WebM Exciting New Video Standard with VP8, Vorbis, Matroska

[weaver4]

@Emp3r0r

A thread title starting with 'WebM' might be better.

Adding WebM to StaxRip would even be better. ;)

[ricardo.santos]

Here's a windows ffmpeg build with vp8

http://micksam7.com/blog/index.php/?p=743

or you can try the flixwebm free converter altough ive been unable to change audio settings it always produces vorbis at 192k

http://www.wildform.com/products/flix/

Have fun

[stax76]

Adding WebM to StaxRip would even be better.

I just need to add a new encoder, a few tweaks, some updated applications and some new profiles but still it will take time.

Before adding WebM support I have to finish revising the complete UI adding high DPI support. :(

[Midzuki]

My initial (non-)impressions about VP8 :

at the moment, NOT supported outside of the WebM «sub-container» :devil: :) Until Google, or someone else, releases a real CLI encoder/muxer, a stable DirectShow decoder, and (seriously!) a VfW .DLL, I will keep having very-little curiosity about it.

P.S.: I did give a try to "ivfenc.exe". What the heck, it's infinitely slower than the VC-1 DMO encoder. :eek:
Completely unusable for "obsolete" rigs like mine. :mad:

[Schrade]

The first in-depth technical analysis of VP8 (http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/?p=377)

Heh,

Steve Jobs links to your blog post in a response to an E-mail someone sent to him.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/20/jobs_on_vp8/

[MfA]

Make no mistake though ... he linked it because it gives his earlier patent arguments a sheen of respectability from an independent source.

Shame that that part of it was entirely build on assumptions (not a patent number to be spotted).

[Lotesdelere]

Here is a sample file from Opera:
http://lachy.id.au/lib/media/elephantsdream/Elephants_Dream-720p-Stereo.webm
Unfortunately the audio does not decode properly with CoreVorbis or ffdshow.
Same here whatever audio decoder is used, I think the problem comes from the "official" DirectShow filters.

However this build of VLC (http://people.videolan.org/~jb/webm/) can play it fine.

[CruNcher]

Yeah that Jason plays his PR game is a pitty :(

[Lotesdelere]

Here's a windows ffmpeg build with vp8
http://micksam7.com/blog/index.php/?p=743
Ah finally something that works, thanks for this link.

I couldn't get the DirectShow encoder to work (crashed with assertion failed) and the command line tools are creating raw streams only that nothing can mux.
What a pity, what a bad start for a new standard (?).


http://i.imgur.com/4AFTe.png

[CruNcher]

Ah finally something that works, thanks for this link.

I couldn't get the DirectShow encoder to work (crashed with assertion failed) and the command line tools are creating raw streams only that nothing can mux.
What a pity, what a bad start for a new standard (?).


http://i.imgur.com/4AFTe.png

Sorry but this Kid stuff doesn't really is the nature of Doom9 (MOD ?)
especially not in the importance of the situation we are facing, something like this doesn't really helps

[Guest]

Sorry but this Kid stuff doesn't really is the nature of Doom9 (MOD ?)
especially not in the importance of the situation we are facing, something like this doesn't really helps Instead of tossing insults, please explain why this is "kid stuff".

[CruNcher]

http://i.imgur.com/4AFTe.png <- cant you see it yourself this is surely not how things look like in real, it's a sarcastic joke comparison even exaggerated one (using the old Batman for VP8 and the new for H.264 trying to make a point "kid stuff" sorry if it sounds too hard insulting was surely not my point here), something like this is inadequate for the situation and doesn't reflect the visual truth we are currently facing between VP8 and H.264.

[parsifal]

CruNcher, please don't be so uptight! The image was obviously humorous and of the witty kind, mind you...

[Dislikeyou]

From ON2 Website:
http://img295.imageshack.us/img295/1706/lolky.jpg

[CruNcher]

CruNcher, please don't be so uptight! The image was obviously humorous and of the witty kind, mind you...

It's not that i can't lough about such things if they fit but it doesn't fit, and On2s comparison was a very special restricted broadcast use case with a old x264 which neither reflects the current truth anymore though @ that time it did under these very heavily restricted conditions (bitrate very low @ the edge of the resolution and short gop back then only 1 H.264 encoder was able to survive that visually, as it was entirely optimized for such broadcast scenarios) :(

[hajj_3]

We can't trust On2's own screenshots, we need to compare VP8 to Mainconcept's and Ateme's h.264. Its unfair to compare with x264 as that is clearly way better, i'd appreciate screenshot comparisons with mainconcept and ateme's h264 tho.

[weasel_]

CruNcher its just a joke ...
And still its more correct then claims on ON2 site about Vp8>h264

From ON2 Website:
http://img295.imageshack.us/img295/1706/lolky.jpg
hahaahah nice try google :)

[iwod]

I wonder if 110M paid to ON2 is enough to buy out all the patents in AVC.

So we could once and for all end the war...... where best codec win.

VP8 to me is USB - Cheap and Easy, but crap

X264 to be is Firewire, good but expensive....

[CruNcher]

That is a true visual difference @ that time of how things looked @ low bitrate i created these visual x264 results many many times moving @ the edge of bitrate for HD resolutions with restricted settings x264 (H.264) fall apart that way and yes i would have preferred a more blurry but less artifacting result under those very special conditions @ that time but with many improvements that followed x264 Edge is far lower now :)
But whats more interesting comparing both are resolution bitrate factors that are commonly used for Web Encoding, here it gets really interesting especially with future psy optimizations for VP8 :)

And in those cases it doesn't really has to beat x264 @ all but majorly currently VC-1 and Apple Quicktime to have it's niche secured :) what Theora yet couldn't achieve is really near now :)

Also it seems many of you lost what VP8 also means for Linux it's a big step.

Windows = Windows Media Video (VC-1)
OSX = Apple Quicktime (H.264)
Linux = VP8 now and for the future as it's own base :)
Web = We still gonna see many things floating around but VP8 could take a big part of it

[Atak_Snajpera]

we need to compare VP8 to Mainconcept's and Ateme's h.264.
Ateme V2 is almost as good as x264 so VP8 will loose as well :)

[hajj_3]

it looks like a patent pool may be launched to go after VP8 now it seems: http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20100520/googles-royalty-free-webm-video-may-not-be-royalty-free-for-long/

I'm glad that they are taking action now. I really hope that this does go to court so we can decide once and for all the whether it does violate patents and how much google needs to pay the MPEG-LA to licence those patents. Lets hope this is all over and done with within the next 3 months then websites can start adding WebM support without fear of having to pay royalties.

[PatchWorKs]

I believe that the interesting fact is that "Android-based Google TV coming to living rooms this fall (http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2010/05/android-based-google-tv-coming-to-living-rooms-this-fall.ars)" also.

And don't forget that a (cheap) HW implementation have been aleady achieved in EVD: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_Versatile_Disc

Last but not least: don't VP8 released *before* h264 ? If so, who could be the patent violator ?

[nurbs]

VP8 was first announced in september 2008 and it wasn't released until this week.

[kosmonaut]

Yeah that Jason plays his PR game is a pitty :(

The last thing Dark needs is help defending himself, but this seems pretty unfair. It was inevitable that many people (myself included) were going to want to hear from him on VP8. His analysis is thorough! You can argue with his conclusions if you want, but the last thing you can call his post is superficial. Interested parties, like Steve Jobs, were going to use what he said for their own purposes, no matter what Dark posted, but at least he put all his cards on the table for anybody to read and decide for themselves.

[Dark Shikari]

The last thing Dark needs is help defending himself, but this seems pretty unfair. It was inevitable that many people (myself included) were going to want to hear from him on VP8. His analysis is thorough! You can argue with his conclusions if you want, but the last thing you can call his post is superficial. Interested parties, like Steve Jobs, were going to use what he said for their own purposes, no matter what Dark posted, but at least he put all his cards on the table for anybody to read and decide for themselves.Indeed. People who are heavily invested in a particular side of any debate will always twist facts to their advantage. The proper solution is not to complain about the facts being out there, but rather to blame the people doing the twisting.

Merely getting rid of my blog post won't make Steve Jobs like VP8.

[MfA]

The last thing Dark needs is help defending himself, but this seems pretty unfair. It was inevitable that many people (myself included) were going to want to hear from him on VP8. His analysis is thorough! You can argue with his conclusions if you want, but the last thing you can call his post is superficial. Interested parties, like Steve Jobs, were going to use what he said for their own purposes, no matter what Dark posted, but at least he put all his cards on the table for anybody to read and decide for themselves.
His cards for the patent side were opinion completely unbiased by any facts. Without looking at actual patents and prior arts it's impossible to guess at the strength of patents or even the likelihood of something being patented.

Would a sane person think it likely that Nokia invalidated it's own intra prediction patents by early disclosure? Not likely ... but to think it impossible is naive. That kind of stuff happens all the time and it seems it happened here.

[Dark Shikari]

Would a sane person think it likely that Nokia invalidated it's own intra prediction patents by early disclosure? Not likely ... but to think it impossible is naive. That kind of stuff happens all the time and it seems it happened here.The whole point is that if we don't know anything, we have to assume the worst. It would be absolutely great if Google released a rationale for why said features don't violate patents.

But they haven't.

Sure, it's possible that there are all kinds of reasons why patents aren't being violated. But until it's demonstrated which one of these reasons is correct, we can't simply blindly assume that there isn't any violation going on.
His cards for the patent side were opinion completely unbiased by any facts. Without looking at actual patents and prior arts it's impossible to guess at the strength of patents or even the likelihood of something being patented.Since when is "VP8 is copying H.264" opinion? You can look at the bloody code if you want. And no matter what the situation, copying creates risk of patent problems. In the messy world of video coding, things are basically patented until proven otherwise, not the other way around.

[CruNcher]

You made conclusions that aren't facts your assumptions in the end might be wrong only because something is similar or shares the same principals doesn't mean it is the same and base for a patent violation, but that's what the conclusion your draw yourself together says and that currently gets used in attacking without any proof @ all in the mass media. Though MPEG seems to be pretty sure what you said has a base else they wouldn't come and higher their sword calling for a license base for VP8. Next we have to see how Google reacts to that , though they are pretty sure the conclusions you made aren't the case, they surely checked that before jumping into the wild (do you really believe they didn't calculated with these attacks ?). So either they gonna disprove you and even then MPEG might stands against it in that case we gonna see only 1 solution a court decision telling us whose right ;)

[Dark Shikari]

You made conclusions that aren't facts your assumptions in the end might be wrong only because something is similar or shares the same principals doesn't mean it is the same and base for a patent violationCan you actually read what I said before writing about it?

I never said there was a patent violation.

I said there might be one. There is a risk of one. It might exist. It's possible. It may or may not be the case. How many different ways do I have to put it before people realize that it's not a foregone conclusion?

[MfA]

We do know something, we know when the MVC decoder spec. was disclosed and what was in it ... and we know the intra prediction patent does not have a priority date within the grace period after that disclosure. That should be enough for any sane person to not make blanket statement concerning the state of patent coverage for intra prediction.

As for Google there is really no advantage to them to show their competition where their patent portfolio is strongest or weakest ... they won't get into details for the same reason why Jobs/MPEG-LA won't publicly disclose any specific parts where the codec infringes. You have to keep your powder dry, the only time Google would be likely to go into details would be during NDA covered meetings.

One blind assumption is no better than the other ...

[CruNcher]

Yes i read it and yes i understand what you wrote above but in the END you madeup a Final conclusion that reads:


Finally, the problem of patents appears to be rearing its ugly head again. VP8 is simply way too similar to H.264: a pithy, if slightly inaccurate, description of VP8 would be “H.264 Baseline Profile with a better entropy coder”. Though I am not a lawyer, I simply cannot believe that they will be able to get away with this, especially in today’s overly litigious day and age. Even VC-1 differed more from H.264 than VP8 does, and even VC-1 didn’t manage to escape the clutches of software patents.

This is a Final conclusion on your side a final statement that says "They wont get away with this Patent Violation"

And this from the Mouth from someone like you is everything mass media waits for to make up a story from. And the Stock Market reacting.

I thought MPEG directly would attack but not in my "darkest dreams" i would have thought that you would be the initial reason that starts this all, and everyone of the other side hops behind searching cover for it :P

[MfA]

Since when is "VP8 is copying H.264" opinion?
That's not the opinion part, though I would argue that for intra prediction they are both copying from MVC.
And no matter what the situation, copying creates risk of patent problems. In the messy world of video coding, things are basically patented until proven otherwise, not the other way around.
Nothing can be proven concerning patent infringement outside a court of law plus 20 years of time. Every single line of code creates risk of patent infringement. Hell, a lot of x264 encoder algorithms aren't part of the patent pool and not invented by the x264 programmers either (trellis to name but one). Can I extend that same reasoning to x264 right down to the any sane person bit?

Before the 20 years is past you have to make educated guesses and you can't do that without looking at the actual patents ... which you have not done.

[valgor]

Here is a the same source as in my Schro vs Theora comparison ( http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1380594#post1380594 ) converted to VP8:
http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?klgwnb3wz1z

command line:
ffmpeg -r 24 -s 640x368 -i /tmp/ed640x368.yuv -vcodec libvpx_vp8 -vpre 360p -vb 1M /tmp/ed640x368-pre_360p-1M.webm

As I do not know how to produce VP8 video with constant quality, I just used ffmpeg preset with adjusted bitrate to get a file size similar to Schro and Theora files.

[PatchWorKs]

Can you actually read what I said before writing about it?

I never said there was a patent violation.

I said there might be one. There is a risk of one. It might exist. It's possible. It may or may not be the case. How many different ways do I have to put it before people realize that it's not a foregone conclusion?

Again: but it's also possible that h264 violates On2 patents ?

[Dislikeyou]

Here is a the same source as in my Schro vs Theora comparison ( http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1380594#post1380594 ) converted to VP8:
http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?klgwnb3wz1z

command line:
ffmpeg -r 24 -s 640x368 -i /tmp/ed640x368.yuv -vcodec libvpx_vp8 -vpre 360p -vb 1M /tmp/ed640x368-pre_360p-1M.webm

As I do not know how to produce VP8 video with constant quality, I just used ffmpeg preset with adjusted bitrate to get a file size similar to Schro and Theora files.

I have noticed this in your video (But also in some other webm videos i seen today):

http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/2346/scramble.png

It only lasts for 1 sec or so.. i think it is during encoding .. similar problem to h.264 ffmpeg -mt encoding with 8 threads..

[kosmonaut]

Again: but it's also possible that h264 violates On2 patents ?

I think that is very, very unlikely. Astronomically unlikely.

One of the things some people are missing is that skepticism about WebM is not all about pro-H.264 or anti-Google feelings. Much of my concern about VP8 stems from (negative) experience with On2, and my confusion with so many FOSS advocates now accepting On2 marketing material as reliable.

I am a huge Google fan (with an Android phone in my pocket) but I remain very suspicious of anything with On2's fingerprints on it. FWIW.

[PatchWorKs]

...but i'm not talking about code quality, performances, market approach or even customers assistance, i'm talking about patents.

On2 was on the market for years before h264, don't you think they owns "some" patents for video encoding techniques ? (check their history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On2)

If so, it's possible that now Google owns some "submarine patents" (as someone called for Xiph works) that may put MPEG-LA (or associates) in troubles...

The certain fact is only that (expecially software) patents are bad.

[Dark Shikari]

...but i'm not talking about code quality, performances, market approach or even customers assistance, i'm talking about patents.

On2 was on the market for years before h264, don't you think they owns "some" patents for video encoding techniques ?MPEG-LA existed long before H.264 as well.

It's a bit tricky to get patents on standards without being part of the standardization process, and it usually involves nefarious submarining.

[PatchWorKs]

According to this BusinessWeek page (http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=4458054) MPEG-LA was founded in 1996.

The Duck Corporation (the previous On2 name) operates since 1990...

I believe Google lawyers knows their chickens.

EDIT: early On2 video codecs was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TrueMotion

[Dark Shikari]

According to this BusinessWeek page (http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=4458054) MPEG-LA was founded in 1996.

The Duck Corporation (the previous On2 name) in 1990...

I believe Google lawyers knows their chickens.MPEG-LA is just a group of companies; the companies have been around much longer than the licensing organization itself.

Also, wow, does that bring back memories. "Duck Truemotion"!

[kosmonaut]

According to this BusinessWeek page (http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=4458054) MPEG-LA was founded in 1996.

The Duck Corporation (the previous On2 name) in 1990...

I believe Google lawyers knows their chickens.

You may be right, On2 may in fact have some patents. And I absolutely agree that software patents are evil to begin with.

That said, MPEG-LA may date from 1996, but remember, it is only a patent pool. The individual companies in the pool likely have patents going back much, much earlier than 1996. We are talking about all the heavy hitters here, after all.

According to MPEG-LA (http://www.mpegla.com/), the list of patents in the H.264/AVC patent pool is 56 pages long! MPEG-2's is merely 37 pages long. :rolleyes:

Needless to say, it's likely to be a big mess. :confused:

[PatchWorKs]

Last post for me (i'm going to sleep):
Google backs open codec against patent trolls (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/20/google_confident_on_vp8_and_patents/)

Today, when The Reg asked if VP8 was vulnerable to patent attack, Google product manager Mike Jazayeri indicated this isn't a big concern for the company.

"We have done a pretty through analysis of VP8 and On2 Technologies prior to the acquisition and since then, and we are very confident with the technology and that's why we're open sourcing," he said.
...
"Developers should be provided with detailed explanations why Google believes that no one adopting WebM will have to fear allegations of patent infringement."

And an interesting 2006 link: On2 Receives Patent for Video Optimization Technology (http://www.geniusdv.com/weblog/archives/on2_receives_patent_for_video_optimization_technology.php) where VP6 and VP7 are clearly called TrueMotion...

I believe we're going to see a "cold war" patent strategy...

[CruNcher]

From ON2 Website:
http://img295.imageshack.us/img295/1706/lolky.jpg

just do --sharpness=6 and you get the same visual result as that x264 build @ low bitrates :)

[video_magic]

That is probably not even the same two frames which are being compared. Look at the positions of some of the people relative to other things and the proportions of them being shown!; I suspect that one of those frames is one or two frame-postions behind the other.

[Keiyakusha]

To be honest both of these images looks like crap to me, equally. But actually left one, which is h264 maybe more pleasant for my eyes, when in motion.

[valgor]

I have noticed this in your video (But also in some other webm videos i seen today):

[...image...]

It only lasts for 1 sec or so.. i think it is during encoding .. similar problem to h.264 ffmpeg -mt encoding with 8 threads..

No, it seems problem with your decoder. I use mplayer and ffplay and I see no bugs. I even decoded this VP8 to png sequence with mplayer. No one image is garbaged.

[valgor]

Here is a the same source as in my Schro vs Theora comparison ( http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1380594#post1380594 ) converted to VP8:
http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?klgwnb3wz1z

command line:
ffmpeg -r 24 -s 640x368 -i /tmp/ed640x368.yuv -vcodec libvpx_vp8 -vpre 360p -vb 1M /tmp/ed640x368-pre_360p-1M.webm

As I do not know how to produce VP8 video with constant quality, I just used ffmpeg preset with adjusted bitrate to get a file size similar to Schro and Theora files.

Here is a screenshots tile, you can compare it with Schro, Theora and original source:
http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/3599/vp8k.th.png (http://img20.imageshack.us/i/vp8k.png/)

[dragsidious]

As for Google there is really no advantage to them to show their competition where their patent portfolio is strongest or weakest ... they won't get into details for the same reason why Jobs/MPEG-LA won't publicly disclose any specific parts where the codec infringes. You have to keep your powder dry, the only time Google would be likely to go into details would be during NDA covered meetings.



Pretty much. Google going into details about everything would only serve to make their position weaker.

The thing to remember about law in general, that programmers tend to get really really wrong, is that it's designed to be interpreted. With software and languages definitions are set and languages are exact. The computer will react in a predictable manner to your input. Law stuff is not designed like that; it's ambiguous on purpose.

That is to say that you can have one group of people say that VP8 violates patents and another group say that it does not and both can be absolutely correct in their viewpoints; by all precedent and laws currently on the books. This is why in patent cases you can have a serious of court cases were one court says it's valid and another that says it's invalid. It's maddening.

--------------------------------------

As far as patent-specifics go....

There are several parts to every patent. There are things like the abstract, claims, dependent claims, and that sort of thing.

The only thing that really matters is the main claims of the patent. The abstract is mostly irrelevant except maybe to define some of the terms in the claims and the dependent claims are optional. It's the 'claims' that you have to violate to violate the patent. And you have to violate ALL of the items in the claim. If there are 10 numbered items in a patent claim and you violate 9 of them, but you skip step 5 (or whatever) then your in the clear; you do not violate the patent.

So it's technically possible that Vp8 may copy the items in the H.264 patents almost exactly, but just skip one step or do something a little bit different and then not violate the patent.

This leads to one of the major defenses that OSS has against patents: Publishing Patent Workarounds.

The idea is that you can make going after OSS projects unattractive by finding and publishing work arounds for patents that do get applied against OSS developers. The reasoning being that software is so flexible that often your going to find a way to do a algorithm slightly different and yet maintain compatibility or whatever. Most private software companies would keep these work-arounds secret since it's a advantage to for you to not have to pay patent licensing fees when all your competitors do have to pay fees.

If you are able to discover a work around and they you publish the work around then you could cost a company millions in dollars in licensing fees. With a obvious and published way to work around a patent then nobody would ever want to pay licensing for it. This way you can effectively destroy a patent without having to spend a single day in court.

If this happens enough times then patent holders are not going to want to risk their portfolio going after a low-profit and higher-risk OSS target and instead concentrate on proprietary software companies that are easy to keep quiet through NDAs.

That's the hope anyways.

-----------------------------------------------------

If your curious about how all this works and want details on how to read a patent and fight patents successfully then check out this presentation by 'Tridge'.
http://news.swpat.org/2010/03/transcript-tridgell-patents/

It's has transcripts and also links to mp4 and ogg video files of the speach.

This guy is one of the main developers behind Samba and has actually successfully driven off (or at least dealt with) patent attacks and threats by Microsoft (prior to the whole EU stuff)

[hajj_3]

Just thought i'd let people know VLC 1.1.0 pre-RC with WebM support has just been released: http://people.videolan.org/~jb/webm/ (18.0mb)

.webm files play:)

This is the same as 1.1.0 test 4 i believe, it has the problem with the cursor disappearing when you right click and some other bugs, i'm sure the official RC will have the known bugs fixed though.

[Dislikeyou]

No, it seems problem with your decoder. I use mplayer and ffplay and I see no bugs. I even decoded this VP8 to png sequence with mplayer. No one image is garbaged.

I played this from Opera browser.. i added it to my webpage and played it from the browser.