3 ms·
Since they are proposing it as a common standard, I don't think it should matter what they already use, in comparison with something that's actually free to use
by shmerl 7y ago
Since they are proposing it as a common standard, I don't think it should matter what they already use, in comparison with something that's actually free to use.
If HEIF is free, then fine. But MPEG stuff is not created free by design, so it has to be stated somewhere.
- giantrobot 7y agoThe HEIF container is the MPEG-4 Part 12 ISO container, the same used for MP4 video and JPEG2000. This lets it fit inside existing workflows and media stacks. AVIF just ends up and additional codec in a familiar container. Anyone needing to pay license fees for MPEG-4 Part 12 format patents (if they exist) is already covered by usage for video or HEIF. Anyone not needing to pay licenses will continue to not need to pay licenses in they use AVIF.
- shmerl 7y agoNot sure what that means. Sounds like some still might need to pay for it. That's an unacceptable approach for a standard proposed by AOM which stresses the royalty free focus (in contrast with MPEG), which was exactly my point above.
- giantrobot 7y agoI don't know of any patents on the MPEG-4 Part 12 format. They might exist but I don't know of them. If you implement AVIF you'd have to pay whatever licenses might exist over the format. If there's no licenses over the format, you pay nothing. If there are licenses but you're already distributing MPEG-4 video content, JPEG2000, or HEIF your licenses you'd pay for those would cover your use of AVIF in the MP4 container. So to my knowledge the ISO MP4 container doesn't require license fees so there's no real downside for using it as the container for AVIF.