
VP9 Codec Nears Completion - bconway
http://blog.webmproject.org/2013/05/vp9-codec-nears-completion.html
======
dave1010uk
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/>

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
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
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
Ah, my bad.

------
matt2000
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> (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.

~~~
H3g3m0n
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.

~~~
Sprint
See the description for a link to the source and lossless downloads.

------
pornel
Will WebP switch from VP8 to VP9?

~~~
dchest
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-
discu...](https://groups.google.com/a/webmproject.org/d/msg/webp-
discuss/yYYb1hI9FM0/saUBY8vBpCgJ)

------
threeseed
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.

~~~
kkowalczyk
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/mpeg...](http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/licensing/mpeg4faq.aspx#MPEG4VideoFAQ_1_2)

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>)

~~~
threeseed
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
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
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
Yes. That's how patents work. Patents violations cover both creators of the
infringing device and users.

~~~
mpyne
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.

