the licensee is encoding video for a million subscribers (license fee would be $100,000).

foxyshadis

7th January 2006, 10:20

I don't know all of the legalities, but MPEG-LA has usually overlooked free encoders and decoders (blade, lame, winamp, xvid, now x264) as not worth their time and a good marketing tool. They're certainly aware of them.

And no, I'm not sure. I thought I'd read it in one of the Ateme threads but I can't find it, so I may have been delerious. =p If so, I'm sure it would be a restricted # of licenses.

Roco

7th January 2006, 13:09

You can also use X264 if you want to. It doesn't support some of the features that Ateme has like Interlacing, Alternative Colorspaces, and other high-end features. It also doesn't come with the technical support that a company like Ateme can provide. But, it does support most of what you need to distrubute content professionally. And it's quality is about on par with Ateme. However, if you do need any help, the Doom9 community is always here.:)

Thank you very much!
I have not decided yet the format etc but the ideal would be:
1. Decoder:
a. open source, free of license, patents etc (not fee per copy)
b. version for Windows, Mac, Linux
c. Windows/linux version: MMX/SSE optimized or full source so I can try to accomplish this myself.
d. Mac version: full source so I can try to optimize it even if I know nothing at this time about powerpc...
e. A video-only decoder would be a plus (because I dont need sound and it will make the optimization easier)

2. Encoder:
Free or commercial if sensibly priced (e.g $9000 without the last zero):D

3. The sound track will be independent from video. Possibly vorbis multichannel.

4. Encoder & Decoder must be capable of HD resolutions and higher.

Currently I have seen the higher playback speed with mpeg-4 and video-lan. But I dont know if their decoder meets the above a b d e requirements.

Theora has passed my quality testings very well even if they have'nt implemented the specifications yet, but it needs at least a 4x speed optimization. If I had a video only version of this codec and full source it would be great!

hmm.. I think I'm out of subject...:rolleyes:

bond

7th January 2006, 13:15

patent free is only theora, dirac and mpeg-1 iirc

7th January 2006, 13:29

I have not decided yet the format etc but the ideal would be:
1. Decoder:
a. open source, free of license, patents etc (not fee per copy)

For MPEG-4, VLC and other open source players downloadable in binary form might qualify here, although they are definitely not patent-free and they may not be as openly available in the near future. Also redistributing VLC may be questionable depending on the laws of your country.

e. A video-only decoder would be a plus (because I dont need sound and it will make the optimization easier)
All general purpose players decode only video if there are no audio tracks in the container. The audio and video decoder source code itself is always separated, if you want to go to that level.

4. Encoder & Decoder must be capable of HD resolutions and higher.

Most are, but some (like H.264) require a lot of processing power. Especially to encode with high quality.

Currently I have seen the higher playback speed with mpeg-4 and video-lan. But I dont know if their decoder meets the above a b d e requirements.

At least it meets the b, c, d and e requirements.

Theora has passed my quality testings very well even if they have'nt implemented the specifications yet, but it needs at least a 4x speed optimization. If I had a video only version of this codec and full source it would be great!
What do you mean by Theora requiring a 4x speed optimization? Encoding or decoding? What encoder have you used (AFAIK there is also an MMX-optimized one available)? And of course you have the video-only version and full source code available. That's (almost) the whole point of Theora ;)

EDIT: Yes, the MMX-optimized version of Theora decoder and encoder is announced here: http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/theora/2005-August/000953.html

Roco

7th January 2006, 17:27

patent free is only theora, dirac and mpeg-1 iirc

I read somewhere that Dirac is'nt on par with Theora and I cant find binaries for a quick test. Mpeg-1 unfortunately can't compare with Theora, mpeg4, etc in large compression ratios.

For MPEG-4, VLC and other open source players downloadable in binary form might qualify here, although they are definitely not patent-free and they may not be as openly available in the near future. Also redistributing VLC may be questionable depending on the laws of your country.

I know and I don't want to mess with patent rights and other obscure situations...

All general purpose players decode only video if there are no audio tracks in the container. The audio and video decoder source code itself is always separated, if you want to go to that level.

I dont have previous experience with codecs, directshow etc (my background is mostly from electronic design) but I write code in c and assembly so I will try and see.. how deep it is! :)

Most are, but some (like H.264) require a lot of processing power. Especially to encode with high quality.

Endoding speed is my last priority.

What do you mean by Theora requiring a 4x speed optimization? Encoding or decoding? What encoder have you used (AFAIK there is also an MMX-optimized one available)? And of course you have the video-only version and full source code available. That's (almost) the whole point of Theora ;)

I meant on decoding. I only want to optimize the decoder. For encoding I used the command line ffmpeg2theora-0.15.

EDIT: Yes, the MMX-optimized version of Theora decoder and encoder is announced here: http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/theora/2005-August/000953.html

I tried to compile the source for the player of both versions but I haven't suceeded yet. It gives me some errors and I think there is a splayer.c missing. I guess I have to refresh/update my knowledge and then register in their "mailing lists"...

7th January 2006, 18:25

I tried to compile the source for the player of both versions but I haven't suceeded yet. It gives me some errors and I think there is a splayer.c missing.
Google usually helps with these kind of problems. See: http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/theora/2005-June/000912.html

Roco

7th January 2006, 20:55

Google usually helps with these kind of problems. See: http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/theora/2005-June/000912.html

:thanks: Thanx for the link, you're right but unfortunately it's bad news...:(

7th January 2006, 21:03

By the way, are you aware of Fluendo (http://www.fluendo.com/) and their open-source Cortado Java-applet (http://www.flumotion.net/cortado/) that plays Theora streams without any additional software (other than Java) installed to the client computer.

Roco

7th January 2006, 23:47

Thanx for this too, I was searching for this a while before, but I didnt remember the name correctly and I couldnt find it. But I can't use it for three reasons:

a. It's java and I think it will seriously limit the level of optimizations I could do compared to using assembly and C++ (I need at least 4x faster playback).

b. I will have to learn java too. And I can't even compile it right now because I don't have java in my MS Visual Studio.

c. It's GPL and I will have to "open" the rest of my code linked to it. But I could accept this if everything else was ok.

But if it was *allready* that fast, I would consider it seriously though... and everybody else in this forum!