On2's VP6

[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 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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