7 ms·

VP9 Codec Nears Completion

71 points by bconway 13y ago

threeseed 13y ago
I am still a bit confused what the point of VP9 is. Microsoft and Apple pay for the licenses on behalf of developers and users so licensing cost only affects a very tiny minority. And with the likes of Sony (PS), Microsoft (Windows/XBox) and Apple (iOS/OSX/Final Cut) firmly in the H.265 camp why would you produce content for VP9 if no one can play it.
- andreasvc 13y ago
  Because some people like the idea of being independent of such commercial players.
- nteon 13y ago
  You're forgetting the largest smartphone OS provider. And as Android is embedded into devices like televisions and cars, having a great libre codec available could be a significant advantage.
- kkowalczyk 13y ago
  Because "Microsoft and Apple pay for the licenses on behalf of developers and users so licensing cost only affects a very tiny minority" is not really true. See http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/licensing/mpeg4faq.aspx#MPEG4VideoFAQ_1_2 http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/licensing/mpeg... If you encode a video into mpeg4 format, even using a commercial tool whose makers pays mpeg4 license, that license doesn't extend to the resulting video. If you post such video on your website, you're violating mpeg4 patents and have to pay mpeg4 licensing fee (up to $5 million/year). That basically puts mpeg4 out of reach for 99.9% content creators that cannot afford even talking to mpeg4 consortium about the license. Not to mention that most people don't use commercial tools. We use ffmpeg/x264, which is not only free but has better quality than expensive commercial tools. Even using those tools without paying a license is not permitted (although, obviously, most people simply don't understand that or willfully ignore banking that mpeg4 la won't sue them). Microsoft and Apple pays so that users of their software can CONSUME mpeg4 format. All CREATORS are left out in cold and have to license the patents. Given that video becomes more and more ubiquitous, it's not an acceptable situation for the web just as it wasn't acceptable to have to pay for using .gif format to post a picture on your website (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/gif.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/gif.html)
  - threeseed 13y ago
    I don't believe any of this is correct. If I use my Canon 5D/iPhone to film a movie then edit with Final Cut Pro and upload my video to YouTube at what point am I required to pay the MPEG-LA for a license ? Are you really suggesting that tens of millions of people are in breach of MPEG-LA licensing requirements ?
    - kevingadd 13y ago
      When Apple shipped an encoder they paid a license fee, and YouTube has to pay a license fee as well. So you're fine. But yes, quite possibly millions of people have been violating the H264 patent terms without knowing it.
      - derekp7 13y ago
        So let me get this straight -- Patents not only cover the right to produce instances of an invention, but also for usage of those instances/devices also? So what happens if for example Ford is found to be violating someones patent on an engine part. Then even if Ford pays up a license, could the patent owner sue me for driving the car, and charge me a per mile royalty? Part of me would love to see this happen, simply so that enough "regular people" will force their politicians to change the laws.
        mritun 13y ago
        Yes. That's how patents work. Patents violations cover both creators of the infringing device and users.
        mpyne 13y ago
        This is, after all, why many U.S.-based distros refused to package and ship patent-encumbered code by default, is because end-users would also be theoretically liable.
        lambda 13y ago
- H3g3m0n 13y ago
  Microsoft and Apple aren't paying for the licenses at all. They are companies not the codec license charity faries. The cost is just attached to the price of their products without the consumer knowing. Also if you are running a H.264 subscription service you are likely to be paying [tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands](http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/h-264-patents-how-much-do-they-really-cost/2122 http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/h-264-patents-how-much-do-the...). Also there is Android, Chrome and ChromeOS which should have support. Not everyone wants to pay a tax or go though a licensing procedure to implement some supposedly 'open' standard. The main issue is Free software doesn't work with licensing. Linux distros are free (as in money), they can't have proprietary licensed patents. So you can't legally playback videos on your Linux distro so people keep buying Windows. It could even be considered another form of vendor lock in, except this time it's locking you into big business $$$ all hail capitalism VS opensource not everything has to have money running it. There are usage cases for people outside of the bigcontent->consumer devices ecosystem. For example if I'm a game dev looking to put FMV videos into my game I can shop around for something proprietary like Blink or H.26X and fork over money for a 'off the shelf solution' or I can grab a open source library stick it in and not have to pay a dime. And who cares if it has to full back onto software decoding on Apple and Windows devices it's only a few minutes of playback and the game itself is going to be eating the battery much more. Similarly if I'm looking to implement some kind of video chat protocol. Also if I'm on standards body looking to make a new standard for some new media or transmission format why use something that will require the companies making products get an extra overhead. Unfortunately we are likely to be stuck with H.26X derivatives from now on since it had gotten wide spread usage by being first to the gate and has so many companies backing it, generally with vested interests (the companies in the H.264 patent pool is basically every hardware manufacturer ever, I can't see how a fucking video codec can have that many patents on it) Also patents on technology are now basically forever, not 20 years. Most technology doesn't last 20 years now days. Even the older industries that rely on 30 year old technology due to it's reliability are probably going to end up moving onto a fast update cycle (look at SpaceX making a new rocket in 2 years). We are unlikely to ever see H.26X free as they will just keep releasing newer versions with more patents on it and ensuring their employees on the various standards boards vote it in for things like new media format standards. Yeh, your media player doesn't have to pay for H.264 in the year 2030, but there is still a license cost for H.265 and by then they are up to H.269 with super retina display support and 3D volumetric holograms or whatever. It also goes well beyond a single video codec. Look at the future of SD Cards, SDXC. It's using the exfat filesystem from Microsoft so every SD card reader will have a hidden MS tax attached to it for the next 20 years (by which time we will likely have abandoned the format and just be using some wireless storage standard, chances are it will have it's own licensing). Pretty much every device in existence has hundreds of companies receiving kickbacks (if they use H.264 there are hundreds right there). These licenses are generally not horrible individually but all this crap together with other stuff like DRM, secure boot loaders and so on makes a web trapping people to specific technologies, business interests and so on and generally just making alternatives such as Linux much more of a pain to use.
matt2000 13y ago
In case anyone was wondering, like I was how VP9 quality stacks up, here's a comparison: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ctjm1kxw-BM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ctjm1kxw-BM (although it's a bit weird since everything is re-encoded for youtube, so take with a grain of salt). To my eyes, VP9 looks roughly on par with h264, but not as good as h265.
- mtgx 13y ago
  Is VP9 the first and h.265 the one under it? Because to me the first one looks the most clear.
- H3g3m0n 13y ago
  That would be a pretty big grain, Comparisons like that are basically useless. Your YouTube is likely to be using H.264. H.265 and H.264 will be sharing much of their encoding technologies, so they gain fewer encoding artefacts and loose less quality by taking a H.264 and re-encoding it as a H.265 than you would by taking a VP9 and re-encoding is as a H.264. The only real way is for someone to shoot raw video, and compress them both separately.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - Sprint 13y ago
    See the description for a link to the source and lossless downloads.
pornel 13y ago
Will WebP switch from VP8 to VP9?
- dchest 13y ago
  Found this: "yes, vp9 would be helpful with its larger transform sizes. Plus the improved coefficient coding scheme, assymmetric transforms, new intra prediction modes, etc. There's also some investigation going on around genuine yuv444 support, or even lossless. However, keep in mind that most improvements of vp9 compared to vp8 are related to video coding (inter-frame prediction). And there's the cost inherent to introducing another bitstream format, which is a long-haul effort. Takeway: need some experiments and data point about extra-gain vs extra-complexity (including project complexity)" https://groups.google.com/a/webmproject.org/d/msg/webp-discuss/yYYb1hI9FM0/saUBY8vBpCgJ https://groups.google.com/a/webmproject.org/d/msg/webp-discu...
dave1010uk 13y ago
Slightly related to the discussion here: yesterday I found out that the Rasberry Pi is about 10% cheaper because it doesn't include licences for proprietary codecs [1]. As consumer electronics are getting cheaper and open/free licenses are becoming more popular, hopefully we'll see more of this happening. [1] http://www.raspberrypi.com/license-keys/ http://www.raspberrypi.com/license-keys/
- TazeTSchnitzel 13y ago
  It sucks though, because to watch H.264 on it you have to buy a license key for it to unlock the hardware on the device.
  - Narishma 13y ago
    No, you don't. H264 can be decoded on the hardware out of the box. The licenses are only for MPEG-2 and VC1.
    - TazeTSchnitzel 13y ago
      Ah, my bad.
- Narishma 13y ago
  The RPi does come with licenses for some proprietary codecs, namely MPEG-4 Part 10 (H264) and MPEG-4 Part 2 (DivX, Xvid and the like), mostly because they're cheap and their use widespread. The extra license you can buy are for codecs that are either too expensive (MPEG-2) or not used very much so their inclusion would increase the price of the RPi for everyone while only being useful for a few.

71 points by bconway 13y ago

I am still a bit confused what the point of VP9 is. Microsoft and Apple pay for the licenses on behalf of developers and users so licensing cost only affects a very tiny minority. And with the likes of Sony (PS), Microsoft (Windows/XBox) and Apple (iOS/OSX/Final Cut) firmly in the H.265 camp why would you produce content for VP9 if no one can play it.

andreasvc 13y ago
Because some people like the idea of being independent of such commercial players.
nteon 13y ago
You're forgetting the largest smartphone OS provider. And as Android is embedded into devices like televisions and cars, having a great libre codec available could be a significant advantage.
kkowalczyk 13y ago
Because "Microsoft and Apple pay for the licenses on behalf of developers and users so licensing cost only affects a very tiny minority" is not really true. See http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/licensing/mpeg4faq.aspx#MPEG4VideoFAQ_1_2 http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/licensing/mpeg... If you encode a video into mpeg4 format, even using a commercial tool whose makers pays mpeg4 license, that license doesn't extend to the resulting video. If you post such video on your website, you're violating mpeg4 patents and have to pay mpeg4 licensing fee (up to $5 million/year). That basically puts mpeg4 out of reach for 99.9% content creators that cannot afford even talking to mpeg4 consortium about the license. Not to mention that most people don't use commercial tools. We use ffmpeg/x264, which is not only free but has better quality than expensive commercial tools. Even using those tools without paying a license is not permitted (although, obviously, most people simply don't understand that or willfully ignore banking that mpeg4 la won't sue them). Microsoft and Apple pays so that users of their software can CONSUME mpeg4 format. All CREATORS are left out in cold and have to license the patents. Given that video becomes more and more ubiquitous, it's not an acceptable situation for the web just as it wasn't acceptable to have to pay for using .gif format to post a picture on your website (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/gif.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/gif.html)
- threeseed 13y ago
  I don't believe any of this is correct. If I use my Canon 5D/iPhone to film a movie then edit with Final Cut Pro and upload my video to YouTube at what point am I required to pay the MPEG-LA for a license ? Are you really suggesting that tens of millions of people are in breach of MPEG-LA licensing requirements ?
  - kevingadd 13y ago
    When Apple shipped an encoder they paid a license fee, and YouTube has to pay a license fee as well. So you're fine. But yes, quite possibly millions of people have been violating the H264 patent terms without knowing it.
    - derekp7 13y ago
      So let me get this straight -- Patents not only cover the right to produce instances of an invention, but also for usage of those instances/devices also? So what happens if for example Ford is found to be violating someones patent on an engine part. Then even if Ford pays up a license, could the patent owner sue me for driving the car, and charge me a per mile royalty? Part of me would love to see this happen, simply so that enough "regular people" will force their politicians to change the laws.
      - mritun 13y ago
        Yes. That's how patents work. Patents violations cover both creators of the infringing device and users.
        mpyne 13y ago
        This is, after all, why many U.S.-based distros refused to package and ship patent-encumbered code by default, is because end-users would also be theoretically liable.
      - lambda 13y ago
H3g3m0n 13y ago
Microsoft and Apple aren't paying for the licenses at all. They are companies not the codec license charity faries. The cost is just attached to the price of their products without the consumer knowing. Also if you are running a H.264 subscription service you are likely to be paying [tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands](http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/h-264-patents-how-much-do-they-really-cost/2122 http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/h-264-patents-how-much-do-the...). Also there is Android, Chrome and ChromeOS which should have support. Not everyone wants to pay a tax or go though a licensing procedure to implement some supposedly 'open' standard. The main issue is Free software doesn't work with licensing. Linux distros are free (as in money), they can't have proprietary licensed patents. So you can't legally playback videos on your Linux distro so people keep buying Windows. It could even be considered another form of vendor lock in, except this time it's locking you into big business $$$ all hail capitalism VS opensource not everything has to have money running it. There are usage cases for people outside of the bigcontent->consumer devices ecosystem. For example if I'm a game dev looking to put FMV videos into my game I can shop around for something proprietary like Blink or H.26X and fork over money for a 'off the shelf solution' or I can grab a open source library stick it in and not have to pay a dime. And who cares if it has to full back onto software decoding on Apple and Windows devices it's only a few minutes of playback and the game itself is going to be eating the battery much more. Similarly if I'm looking to implement some kind of video chat protocol. Also if I'm on standards body looking to make a new standard for some new media or transmission format why use something that will require the companies making products get an extra overhead. Unfortunately we are likely to be stuck with H.26X derivatives from now on since it had gotten wide spread usage by being first to the gate and has so many companies backing it, generally with vested interests (the companies in the H.264 patent pool is basically every hardware manufacturer ever, I can't see how a fucking video codec can have that many patents on it) Also patents on technology are now basically forever, not 20 years. Most technology doesn't last 20 years now days. Even the older industries that rely on 30 year old technology due to it's reliability are probably going to end up moving onto a fast update cycle (look at SpaceX making a new rocket in 2 years). We are unlikely to ever see H.26X free as they will just keep releasing newer versions with more patents on it and ensuring their employees on the various standards boards vote it in for things like new media format standards. Yeh, your media player doesn't have to pay for H.264 in the year 2030, but there is still a license cost for H.265 and by then they are up to H.269 with super retina display support and 3D volumetric holograms or whatever. It also goes well beyond a single video codec. Look at the future of SD Cards, SDXC. It's using the exfat filesystem from Microsoft so every SD card reader will have a hidden MS tax attached to it for the next 20 years (by which time we will likely have abandoned the format and just be using some wireless storage standard, chances are it will have it's own licensing). Pretty much every device in existence has hundreds of companies receiving kickbacks (if they use H.264 there are hundreds right there). These licenses are generally not horrible individually but all this crap together with other stuff like DRM, secure boot loaders and so on makes a web trapping people to specific technologies, business interests and so on and generally just making alternatives such as Linux much more of a pain to use.

matt2000 13y ago

In case anyone was wondering, like I was how VP9 quality stacks up, here's a comparison: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ctjm1kxw-BM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ctjm1kxw-BM (although it's a bit weird since everything is re-encoded for youtube, so take with a grain of salt). To my eyes, VP9 looks roughly on par with h264, but not as good as h265.

mtgx 13y ago
Is VP9 the first and h.265 the one under it? Because to me the first one looks the most clear.
H3g3m0n 13y ago
That would be a pretty big grain, Comparisons like that are basically useless. Your YouTube is likely to be using H.264. H.265 and H.264 will be sharing much of their encoding technologies, so they gain fewer encoding artefacts and loose less quality by taking a H.264 and re-encoding it as a H.265 than you would by taking a VP9 and re-encoding is as a H.264. The only real way is for someone to shoot raw video, and compress them both separately.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- Sprint 13y ago
  See the description for a link to the source and lossless downloads.

pornel 13y ago

Will WebP switch from VP8 to VP9?

dchest 13y ago
Found this: "yes, vp9 would be helpful with its larger transform sizes. Plus the improved coefficient coding scheme, assymmetric transforms, new intra prediction modes, etc. There's also some investigation going on around genuine yuv444 support, or even lossless. However, keep in mind that most improvements of vp9 compared to vp8 are related to video coding (inter-frame prediction). And there's the cost inherent to introducing another bitstream format, which is a long-haul effort. Takeway: need some experiments and data point about extra-gain vs extra-complexity (including project complexity)" https://groups.google.com/a/webmproject.org/d/msg/webp-discuss/yYYb1hI9FM0/saUBY8vBpCgJ https://groups.google.com/a/webmproject.org/d/msg/webp-discu...

dave1010uk 13y ago

Slightly related to the discussion here: yesterday I found out that the Rasberry Pi is about 10% cheaper because it doesn't include licences for proprietary codecs [1]. As consumer electronics are getting cheaper and open/free licenses are becoming more popular, hopefully we'll see more of this happening. [1] http://www.raspberrypi.com/license-keys/ http://www.raspberrypi.com/license-keys/

TazeTSchnitzel 13y ago
It sucks though, because to watch H.264 on it you have to buy a license key for it to unlock the hardware on the device.
- Narishma 13y ago
  No, you don't. H264 can be decoded on the hardware out of the box. The licenses are only for MPEG-2 and VC1.
  - TazeTSchnitzel 13y ago
    Ah, my bad.
Narishma 13y ago
The RPi does come with licenses for some proprietary codecs, namely MPEG-4 Part 10 (H264) and MPEG-4 Part 2 (DivX, Xvid and the like), mostly because they're cheap and their use widespread. The extra license you can buy are for codecs that are either too expensive (MPEG-2) or not used very much so their inclusion would increase the price of the RPi for everyone while only being useful for a few.