On 25 Jan 2010, at 14:27, Mo McRoberts wrote:
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 12:43, Ian Forrester ian.forres...@bbc.co.uk wrote:
I agree but there was no clear idea what we should do except maybe move the
whole thing to Mailman?
There was a consensus for Mailman, although I don't think anybody
On 25 Jan 2010, at 18:59, Barry Carlyon wrote:
(have they finished the HTML 5 Spec yet?)
The definitive answer to this common question is here:
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/#sched
The short answer is no. But that doesn't stop people from implementing bits
of it in browsers of course, despite
IMHO Majordomo is the IE6 of discussion software. Or perhaps it should be
the MS-DOS 3.3?
2010/1/26 Stephen Jolly st...@jollys.org
On 25 Jan 2010, at 14:27, Mo McRoberts wrote:
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 12:43, Ian Forrester ian.forres...@bbc.co.uk
wrote:
I agree but there was no clear idea
Alright Steve and Brian I get the message :)
Secret[] Private[] Public[x]
Ian Forrester
Senior Backstage Producer
BBC RD North Lab,
1st Floor Office, OB Base,
New Broadcasting House, Oxford Road,
Manchester, M60 1SJ
From:
Open source H.264 isn't pursued by MPEG-LA anyway. The issue of encoders is
fine, you just use x264 (which is the project I work on), which is the best
H.264 encoder in the world in the majority of use-cases.
-
You work on the x.264 project? Tell us more...
I've always been
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/01/is-the-world-ready-for-the-successor-of-the-mp3/
This is meant to make music piricay less tempting, so they say.
I just can't understand why someone hasn't made a decent XML format to describe
related items to a local or even remote tune/media. Yes I've
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 12:48, Ian Forrester ian.forres...@bbc.co.uk wrote:
I've always been interested how x.264 and h.264 related to each other and
co-exist. Is its simply a case like how Divx and Xvid work together or is
there more ?
[the question wasn't directed at me, but...]
I'm not
OH I see :) hummm, for reason I thought there was also a codec based on H.264
call x.264
Secret[] Private[x] Public[]
Ian Forrester
Senior Backstage Producer
BBC RD North Lab,
1st Floor Office, OB Base,
New Broadcasting House, Oxford Road,
Manchester, M60 1SJ
-Original Message-
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 13:01, Ian Forrester ian.forres...@bbc.co.uk wrote:
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/01/is-the-world-ready-for-the-successor-of-the-mp3/
This is meant to make music piricay less tempting, so they say.
Yes, cut off your remaining source of revenue for people who don't
It seemed like one of those next generation internet stories that appear
from time to time, viz http://ow.ly/10zCj
User benefits = zero, adoption likelihood = zero
2010/1/26 Mo McRoberts m...@nevali.net
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 13:01, Ian Forrester ian.forres...@bbc.co.uk
wrote:
The H comes from the CCITT (now ITU-T) subcommittee that defined the
standard. The H committee was for multimedia, as I recall.
They also had the X standards (X400, X500), Q standards like ISDN, E
for telephone plans, the PSTN cloud is Signalling System number 7, named
after the Q.7 committees,
Ian Forrester wrote:
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/01/is-the-world-ready-for-the-successor-of-the-mp3/
This is meant to make music piricay less tempting, so they say.
There's an off-putting quote in this report about it:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8478310.stm
We can
On 26 Jan 2010, at 13:15, Mo McRoberts wrote:
Last I looked, AAC was the successor to MP3 :)
Yeah, or MP3Pro. There are no shortage of wannabe successors...
S
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please
visit
Storage and bandwidth is almost getting to the point where we could use raw
PCM...
2010/1/26 Stephen Jolly st...@jollys.org
On 26 Jan 2010, at 13:15, Mo McRoberts wrote:
Last I looked, AAC was the successor to MP3 :)
Yeah, or MP3Pro. There are no shortage of wannabe successors...
S
-
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 15:41, Brian Butterworth briant...@freeview.tv wrote:
Storage and bandwidth is almost getting to the point where we could use raw
PCM...
Well, there's not a lot of point when there's lossless compression
which can contain metadata (FLAC[0], ALAC, etc) :)
M.
[0] I
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 15:17:34 +, Brian wrote:
snip
Aside from this XVID is DIVX backwards. This is because all the ITU-T
standards are DECODING standards, not encoding ones. This is to allow
commercial operators to create their own encoders, with the decoding being
in the public domain.
Re
People might be interested that in the ORG perspective:
Original Message
Subject: Re: [ORG-discuss] ofcom drm bbc consultation - redux
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 15:14:47 +
From: Jim Killock j...@openrightsgroup.org
Reply-To: Open Rights Group open discussion list
Surely there is a point, because Moore's Law is exponential where it just
becomes too much hassle to do the encoding and decoding because storing and
carrying the data raw will have reached free.
2010/1/26 Mo McRoberts m...@nevali.net
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 15:41, Brian Butterworth
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 15:58, Tim Dobson li...@tdobson.net wrote:
People might be interested that in the ORG perspective:
For what it's worth, I was in discussions with Jim prior to that
meeting, and put together a document for him outlining the situation
and the issues that I'd turned up
Out of interest, has anyone done a proper legal search on the proposals?
I'm under the impression that the mandate that puts all public service
content out without any form of proection is in primary legislation, various
Broadcasting Acts and Wireless Telegraphy Acts.
Ofcom's powers are limited
There should have been another sentence in my post, sorry. Yes, xvid being
divx backwards is a geeky joke.
2010/1/26 Paul Webster p...@dabdig.com
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 15:17:34 +, Brian wrote:
snip
Aside from this XVID is DIVX backwards. This is because all the ITU-T
standards are
On 26 Jan 2010, at 16:22, Brian Butterworth wrote:
Surely there is a point, because Moore's Law is exponential where it just
becomes too much hassle to do the encoding and decoding because storing and
carrying the data raw will have reached free.
Yeah, but OTOH the processing power to do the
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 16:26, Brian Butterworth briant...@freeview.tv wrote:
Out of interest, has anyone done a proper legal search on the proposals?
I'm under the impression that the mandate that puts all public service
content out without any form of proection is in primary legislation,
There should have been another sentence in my post, sorry. Yes, xvid being
divx backwards is a geeky joke.
Of course DivX ;-) in itself was a sly homage to a doomed-to-fail industry
attempt :D And before XviD, once upon a time its parent was called Project
Mayo... Remember that heady time
True. However it would remove any legal problems with the file format, as
it is not covered by any patent. There must be some point in the
not-distant future that raw-WAV would just emerge again for simplicity.
2010/1/26 Stephen Jolly st...@jollys.org
On 26 Jan 2010, at 16:22, Brian
Interesting.
2010/1/26 Mo McRoberts m...@nevali.net
I did do some digging, though IANAL and it was only a cursory
high-level search (and it was a while ago)
From memory, though, and this is just my skim-understanding: primary
legislation covers EPG services as well as TV channels
On 26-Jan-2010, at 17:20, Brian Butterworth wrote:
It should be noted that the content management approach implemented for
Freeview HD will frequently enable far more extensive copying and
distribution of broadcast content than is likely to be considered acceptable
to the majority of
On 26-Jan-2010, at 16:20, Mo McRoberts wrote:
If I remember later, I'll dig it out and post it to this thread. It
made for a reasonable semi-executive summary, even if it wasn't quite
as diplomatic as it might be if it were addressed to BBC senior
management, for example ;)
And without
What I don't understand is that of the three main desktop
platforms
Firefox gets installed on - Windows and Mac - both have
H.264 decoders
*on the machine already* in the form of Windows Media and
QuickTime
APIs. Microsoft and Apple have presumably solved whatever
licensing
problems exist
On 26-Jan-2010, at 20:19, Kieran Kunhya wrote:
Older macs without H.264 hardware acceleration also have a very basic version
of the spec through Quicktime because Apple don't seem to fix any bugs with
it.
It’s not just older Macs. Basically, if you don’t restrict yourself to Baseline
Having said all that, my entirely subjective conclusions at
the moment are that the 720p video I get out of ffmpeg+x264
when encoded as Baseline at around 3Mbps[0] compares
extremely favourably to the iPlayer HD content (which is
High profile, if memory serves) at the same bitrate. I
don’t
31 matches
Mail list logo
