--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Brook Hinton bhin...@... wrote:
If we accept EITHER h.264 or Ogg as even close to an acceptable standard for
online video quality we're in trouble. We have a long long long way to go in
this area before we can call any codec at online bandwidth good. h.264
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, elbowsofdeath st...@... wrote:
snip
I now what you mean but I dont really agree. I think where we are at is at an
acceptable quality:size ratio and I dont see any signs that things will
improve much in the short to medium term. Considering how much
Good. And for those still worried about the future for h.264 after 2016 this
buys a lot of time for alternative codecs to be improved.
One of the reasons Ive been quite relaxed about all this licensing stuff is
that generally companies are only after money from those who can afford to pay,
its
They still gain in other ways by having h.264 as the standard, ie they get
larger payments from companies that distribute a lot of video, sell video,
make hardware software that encodes decodes, etc etc. The end user or
small creator still ends up paying in the form of a small chunk of
Well I always have very mixed feelings about patents because of what a mess can
potentially be caused, especially for the web. Luckily some pragmatism tends to
occur otherwise we'd have been stuffed by previous patent woes such as Amazon
1-click buy or BTs claim to hold a patent for hyperlinks.
If we accept EITHER h.264 or Ogg as even close to an acceptable standard for
online video quality we're in trouble. We have a long long long way to go in
this area before we can call any codec at online bandwidth good. h.264 is
just the first one that isn't HORRIBLE, and Ogg is better than the
