47 ms·

I'm sure Google will be just as enthusiastic about incorporating Mozilla's new video codec daala as Mozilla is about adding Google's image codec webp.

by ghjkld 13y ago

cromwellian 13y ago
Seems like a big case of NIH syndrome if you ask me.
- noir_lord 13y ago
  That's exactly what it is and while all these teams spend time inventing technology that is 98% the same as the existing stuff the people with the technology that is 100% the same as the existing stuff (often proprietary) laugh all the way to the bank. It's 2013, there are dozens of codecs, many open enough to be used, just flaming pick one.
  - vitno 13y ago
    I'm not sure you realize how different Daala is from any other video codec in usage. It's ALSO royalty-free with a permissive FOSS license. It will also ideally be significantly better than anything else on the market.
    - cromwellian 13y ago
      It also won't arrive optimistically until almost 2016, effectively making it dead in the water if H265 gets rolled out in every smartphone, or if WebM is everywhere. There are lots of promising codecs that were proposed to be different. Wavelets used to get lots of hype too. It's a very risky bet to just punt for 3+ years on the hope that promising research will pan out into something viable. Research projects shouldn't delay moving forward on stuff that's ready now.
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
      - pcwalton 13y ago
        > Research projects shouldn't delay moving forward on stuff that's ready now. Mozilla supports WebM.
- pcwalton 13y ago
  Mozilla has studied WebP and found it to be worse than JPEG in many cases. http://people.mozilla.org/~josh/lossy_compressed_image_study_october_2013/ http://people.mozilla.org/~josh/lossy_compressed_image_study...
  - cromwellian 13y ago
    They also found HEVC-MSP "worse" in some metrics. Seems a red herring to me. WebP isn't just about replacing JPEG, it's about replacing GIF and PNG. Today, on the web, if you want transparency or animation, you have to choose much worse formats. And why is it so awful to add WebP to the list of image formats gif, jpg, png, but we can have a much longer list of supported audio codecs? What is different about audio? Or video for that matter? The argument seems rather arbitrary and self serving.
    - gillianseed 13y ago
      I agree with this, I've never understood why Mozilla (are dragging their feet) when it comes to implementing webp. It's hardly a huge maintenance burden, all development is done upstream and there's an easy to use c library implementation, and of course it's fully open source and royalty free.
gillianseed 13y ago
Well Mozilla supports Google's webm and WebRTC natively, so it's not as if they typically turn down Google tech.

I'm sure Google will be just as enthusiastic about incorporating Mozilla's new video codec daala as Mozilla is about adding Google's image codec webp.

by ghjkld 13y ago

I'm sure Google will be just as enthusiastic about incorporating Mozilla's new video codec daala as Mozilla is about adding Google's image codec webp.

cromwellian 13y ago

Seems like a big case of NIH syndrome if you ask me.

noir_lord 13y ago
That's exactly what it is and while all these teams spend time inventing technology that is 98% the same as the existing stuff the people with the technology that is 100% the same as the existing stuff (often proprietary) laugh all the way to the bank. It's 2013, there are dozens of codecs, many open enough to be used, just flaming pick one.
- vitno 13y ago
  I'm not sure you realize how different Daala is from any other video codec in usage. It's ALSO royalty-free with a permissive FOSS license. It will also ideally be significantly better than anything else on the market.
  - cromwellian 13y ago
    It also won't arrive optimistically until almost 2016, effectively making it dead in the water if H265 gets rolled out in every smartphone, or if WebM is everywhere. There are lots of promising codecs that were proposed to be different. Wavelets used to get lots of hype too. It's a very risky bet to just punt for 3+ years on the hope that promising research will pan out into something viable. Research projects shouldn't delay moving forward on stuff that's ready now.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - pcwalton 13y ago
      > Research projects shouldn't delay moving forward on stuff that's ready now. Mozilla supports WebM.
pcwalton 13y ago
Mozilla has studied WebP and found it to be worse than JPEG in many cases. http://people.mozilla.org/~josh/lossy_compressed_image_study_october_2013/ http://people.mozilla.org/~josh/lossy_compressed_image_study...
- cromwellian 13y ago
  They also found HEVC-MSP "worse" in some metrics. Seems a red herring to me. WebP isn't just about replacing JPEG, it's about replacing GIF and PNG. Today, on the web, if you want transparency or animation, you have to choose much worse formats. And why is it so awful to add WebP to the list of image formats gif, jpg, png, but we can have a much longer list of supported audio codecs? What is different about audio? Or video for that matter? The argument seems rather arbitrary and self serving.
  - gillianseed 13y ago
    I agree with this, I've never understood why Mozilla (are dragging their feet) when it comes to implementing webp. It's hardly a huge maintenance burden, all development is done upstream and there's an easy to use c library implementation, and of course it's fully open source and royalty free.

gillianseed 13y ago

Well Mozilla supports Google's webm and WebRTC natively, so it's not as if they typically turn down Google tech.