3 ms·
No, I mean zero of the pure-FOSS video codecs have ever been anywhere near stare-of-the-art in their time. So FOSS codecs have for three decades been unable to
by tatersolid 7y ago
No, I mean zero of the pure-FOSS video codecs have ever been anywhere near stare-of-the-art in their time. So FOSS codecs have for three decades been unable to compete on technical merit.
Even the current state-of-the-art audio codec Opus gets a lot of its efficiency from proprietary algorithms from Skype that were Open-sourced and parents made royalty-free.
Video codecs are bleeding-edge comp-sci and expensive to develop (lots of highly paid engineers, test labs, and test subjects (people) required).
- hvis 7y agoWell, I recall the previous "poster child" of FOSS codecs was Ogg Vorbis which competed with MP3 and AAC just fine. As for video research being expensive, you're right, of course. We're probably seeing much increased funding in FOSS codecs now compared to all previous decades.
- tatersolid 7y agoVorbis became competitive with MP3 and AAC many years after those commercial codecs were introduced. So again, the FOSS codec was nowhere near state-of-the-art.