9 ms·

Requests for comment: MP4 Video

46 points by mmcclure 13y ago

mtw 13y ago
a bit late, vendors are now working on implementing the next version h.265 (better quality, much smaller size)
- FooBarWidget 13y ago
  H265 has a smaller adoption base than even WebM. If we're talking about that league anyway, then maybe Daala is competitive. They claim that it is better than H265.
  - anon1385 13y ago
    Daala is years away from being usable, never mind achieving widespread adoption. It is not competing with H265, it's competing with whatever comes after H265.
    - ZeroGravitas 13y ago
      Different codecs are on different timelines, but unless H.266 comes much faster than previous iterations, then Daala will be competing with H.265.
- sho_hn 13y ago
  Wikipedia Commons has overriding concerns, such as spread and availability (including licensing) of codecs. H.265 isn't meeting those bars yet.
- mschuster91 13y ago
  yet it will take quite a massive amount of time for implementation. For the next 4 years h264 will stay the dominant force in video, simply because of the backlog of only-h264-capable devices. What 'd be cool is if mobile/laptop/desktop vendors would start sticking FPGAs on the boards to allow for dynamic updates of video decode cores.
- klodolph 13y ago
  Wrong goal. Wikimedia is looking for a video format that reaches most users now, not one that will probably reach many users a few years from now.
Pxtl 13y ago
tl;dr: because iOS.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- trycatch 13y ago
  It's not just iOS. It's PITA to upload videos to Commons for an ordinary person. It's a legitimate problem. That said, list of unsupported _free_ formats: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:UNSUPPORTED https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:UNSUPPORTED No 3D, no raw, no CSV, no HDRi, no JPEG2000 (widely used by archives), etc. Or even H.261, its patents probably expired already, and it's widely used by various archives. But very little happens in these directions.
- DCKing 13y ago
  Safari and Internet Explorer only support H.264. Chrome, Android browser and Firefox support H.264 (FF on Linux & Windows IIRC). H.264 doesn't just get to iOS devices. It's the only way to make sure your web video shows on ~98% of all devices.
  - diminish 13y ago
    a question; on all the platforms you cited, you may switch to the right browser to see open video formats. i'm curious on ios, can you do it? (i mean chrome and other browsers on ios can they run non-h264 codecs?)
    - 0x0 13y ago
      There is a VLC for iOS, but if you want efficient hardware accelerated video playback (which you do on a battery powered device), you'll have to settle for mp4 and the built-in CoreMedia framework. As a bonus it will also play seamlessly in the system browser and any apps with a native UIWebView component.
      - diminish 13y ago
sheng 13y ago
Why not webm?
- acdha 13y ago
  You might find the lengthy discussion in the linked article answers your question. To summarize: 1. Millions of visitors can't view WebM 2. Most of the video created today is H.264
  - sheng 13y ago
    thanks for the tl;dr summary, I may give the full discussion a try.
- astrodust 13y ago
  WebM is a dead format. Although it purports to be patent free, it has very little support and may have exactly the same problems as H.264 with respect to patents. It earns a "nice try" from Google, but not a passing grade. It's no PNG.
TullamoreDude 13y ago
Ok I will be the one nagging here.MP4 you usaually refer to the Containerformat specified in MPEG-4 Part 12 and Part 14.My prof was so strict about that MP4 is not a videoformat, I still have nigthmares from the MP4 analysis... (There is a Box in a Box in a Box and you have to describe each and every property). Sorry for the inconvenience
wilg 13y ago
I think this is a fantastic idea for Wikipedia. There have been tons of times I've wanted to watch a video or listen to an audio recording on Wikipedia, only to have it completely fail to work correctly on my device. To me, it couldn't be more of a win-win: increased access and prominence of video content on Wikipedia, but everything is also available or mastered in an unencumbered format. I just don't see how offering an alternative format makes Wikipedia "less free" like the majority of editors seem to believe.

46 points by mmcclure 13y ago

mtw 13y ago

a bit late, vendors are now working on implementing the next version h.265 (better quality, much smaller size)

FooBarWidget 13y ago
H265 has a smaller adoption base than even WebM. If we're talking about that league anyway, then maybe Daala is competitive. They claim that it is better than H265.
- anon1385 13y ago
  Daala is years away from being usable, never mind achieving widespread adoption. It is not competing with H265, it's competing with whatever comes after H265.
  - ZeroGravitas 13y ago
    Different codecs are on different timelines, but unless H.266 comes much faster than previous iterations, then Daala will be competing with H.265.
sho_hn 13y ago
Wikipedia Commons has overriding concerns, such as spread and availability (including licensing) of codecs. H.265 isn't meeting those bars yet.
mschuster91 13y ago
yet it will take quite a massive amount of time for implementation. For the next 4 years h264 will stay the dominant force in video, simply because of the backlog of only-h264-capable devices. What 'd be cool is if mobile/laptop/desktop vendors would start sticking FPGAs on the boards to allow for dynamic updates of video decode cores.
klodolph 13y ago
Wrong goal. Wikimedia is looking for a video format that reaches most users now, not one that will probably reach many users a few years from now.

Pxtl 13y ago

tl;dr: because iOS.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
trycatch 13y ago
It's not just iOS. It's PITA to upload videos to Commons for an ordinary person. It's a legitimate problem. That said, list of unsupported _free_ formats: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:UNSUPPORTED https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:UNSUPPORTED No 3D, no raw, no CSV, no HDRi, no JPEG2000 (widely used by archives), etc. Or even H.261, its patents probably expired already, and it's widely used by various archives. But very little happens in these directions.
DCKing 13y ago
Safari and Internet Explorer only support H.264. Chrome, Android browser and Firefox support H.264 (FF on Linux & Windows IIRC). H.264 doesn't just get to iOS devices. It's the only way to make sure your web video shows on ~98% of all devices.
- diminish 13y ago
  a question; on all the platforms you cited, you may switch to the right browser to see open video formats. i'm curious on ios, can you do it? (i mean chrome and other browsers on ios can they run non-h264 codecs?)
  - 0x0 13y ago
    There is a VLC for iOS, but if you want efficient hardware accelerated video playback (which you do on a battery powered device), you'll have to settle for mp4 and the built-in CoreMedia framework. As a bonus it will also play seamlessly in the system browser and any apps with a native UIWebView component.
    - diminish 13y ago

sheng 13y ago

Why not webm?

acdha 13y ago
You might find the lengthy discussion in the linked article answers your question. To summarize: 1. Millions of visitors can't view WebM 2. Most of the video created today is H.264
- sheng 13y ago
  thanks for the tl;dr summary, I may give the full discussion a try.
astrodust 13y ago
WebM is a dead format. Although it purports to be patent free, it has very little support and may have exactly the same problems as H.264 with respect to patents. It earns a "nice try" from Google, but not a passing grade. It's no PNG.

TullamoreDude 13y ago

Ok I will be the one nagging here.MP4 you usaually refer to the Containerformat specified in MPEG-4 Part 12 and Part 14.My prof was so strict about that MP4 is not a videoformat, I still have nigthmares from the MP4 analysis... (There is a Box in a Box in a Box and you have to describe each and every property). Sorry for the inconvenience

wilg 13y ago

I think this is a fantastic idea for Wikipedia. There have been tons of times I've wanted to watch a video or listen to an audio recording on Wikipedia, only to have it completely fail to work correctly on my device. To me, it couldn't be more of a win-win: increased access and prominence of video content on Wikipedia, but everything is also available or mastered in an unencumbered format. I just don't see how offering an alternative format makes Wikipedia "less free" like the majority of editors seem to believe.