On Sat, 4 Nov 2000, Patrick R. Wade wrote:
> I haven't tried it, but the Xanim webpage says that it supports QuickTime.
There was a discussion about this on Slashdot recently with the
following upshot: Quicktime support in Linux is not a problem -- the
problem is support for the proprietary codecs that are used within
Quicktime.
>From the xanim webpage:
snip
--
Below is a list of codecs supported by XAnim Revision 2.80.0.
Please note that most formats can support a large number of different
compression/encoding styles. And new ones are coming out all the time. So
while XAnim supports the AVI Format, it doesn't yet support all the
various video and audio codecs that can be used inside an AVI
file. Usually the reason I can't support a particular video codec is
because the company that owns that codec *will not allow it*.
--
snip
The relevant slashdot article:
http://slashdot.org/askslashdot/00/10/11/202212.shtml
snip
--
Quicktime 5 vs. Everybody?
Posted by Cliff on Wednesday October 11,
@07:00PM
from the but-it's-still-not-cross-paltform-enough
dept.
Dean Siren asks: "Now that Apple has released
the Quicktime 5 Public Preview, they've upgraded their video
codec to Sorenson 3 from Sorenson 2 which Jeremy Neish
says pales in comparison to MPEG4 and its derivatives. So,
how well does Sorenson 3 compete against MPEG4 as far as
quality per bitrate, processor demand, compression times,
and streaming are concerned? Can Apple now stay ahead of
DivX, Windows Media Player 7 and Real Player 8?" Neish
notes that none of the latest codecs are not compatible with
Unix so only Mac and Windows users get to take advantage of
the latest in digital video formats. When someone gets
around to fixing this, then I can again get excited about
Quicktime, until then it's just another format to me (and yet
another reason why I have to have a Windows box lying
around).
snip
I hate to keep harping on this... (Score:4, Insightful)
by wowbagger
(wowbaggeratsierrakilotangocharliedotnovemberechota) on Wednesday October
11, @09:19PM EDT (#6)
(User #69688 Info)
(actually, I obviously love to keep harping on this, or I wouldn't.)
Apple is not now, nor have they ever been, a friend of the open
source movement. Were they a friend, they would at least release a binary
only, closed source version of Quicktime for Linux. Better still, a
binary-only plug-in for Xanim. Best, they would release the Sorenson
decoder source (the real magic of these things is not in the decoder, but
in the ENCODER: figuring out what data to eliminate is the hard work,
reconstructing it is relatively easy.)
What has Apple done for the open source or free software
movements? They've released yet another kernel for PPC. Nice, but we
already have several OSS and free software kernels out there.
The next time Apple tries to milk the movements for free publicity, stand
up and call them on it.
Re:Apple's Sorenson codec (Score:1)
by DickBreath ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) on Wednesday October 11,
@09:52PM EDT (#8) (User #207180 Info)
I am under the impression that Apple can't release source to their
Sorenson codec. I think they license it from somewhere.
Which of course begs the question, if it isn't as good as MPEG4, then why
don't they add MPEG4?
Re:Apple's Sorenson codec (Score:3, Informative)
by /dev/kev (kev.zip@com@au) on Wednesday October 11, @11:01PM EDT (#9)
(User #9760 Info) http://www.zip.com.au/~kev/
Apple have an exclusive license from Sorenson to use the
codec. This means that when you ask Sorenson about it, they say "Sorry,
we'd love to sell (not give) you a license, but our hands are tied - Apple
have an exclusive license. Go bug them about it."
While I don't know the exact details of the license, I'm pretty
sure it prevents Apple from releasing any source. Even if it doesn't
prevent them, Apple have made it quite clear that they have no intentions
of ever releasing the source. The license almost certainly forbids Apple
from relicensing the technology, so it's unlikely they could allow any
third-party (such as the Xanim author) to develop an implementation of the
codec.
Hell, they're not even interested in a totally non-free binary-only
port. There's definitely nothing (legally) stopping them from doing this,
it'd just be another platform which QT5 supports in addition to the usual
suspects. It'd make good business sense, too, since Apple are
(essentially) fighting a codec war with MPEG4 and RealVideo, and having
the free software movement on their side would help them immeasurably.
Instead, people using free software platforms can't even view Sorenson
encoded stuff, which means they'll just pass it over as an option.
Re:Apple's Sorenson codec (Score:2)
by wowbagger (wowbaggeratsierrakilotangocharliedotnovemberechota) on
Thursday October 12, @07:59AM EDT (#16) (User #69688 Info)
You have it dead right. I've written to both Apple and Sorenson
asking them to do something about this, and they play a fine old game of
"pass the potato"
Sorenson: Sorry, we cannot do anything about this, Apple has an exclusive
license, talk to them.
Apple: Sorry, it's Sorenson's codec, talk to them.
As I said, Apple is not a friend of Open Source/Free Software.
MPEG-4 is NOT a codec (Score:1, Insightful)
by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 13, @06:05PM EDT (#36)
I think there is a little confusion on what a codec is. MPEG-4 is NOT a
codec, it is an architecture (like QuickTime and to a much lesser degree
Windows Media). An architecture controls everything from file formats to
blitting algorithms to sound resampling to rich media support. A video
codec turns uncompressed bitmaps into a binary stream and back again. It's
an important part of the whole web video experience, but certainly less
than half the work.
There are PLENTY of MPEG-4 codecs, including several in development for
QuickTime, and several different implementations for Windows
Media. However, the MPEG-4 codec is only a small part of the full MPEG-4
spec and file format, which also includes audio codecs, client/server
negotiation, packet recovery and retransmission, rich media support like
text tracks and clickable hotspots, and lots of other groovy stuff.
XAnim may someday have MPEG-4 codec support, but that doesn't mean it'd be
able to play any but the simplest MPEG-4 files, and then only via local
playback or TCP. MPEG-4 file playback is probably an order of magnitude
more complex than the entierly of XAnim today, with its primative support
for lossless binary streams of linear media.
This is HARD stuff people, which is why teams of experts spend years
designing these things. We're talking many engineer years to do even a
basic implementation or port.
--
snip
-Chris
