[OT]h.264 alternatives

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
30 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

[OT]h.264 alternatives

J. Landman Gay via use-livecode
Seems most folks use h.264 for encoding video, but being
patent-encumbered it requires negotiating a license with MPEGLA for
commercial use.

I have a batch of files I need to re-encode - what non-patent-encumbered
codec could I use that will be supported on all platforms?

--
  Richard Gaskin
  Fourth World Systems
  Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web
  ____________________________________________________________________
  [hidden email]                http://www.FourthWorld.com

_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [OT]h.264 alternatives

J. Landman Gay via use-livecode
Are you sure that a license is needed for H.264 playback? That could seriously impact the viability of YouTube or Vimeo, if all users had to pay a license fee.

My hope is that the license is just paid by the encoder tool maker. If you’re using Adobe Media Encoder you don’t have to pay a license, Adobe already did.

In the hope that playback doesn’t involve paying a fee, you could use non-H.264 encoders that make videos that are played back by anything that can handle H.264. That might allow you to use your own tool without a license fee, and still make videos that can play back everywhere.

Here is an article that talks about how to solve a gamma/contrast issue that happens with most H.264 encoders:

https://myth.li/2010/07/how-to-fix-the-h264-gamma-brightness-bug-in-quicktime/

The solution they have is to use an x264 encoder, and the article has links to a QuickTime component, so that you could export to x264 from anything that uses QuickTime. The results are better looking than regular H.264.

> On Jul 19, 2017, at 12:37 PM, Richard Gaskin via use-livecode <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Seems most folks use h.264 for encoding video, but being patent-encumbered it requires negotiating a license with MPEGLA for commercial use.
>


_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [OT]h.264 alternatives

J. Landman Gay via use-livecode
In reply to this post by J. Landman Gay via use-livecode
from what I can tell Vorbis works with WebM but then you get into the
browser problem. The proprietary browsers appear to not support the OSS
media without extra stuff added by the user..

It's also hard to get a decent encoding software...  you might have to roll
your own.

it's the 'all platforms' part that is a problem.

as usual.... wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_open-source_codecs

sqb

--
Stephen Barncard - Sebastopol Ca. USA -
mixstream.org

On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 12:37 PM, Richard Gaskin via use-livecode <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Seems most folks use h.264 for encoding video, but being patent-encumbered
> it requires negotiating a license with MPEGLA for commercial use.
>
> I have a batch of files I need to re-encode - what non-patent-encumbered
> codec could I use that will be supported on all platforms?
>
> --
>  Richard Gaskin
>  Fourth World Systems
>  Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web
>  ____________________________________________________________________
>  [hidden email]                http://www.FourthWorld.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> use-livecode mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>
_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [OT]h.264 alternatives

J. Landman Gay via use-livecode
In reply to this post by J. Landman Gay via use-livecode
Video codecs <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_codec>[edit
<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_open-source_codecs&action=edit&section=1>
]

   - *x264 <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X264>* – H.264/MPEG-4 AVC
   <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/MPEG-4_AVC> implementation. x264 is
   not a codec (en*co*der/*dec*oder); it is just an encoder (it cannot
   decode video).
   - *OpenH264 <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenH264>* – H.264 baseline
   profile encoding and decoding


--
Stephen Barncard - Sebastopol Ca. USA -
mixstream.org

On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 12:57 PM, Colin Holgate via use-livecode <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Are you sure that a license is needed for H.264 playback? That could
> seriously impact the viability of YouTube or Vimeo, if all users had to pay
> a license fee.
>
> My hope is that the license is just paid by the encoder tool maker. If
> you’re using Adobe Media Encoder you don’t have to pay a license, Adobe
> already did.
>
> In the hope that playback doesn’t involve paying a fee, you could use
> non-H.264 encoders that make videos that are played back by anything that
> can handle H.264. That might allow you to use your own tool without a
> license fee, and still make videos that can play back everywhere.
>
> Here is an article that talks about how to solve a gamma/contrast issue
> that happens with most H.264 encoders:
>
> https://myth.li/2010/07/how-to-fix-the-h264-gamma-
> brightness-bug-in-quicktime/
>
> The solution they have is to use an x264 encoder, and the article has
> links to a QuickTime component, so that you could export to x264 from
> anything that uses QuickTime. The results are better looking than regular
> H.264.
>
> > On Jul 19, 2017, at 12:37 PM, Richard Gaskin via use-livecode <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > Seems most folks use h.264 for encoding video, but being
> patent-encumbered it requires negotiating a license with MPEGLA for
> commercial use.
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> use-livecode mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>
_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [OT]h.264 alternatives

J. Landman Gay via use-livecode
In reply to this post by J. Landman Gay via use-livecode
Colin Holgate wrote:

 > Are you sure that a license is needed for H.264 playback?

No, encoding.

 > My hope is that the license is just paid by the encoder tool maker.

Would be nice, but not always so.  E.g., Apple's Final Cut "Pro" (which
only allows for non-pro use):

     15. H.264/AVC Notice. To the extent that the Apple Software contains
     AVC encoding and/or decoding functionality, commercial use of
     H.264/AVC requires additional licensing and the following provision
     applies: THE AVC FUNCTIONALITY IN THIS PRODUCT IS LICENSED HEREIN
     ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL USE OF A CONSUMER TO (i)
     ENCODE VIDEO IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE AVC STANDARD ("AVC VIDEO")
     AND/OR (ii) DECODE AVC VIDEO THAT WAS ENCODED BY A CONSUMER ENGAGED
     IN A PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY AND/OR AVC VIDEO THAT WAS
     OBTAINED FROM A VIDEO PROVIDER LICENSED TO PROVIDE AVC VIDEO.
     INFORMATION REGARDING OTHER USES AND LICENSES MAY BE OBTAINED FROM
     MPEG LA L.L.C.
http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/finalcutstudio2.pdf


Similar wording is also in the Adobe Premier EULA:

http://wwwimages.adobe.com/content/dam/acom/en/legal/licenses-terms/pdf/CS6.pdf


--
  Richard Gaskin
  Fourth World Systems
  Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web
  ____________________________________________________________________
  [hidden email]                http://www.FourthWorld.com

_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [OT]h.264 alternatives

J. Landman Gay via use-livecode
The copyright for x264 is GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE, but I don’t know if that means you can encode video for sale.
_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [OT]h.264 alternatives

J. Landman Gay via use-livecode
In reply to this post by J. Landman Gay via use-livecode
Which means every network and independent film-maker is breaking the law...
  because I guarantee that they're not looking at the EULA when sending off
their work for broadcast or theater.    I see this every day.

Kinda like "don't ask don't tell" if you ask me.

And unenforceable. They'd have to sue everyone using their product.
To assume the two top video editing programs for independents can't be used
for professional use is ludicrous.

Who would be the 'cop' that would enforce this?

I just don't worry about this stuff when working on music or video projects.

sqb

--
Stephen Barncard - Sebastopol Ca. USA -
mixstream.org

On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 1:21 PM, Richard Gaskin via use-livecode <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Colin Holgate wrote:
>
> > Are you sure that a license is needed for H.264 playback?
>
> No, encoding.
>
> > My hope is that the license is just paid by the encoder tool maker.
>
> Would be nice, but not always so.  E.g., Apple's Final Cut "Pro" (which
> only allows for non-pro use):
>
>     15. H.264/AVC Notice. To the extent that the Apple Software contains
>     AVC encoding and/or decoding functionality, commercial use of
>     H.264/AVC requires additional licensing and the following provision
>     applies: THE AVC FUNCTIONALITY IN THIS PRODUCT IS LICENSED HEREIN
>     ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL USE OF A CONSUMER TO (i)
>     ENCODE VIDEO IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE AVC STANDARD ("AVC VIDEO")
>     AND/OR (ii) DECODE AVC VIDEO THAT WAS ENCODED BY A CONSUMER ENGAGED
>     IN A PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY AND/OR AVC VIDEO THAT WAS
>     OBTAINED FROM A VIDEO PROVIDER LICENSED TO PROVIDE AVC VIDEO.
>     INFORMATION REGARDING OTHER USES AND LICENSES MAY BE OBTAINED FROM
>     MPEG LA L.L.C.
> http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/finalcutstudio2.pdf
>
>
> Similar wording is also in the Adobe Premier EULA:
>
> http://wwwimages.adobe.com/content/dam/acom/en/legal/license
> s-terms/pdf/CS6.pdf
>
>
> --
>  Richard Gaskin
>  Fourth World Systems
>  Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web
>  ____________________________________________________________________
>  [hidden email]                http://www.FourthWorld.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> use-livecode mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>
_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [OT]h.264 alternatives

J. Landman Gay via use-livecode
Stephen Barncard wrote:

 > Which means every network and independent film-maker is breaking the
 > law...
 >   because I guarantee that they're not looking at the EULA when
 > sending off their work for broadcast or theater.    I see this every
 > day.
 >
 > Kinda like "don't ask don't tell" if you ask me.
 >
 > And unenforceable. They'd have to sue everyone using their product.

Is that any more difficult than identifying a specific printer used to
print a document?

<http://www.instructables.com/id/Yellow-Dots-of-Mystery-Is-Your-Printer-Spying-on-/>


 > I just don't worry about this stuff when working on music or video
 > projects.

In this case I'm working with a client in which my contract obliges me
to ensure there are no copyright or patent liabilities in delivered work.

I can push it off on their legal team, but as a consultant it seems
useful to be able to suggest alternatives as well.

--
  Richard Gaskin
  Fourth World Systems
  Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web
  ____________________________________________________________________
  [hidden email]                http://www.FourthWorld.com

_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [OT]h.264 alternatives

J. Landman Gay via use-livecode
I would stay with h.264 if possible - its popular and supported by most
platforms. Having to trouble shoot video issues on an ongoing basis is not
really fun. But yes - there is a licencing requirement if its being used
commercially - no idea how actively it is policed.

Are the video's going to be shared commercially? How will they be accessed
etc etc etc. Depending on the video's, length and number of users etc ,
there could be no actual costs incurred -
http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Documents/avcweb.pdf and even if
costs were to be incurred, what would be the support costs and possibly
losses if a less popular codec was used.


Carpe diem

*Simon Smith*
m. +27 83 306 7862

On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 11:13 PM, Richard Gaskin via use-livecode <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Stephen Barncard wrote:
>
> > Which means every network and independent film-maker is breaking the
> > law...
> >   because I guarantee that they're not looking at the EULA when
> > sending off their work for broadcast or theater.    I see this every
> > day.
> >
> > Kinda like "don't ask don't tell" if you ask me.
> >
> > And unenforceable. They'd have to sue everyone using their product.
>
> Is that any more difficult than identifying a specific printer used to
> print a document?
>
> <http://www.instructables.com/id/Yellow-Dots-of-Mystery-Is-Y
> our-Printer-Spying-on-/>
>
>
> > I just don't worry about this stuff when working on music or video
> > projects.
>
> In this case I'm working with a client in which my contract obliges me to
> ensure there are no copyright or patent liabilities in delivered work.
>
> I can push it off on their legal team, but as a consultant it seems useful
> to be able to suggest alternatives as well.
>
>
> --
>  Richard Gaskin
>  Fourth World Systems
>  Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web
>  ____________________________________________________________________
>  [hidden email]                http://www.FourthWorld.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> use-livecode mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>
_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [OT]h.264 alternatives

J. Landman Gay via use-livecode
Simon Smith wrote:

 > I would stay with h.264 if possible - its popular and supported by
 > most platforms. Having to trouble shoot video issues on an ongoing
 > basis is not really fun. But yes - there is a licencing requirement
 > if its being used commercially - no idea how actively it is policed.
 >
 > Are the video's going to be shared commercially? How will they be
 > accessed etc etc etc. Depending on the video's, length and number
 > of users etc ,
 > there could be no actual costs incurred -
 > http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Documents/avcweb.pdf and even
 > if costs were to be incurred, what would be the support costs and
 > possibly losses if a less popular codec was used.

Good point.

With Ogg's BSD-style license it would be ideal if it were more widely
supported.  But as it is I'll raise the issue and let their legal team
sort it out.  With any luck they may already have a license.

--
  Richard Gaskin
  Fourth World Systems
  Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web
  ____________________________________________________________________
  [hidden email]                http://www.FourthWorld.com

_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

AW: [OT]h.264 alternatives

J. Landman Gay via use-livecode
In reply to this post by J. Landman Gay via use-livecode
Keep in mind, that h.264 is not natively supported by Windows 10 (and not by
8 I think). You need to install a h.264 filter!
Up to now, I didn't found a separate h.264 filter installer, which only
installs h.264, only bundled in a codec package installer like the LAV
filters.

Tiemo


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: use-livecode [mailto:[hidden email]] Im Auftrag
von Richard Gaskin via use-livecode
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 19. Juli 2017 21:37
An: How to use LiveCode <[hidden email]>
Cc: Richard Gaskin <[hidden email]>
Betreff: [OT]h.264 alternatives

Seems most folks use h.264 for encoding video, but being patent-encumbered
it requires negotiating a license with MPEGLA for commercial use.

I have a batch of files I need to re-encode - what non-patent-encumbered
codec could I use that will be supported on all platforms?

--
  Richard Gaskin
  Fourth World Systems
  Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web
  ____________________________________________________________________
  [hidden email]                http://www.FourthWorld.com

_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [OT]h.264 alternatives

J. Landman Gay via use-livecode
In reply to this post by J. Landman Gay via use-livecode
At this point I think common law would kick in, since they have been allowing the practice for well over 7 years now.

Bob S


> On Jul 19, 2017, at 13:31 , Stephen Barncard via use-livecode <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Which means every network and independent film-maker is breaking the law...
>  because I guarantee that they're not looking at the EULA when sending off
> their work for broadcast or theater.    I see this every day.
>
> Kinda like "don't ask don't tell" if you ask me.
>
> And unenforceable. They'd have to sue everyone using their product.
> To assume the two top video editing programs for independents can't be used
> for professional use is ludicrous.
>
> Who would be the 'cop' that would enforce this?
>
> I just don't worry about this stuff when working on music or video projects.
>
> sqb
>
> --
> Stephen Barncard - Sebastopol Ca. USA -
> mixstream.org


_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: AW: [OT]h.264 alternatives

J. Landman Gay via use-livecode
In reply to this post by J. Landman Gay via use-livecode
Tiemo Hollmann wrote:

 > Keep in mind, that h.264 is not natively supported by Windows 10 (and
 > not by 8 I think). You need to install a h.264 filte

Thanks, Tiemo. That's a serious bummer.

It's 2017. Is there really no single codec available for Mac, Windows,
Linux, iOS, and Android which allows playback of a single video file?

Are we stuck in the yesteryear of having to query the user-agent and
serve different files according to the user's OS?

Extra bonus points if it's no patent-encumbered, but at this point I'll
take what I can get.

--
  Richard Gaskin
  Fourth World Systems
  Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web
  ____________________________________________________________________
  [hidden email]                http://www.FourthWorld.com

_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [OT]h.264 alternatives

J. Landman Gay via use-livecode
In reply to this post by J. Landman Gay via use-livecode
Bob Sneidar wrote:

 >> On Jul 19, 2017, at 13:31 , Stephen Barncard wrote:
 >>
 >> Which means every network and independent film-maker is breaking the
 >> law...
 >>  because I guarantee that they're not looking at the EULA when
 >> sending off their work for broadcast or theater.    I see this every
 >> day.
 >>
 >> Kinda like "don't ask don't tell" if you ask me.
 >>
 >> And unenforceable. They'd have to sue everyone using their product.
 >> To assume the two top video editing programs for independents can't
 >> be used for professional use is ludicrous.
 >>
 >> Who would be the 'cop' that would enforce this?
 >
 > At this point I think common law would kick in, since they have been
 > allowing the practice for well over 7 years now.

I am not an attorney, and nothing I write should be construed as legal
advice.  I can only describe my own practices in my own office (Dr.
Hawkins, please feel free to correct anything here that may be inaccurate).

While trademarks seem to have a case law history of frowning on what
courts may see as "selective enforcement", I believe that constraint is
nearly unique to trademarks; broader guidelines apply for defining and
enforcing infringement of patents (and copyrights too, AFAIK), at least
in US jurisdictions.

Remember the GIF controversy, where Unisys began broad enforcement of
their LZW patent only after GIF had become nearly universally adopted:
<https://mike.pub/19950127-gif-lzw>

Indeed, one of the key motivations for creating PNG was to have a
replacement for GIF that wasn't patent-encumbered (extra bonus points
that being a more modern format PNG supports a wide range of great
features far beyond anything GIF ever dreamed of).

MP3's patents were similarly contentious:
<http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/05/technology/05music.html>

Personally, I would not wager my company or any client's company on the
hope of a favorable ruling from a court which contradicts a written
license agreement.

In addition to legitimate patent holders like MPEGLA, we've also seen an
increase in patent trolling from non-practicing entities suing small
devs for the most obscure patents imagined*.  Newegg has the resources
to fight such things, and with good success so far (our entire industry
owes them a debt of gratitude for doing more to slow patent trolls than
any other single company has done):
<https://www.law360.com/articles/784539>

But I have fewer legal resources than NewEgg, so I need to minimize risk
exposure where practical.  For me this begins with reading license
agreements, and acting on them with a conservative interpretation of
their terms, openly discussing any potential risks with clients so they
can review options with their counsel.



* Many patents asserted by NPEs are so broad and/or vague they could be
met with piles of prior art.  But that requires hiring a law firm
specializing in IP and funding the research and trial time.  Patent
trolls depend on this being prohibitively expensive for small devs, who
are often eager to settle for a fraction of what it would cost to defend
themselves.

The USPTO cannot be expected to have the resources to deny patent
applications based on prior art research, or the authority to interpret
definitions of relevant prior art as they may pertain to a given
application.

So it falls on the courts to decide these things, and patent litigation
is among the most expensive categories of legal practice.

These are among the many reasons I side with the EFF and others opposed
to software patents.

Several years ago New Zealand pretty much banned software patent cases
from their courts, a change many of us small devs hope will gain broader
international support:
<http://www.zdnet.com/article/new-zealand-bans-software-patents/>

--
  Richard Gaskin
  Fourth World Systems
  Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web
  ____________________________________________________________________
  [hidden email]                http://www.FourthWorld.com

_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

AW: AW: [OT]h.264 alternatives

J. Landman Gay via use-livecode
In reply to this post by J. Landman Gay via use-livecode
Hi Richard,
I also was looking for a cross-platform compatible codec a year ago and
wondered why it was still so complicated.  On the first sight I didn't found
any codec, which is available by standard on both platforms. I stopped my
further investigations after I found the LAV-filters solution for the h.264
codec.
But I wonder, which codec youtube converts all videos into or other
platforms are using so that their videos are almost always compatible with
all platforms. There must be any cross-platform codec or the browser video
players bring all available codecs with them, but they are not available
outside of the web player as in LC.
Tiemo


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: use-livecode [mailto:[hidden email]] Im Auftrag
von Richard Gaskin via use-livecode
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 20. Juli 2017 19:04
An: [hidden email]
Cc: Richard Gaskin <[hidden email]>
Betreff: Re: AW: [OT]h.264 alternatives

Tiemo Hollmann wrote:

 > Keep in mind, that h.264 is not natively supported by Windows 10 (and  >
not by 8 I think). You need to install a h.264 filte

Thanks, Tiemo. That's a serious bummer.

It's 2017. Is there really no single codec available for Mac, Windows,
Linux, iOS, and Android which allows playback of a single video file?

Are we stuck in the yesteryear of having to query the user-agent and serve
different files according to the user's OS?

Extra bonus points if it's no patent-encumbered, but at this point I'll take
what I can get.

--
  Richard Gaskin
  Fourth World Systems
  Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web
  ____________________________________________________________________
  [hidden email]                http://www.FourthWorld.com

_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

AW: AW: [OT]h.264 alternatives

J. Landman Gay via use-livecode
... and h.264 is not h.264, it depends on the codec being used! I am also
using h.264 videos on iOS and Android, but the fun stopped with the first
customers, who couldn't play my videos on some Android devices. Obviously my
choice of a Sorenson h.264 codec isn't compatible with all Android devices
(mostly LG) and I have no idea if there is any codec at all, which is
compatible with all Android devices. Sigh!
Tiemo


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: use-livecode [mailto:[hidden email]] Im Auftrag
von Tiemo Hollmann TB via use-livecode
Gesendet: Freitag, 21. Juli 2017 10:46
An: 'How to use LiveCode' <[hidden email]>
Cc: Tiemo Hollmann TB <[hidden email]>
Betreff: AW: AW: [OT]h.264 alternatives

Hi Richard,
I also was looking for a cross-platform compatible codec a year ago and
wondered why it was still so complicated.  On the first sight I didn't found
any codec, which is available by standard on both platforms. I stopped my
further investigations after I found the LAV-filters solution for the h.264
codec.
But I wonder, which codec youtube converts all videos into or other
platforms are using so that their videos are almost always compatible with
all platforms. There must be any cross-platform codec or the browser video
players bring all available codecs with them, but they are not available
outside of the web player as in LC.
Tiemo


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: use-livecode [mailto:[hidden email]] Im Auftrag
von Richard Gaskin via use-livecode
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 20. Juli 2017 19:04
An: [hidden email]
Cc: Richard Gaskin <[hidden email]>
Betreff: Re: AW: [OT]h.264 alternatives

Tiemo Hollmann wrote:

 > Keep in mind, that h.264 is not natively supported by Windows 10 (and  >
not by 8 I think). You need to install a h.264 filte

Thanks, Tiemo. That's a serious bummer.

It's 2017. Is there really no single codec available for Mac, Windows,
Linux, iOS, and Android which allows playback of a single video file?

Are we stuck in the yesteryear of having to query the user-agent and serve
different files according to the user's OS?

Extra bonus points if it's no patent-encumbered, but at this point I'll take
what I can get.

--
  Richard Gaskin
  Fourth World Systems
  Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web
  ____________________________________________________________________
  [hidden email]                http://www.FourthWorld.com

_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: AW: AW: [OT]h.264 alternatives

J. Landman Gay via use-livecode
In reply to this post by J. Landman Gay via use-livecode
On 07/21/2017 03:45 AM, Tiemo Hollmann TB via use-livecode wrote:
> But I wonder, which codec youtube converts all videos into or other
> platforms are using so that their videos are almost always compatible with
> all platforms. There must be any cross-platform codec or the browser video
> players bring all available codecs with them



They make files available in more than one format to accommodate various
browsers. The player and the browser negotiate which file to use. This
is the common solution to the problem.

If you visit a youtube URL with youtube-dl using the -F option you'll
see something like this, listing the associated files:


[youtube] NSEISkSfzIg: Downloading MPD manifest
[info] Available formats for NSEISkSfzIg:
format code  extension  resolution note
139          m4a        audio only DASH audio   49k , m4a_dash
container, mp4a.40.5@ 48k (22050Hz), 1.23MiB
249          webm       audio only DASH audio   68k , opus @ 50k, 1.46MiB
250          webm       audio only DASH audio  103k , opus @ 70k, 2.09MiB
171          webm       audio only DASH audio  124k , vorbis@128k, 3.04MiB
140          m4a        audio only DASH audio  129k , m4a_dash
container, mp4a.40.2@128k (44100Hz), 3.28MiB
251          webm       audio only DASH audio  181k , opus @160k, 3.89MiB
160          mp4        192x144    DASH video  109k , avc1.4d400c,
12fps, video only, 2.71MiB
133          mp4        320x240    DASH video  246k , avc1.4d400d,
24fps, video only, 6.09MiB
17           3gp        176x144    small , mp4v.20.3, mp4a.40.2@ 24k
36           3gp        320x240    small , mp4v.20.3, mp4a.40.2
18           mp4        320x240    medium , avc1.42001E, mp4a.40.2@ 96k
43           webm       640x360    medium , vp8.0, vorbis@128k (best)


_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: AW: AW: [OT]h.264 alternatives

J. Landman Gay via use-livecode
In reply to this post by J. Landman Gay via use-livecode
On 07/21/2017 04:28 AM, Tiemo Hollmann TB via use-livecode wrote:
> ... and h.264 is not h.264, it depends on the codec being used! I am also
> using h.264 videos on iOS and Android, but the fun stopped with the first
> customers, who couldn't play my videos on some Android devices. Obviously my
> choice of a Sorenson h.264 codec isn't compatible with all Android devices
> (mostly LG) and I have no idea if there is any codec at all, which is
> compatible with all Android devices. Sigh!
> Tiemo


Tiemo,

Is it possible that you selected encoding options that the decoder
couldn't handle? That is to say it's not - might not be - that Sorenson
isn't compatible per se, but that you have to select options which are
compatible? This has always been an issue. There may also be issues with
the container. You have to select a conservative profile and the right
audio format for maximum compatibility. I would encourage you to look
into this. Obviously, this assumes these devices have some kind of h264
capability. Many flaming hoops to jump through...

Warren

_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: AW: AW: [OT]h.264 alternatives

J. Landman Gay via use-livecode
In reply to this post by J. Landman Gay via use-livecode
Yes, this is why most who need to stream video should not do it themselves.
Let the big guys handle it and just imbed it in your thing.

sqb



On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 7:30 AM, Warren Samples via use-livecode <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 07/21/2017 03:45 AM, Tiemo Hollmann TB via use-livecode wrote:
>
>> But I wonder, which codec youtube converts all videos into or other
>> platforms are using so that their videos are almost always compatible with
>> all platforms. There must be any cross-platform codec or the browser video
>> players bring all available codecs with them
>>
>
>
>
> They make files available in more than one format to accommodate various
> browsers. The player and the browser negotiate which file to use. This is
> the common solution to the problem.
>
> If you visit a youtube URL with youtube-dl using the -F option you'll see
> something like this, listing the associated files:
>
>
> [youtube] NSEISkSfzIg: Downloading MPD manifest
> [info] Available formats for NSEISkSfzIg:
> format code  extension  resolution note
> 139          m4a        audio only DASH audio   49k , m4a_dash container,
> mp4a.40.5@ 48k (22050Hz), 1.23MiB
> 249          webm       audio only DASH audio   68k , opus @ 50k, 1.46MiB
> 250          webm       audio only DASH audio  103k , opus @ 70k, 2.09MiB
> 171          webm       audio only DASH audio  124k , vorbis@128k, 3.04MiB
> 140          m4a        audio only DASH audio  129k , m4a_dash container,
> mp4a.40.2@128k (44100Hz), 3.28MiB
> 251          webm       audio only DASH audio  181k , opus @160k, 3.89MiB
> 160          mp4        192x144    DASH video  109k , avc1.4d400c, 12fps,
> video only, 2.71MiB
> 133          mp4        320x240    DASH video  246k , avc1.4d400d, 24fps,
> video only, 6.09MiB
> 17           3gp        176x144    small , mp4v.20.3, mp4a.40.2@ 24k
> 36           3gp        320x240    small , mp4v.20.3, mp4a.40.2
> 18           mp4        320x240    medium , avc1.42001E, mp4a.40.2@ 96k
> 43           webm       640x360    medium , vp8.0, vorbis@128k (best)
>
>

--
Stephen Barncard - Sebastopol Ca. USA -

mixstream.org
_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

AW: [OT]h.264 alternatives

J. Landman Gay via use-livecode
In reply to this post by J. Landman Gay via use-livecode
Last year I asked Sorenson media if I have to pay license fees, using the h.264 codec and got the following answer from Sorenson:
"No, you do not need to pay any license fees to use any codecs included in Squeeze. Sorenson Media pays any license fees necessary for all the codecs contained in Squeeze. Once you have encoded your video with a licensed product, like Squeeze, you will never need to pay any licensing fees again."
I assume that’s the same using other compressing tools
Tiemo


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: use-livecode [mailto:[hidden email]] Im Auftrag von Colin Holgate via use-livecode
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 19. Juli 2017 21:58
An: How to use LiveCode <[hidden email]>
Cc: Colin Holgate <[hidden email]>
Betreff: Re: [OT]h.264 alternatives

Are you sure that a license is needed for H.264 playback? That could seriously impact the viability of YouTube or Vimeo, if all users had to pay a license fee.

My hope is that the license is just paid by the encoder tool maker. If you’re using Adobe Media Encoder you don’t have to pay a license, Adobe already did.

In the hope that playback doesn’t involve paying a fee, you could use non-H.264 encoders that make videos that are played back by anything that can handle H.264. That might allow you to use your own tool without a license fee, and still make videos that can play back everywhere.

Here is an article that talks about how to solve a gamma/contrast issue that happens with most H.264 encoders:

https://myth.li/2010/07/how-to-fix-the-h264-gamma-brightness-bug-in-quicktime/

The solution they have is to use an x264 encoder, and the article has links to a QuickTime component, so that you could export to x264 from anything that uses QuickTime. The results are better looking than regular H.264.

> On Jul 19, 2017, at 12:37 PM, Richard Gaskin via use-livecode <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Seems most folks use h.264 for encoding video, but being patent-encumbered it requires negotiating a license with MPEGLA for commercial use.
>


_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
12
Loading...