5 ms·

"Custom magic algorithms" in this case being "off-the-shelf free software, using completely default parameters, that we've stolen and claimed is our magic algor

"Custom magic algorithms" in this case being "off-the-shelf free software, using completely default parameters, that we've stolen and claimed is our magic algorithm".

lurch00 15y ago
Good thing for them they can hide their algorithms behind the DMCA as proprietary work.
gavingmiller 15y ago
I hate to burst your bubble, but "custom magic algorithms" actually exist. I was involved with a contract that accomplished the same end as mentioned in the article - compressed video data, playable within standard video players. The company wasn't achieving the same level of compression that this article is claiming, but they did manage to reduce video size while maintaining quality.
- DarkShikari 15y ago
  Sure, you can "improve compression" -- just compare yourself to an awful encoder! This is the strategy used by thousands of marketing whitepapers. But x264 isn't an awful one; it's the best, by a factor of ~30% over the nearest competition according to the most recent independent comparison (http://www.compression.ru/video/codec_comparison/h264_2011/ http://www.compression.ru/video/codec_comparison/h264_2011/). Every company loves to claim that their "custom magic algorithms" are amazing and magic, but when push comes to shove, nothing compares to what free software can put out, and this shows no signs of changing, at least before the release of HEVC. If you have a "magic algorithm" that does better than the current state of the art, send it in to be benchmarked! I mean, if you can do better than the encoder used by Google, Youtube, Netflix, Facebook, and thousands of other companies around the world, surely you'll be able to get some customers if you publicize this super-amazing-magic algorithm, right? Or maybe, like the thousands of other companies claiming the same, your "magic algorithm" is bullshit -- or a good idea, just already implemented in dozens of other encoders out there too, and you're demonstrating its efficacy by comparing it to a junk heap like Quicktime.
  - gavingmiller 15y ago
    I can assure you that we did our testing against x264, and that we produced encodings that were better than x264. You're also assuming that compression optimization can only occur in the encoder - which I assure you is false (damn you NDA!! You'll have to take my word on these statements.) As to the business of selling said encoders, I couldn't agree with you more, if you've got something that improves the most widely used encoder then surely customers should be clamoring to get a hold of this algorithm. That is if you're selling it properly. However, I was merely a contractor, and not making the business decisions. I worked with multiple contractors that thought similar things to yourself (myself included.) And when you're taking investor money, telling them that you're going to open source a technology that took 2+ years to develop, and hope that you'll make money from it is a great way to lose your investor money.
    - DarkShikari 15y ago
      I can assure you that we did our testing against x264, and that we produced encodings that were better than x264 By what measurement, PSNR? x264 doesn't optimize for PSNR by default. And when was this? x264 has improved dramatically in the past 4 years. In 2007, Mainconcept could beat x264 in many cases and Ateme's 2004 encoder was still sometimes better! There are cases where x264 has improved by a factor of 2 in this time period, or more. You're also assuming that compression optimization can only occur in the encoder Do you mean prefiltering? Such a thing is a dishonest comparison, as you can prefilter before using any particular encoder, and there are whole frameworks built for exactly that purpose which are widely used with x264 -- and other encoders too. And when you're taking investor money, telling them that you're going to open source a technology that took 2+ years to develop, and hope that you'll make money from it is a great way to lose your investor money. If your technology takes 2+ years to develop, your programmers are incompetent or your management is broken. Probably no single algorithm in x264's history has taken more than a few days to develop. Coming up with good ideas is a matter of thinking, combined with trial and error: once you have a idea that actually works, implementing it is dead trivial. The time-consuming part is the other 99 ideas you tried that didn't work so well -- and you can't plan for that.
JonnieCache 15y ago
H.264 is not "free software." You're thinking of x264, the free software implementation of H.264 that everyone uses. There is a large market for proprietary optimised implementations of various codecs for use in industry. The same goes for mp3 and so on. Unless people have found x264 headers left in the files, in which case, fail.
- MichaelGG 15y ago
  Try clicking on DarkShikari's username.
  - the_philcoder 15y ago
    Nice. :) This made me register an account here at HN so that i can post comment. Thanks for the heads up!
- DarkShikari 15y ago
  Look elsewhere in this thread. The files have x264 headers.
hyperbovine 15y ago
You've just described the business model of a surprisingly large number of consultancies. One man's obvious is the next man's "magic". AFAICT businesses are happy to pay for this sort of thing, so I'm not sure who deserves blame here.
- Produce 15y ago
  Adds more weight to Asimov's assertion that "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic".
  - DataWraith 15y ago
    You're thinking of Arthur C. Clarke: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws

"Custom magic algorithms" in this case being "off-the-shelf free software, using completely default parameters, that we've stolen and claimed is our magic algorithm".

lurch00 15y ago

Good thing for them they can hide their algorithms behind the DMCA as proprietary work.

gavingmiller 15y ago

I hate to burst your bubble, but "custom magic algorithms" actually exist. I was involved with a contract that accomplished the same end as mentioned in the article - compressed video data, playable within standard video players. The company wasn't achieving the same level of compression that this article is claiming, but they did manage to reduce video size while maintaining quality.

DarkShikari 15y ago
Sure, you can "improve compression" -- just compare yourself to an awful encoder! This is the strategy used by thousands of marketing whitepapers. But x264 isn't an awful one; it's the best, by a factor of ~30% over the nearest competition according to the most recent independent comparison (http://www.compression.ru/video/codec_comparison/h264_2011/ http://www.compression.ru/video/codec_comparison/h264_2011/). Every company loves to claim that their "custom magic algorithms" are amazing and magic, but when push comes to shove, nothing compares to what free software can put out, and this shows no signs of changing, at least before the release of HEVC. If you have a "magic algorithm" that does better than the current state of the art, send it in to be benchmarked! I mean, if you can do better than the encoder used by Google, Youtube, Netflix, Facebook, and thousands of other companies around the world, surely you'll be able to get some customers if you publicize this super-amazing-magic algorithm, right? Or maybe, like the thousands of other companies claiming the same, your "magic algorithm" is bullshit -- or a good idea, just already implemented in dozens of other encoders out there too, and you're demonstrating its efficacy by comparing it to a junk heap like Quicktime.
- gavingmiller 15y ago
  I can assure you that we did our testing against x264, and that we produced encodings that were better than x264. You're also assuming that compression optimization can only occur in the encoder - which I assure you is false (damn you NDA!! You'll have to take my word on these statements.) As to the business of selling said encoders, I couldn't agree with you more, if you've got something that improves the most widely used encoder then surely customers should be clamoring to get a hold of this algorithm. That is if you're selling it properly. However, I was merely a contractor, and not making the business decisions. I worked with multiple contractors that thought similar things to yourself (myself included.) And when you're taking investor money, telling them that you're going to open source a technology that took 2+ years to develop, and hope that you'll make money from it is a great way to lose your investor money.
  - DarkShikari 15y ago
    I can assure you that we did our testing against x264, and that we produced encodings that were better than x264 By what measurement, PSNR? x264 doesn't optimize for PSNR by default. And when was this? x264 has improved dramatically in the past 4 years. In 2007, Mainconcept could beat x264 in many cases and Ateme's 2004 encoder was still sometimes better! There are cases where x264 has improved by a factor of 2 in this time period, or more. You're also assuming that compression optimization can only occur in the encoder Do you mean prefiltering? Such a thing is a dishonest comparison, as you can prefilter before using any particular encoder, and there are whole frameworks built for exactly that purpose which are widely used with x264 -- and other encoders too. And when you're taking investor money, telling them that you're going to open source a technology that took 2+ years to develop, and hope that you'll make money from it is a great way to lose your investor money. If your technology takes 2+ years to develop, your programmers are incompetent or your management is broken. Probably no single algorithm in x264's history has taken more than a few days to develop. Coming up with good ideas is a matter of thinking, combined with trial and error: once you have a idea that actually works, implementing it is dead trivial. The time-consuming part is the other 99 ideas you tried that didn't work so well -- and you can't plan for that.

JonnieCache 15y ago

H.264 is not "free software." You're thinking of x264, the free software implementation of H.264 that everyone uses. There is a large market for proprietary optimised implementations of various codecs for use in industry. The same goes for mp3 and so on. Unless people have found x264 headers left in the files, in which case, fail.

MichaelGG 15y ago
Try clicking on DarkShikari's username.
- the_philcoder 15y ago
  Nice. :) This made me register an account here at HN so that i can post comment. Thanks for the heads up!
DarkShikari 15y ago
Look elsewhere in this thread. The files have x264 headers.

hyperbovine 15y ago

You've just described the business model of a surprisingly large number of consultancies. One man's obvious is the next man's "magic". AFAICT businesses are happy to pay for this sort of thing, so I'm not sure who deserves blame here.

Produce 15y ago
Adds more weight to Asimov's assertion that "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic".
- DataWraith 15y ago
  You're thinking of Arthur C. Clarke: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws