On 27-Jan-2010, at 16:19, Dave Crossland wrote:
Well exactly, there are THREE main desktops, and one doesn't and wont have
h264 preinstalled.
This wouldn't be a problem if The Guardian and other news broadcasters
stopped bystanding and made the videos they publish available in Xiph
On 31 January 2010 20:35, Mo McRoberts m...@nevali.net wrote:
What happens to news.bbc.co.uk when the number of users who DON’T have
Flash support is significant? i.e., measured in hundreds of thousands? What
about iPlayer? What happens when the in-browser DRM option ceases to exist?
Hell
On 31-Jan-2010, at 20:58, Brian Butterworth wrote:
Hell freezes over? Or http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/policies/syndication.shtml
perhaps.
The latter was what I had in mind…
I would have a play with get_player on the command line, that shows what
other format there really out there.
I’m
On 31 January 2010 21:47, Mo McRoberts m...@nevali.net wrote:
On 31-Jan-2010, at 20:58, Brian Butterworth wrote:
Hell freezes over? Or
http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/policies/syndication.shtml perhaps.
The latter was what I had in mind…
I would have a play with get_player on the command
2010/1/26 Kieran Kunhya kie...@kunhya.com
For 720p25 you might need more than 3.5Mbps for more demanding scenes.
(Except increasing the bitrate or using a better encoder will make iPlayer
look better than the broadcast...)
You do get an awful lot better results when you are not compressing
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 08:20, Brian Butterworth briant...@freeview.tv wrote:
You do get an awful lot better results when you are not compressing in real
time, of course, because you can use all the MPEG4 forward references, the
ones you don't get when you real time encode.
that's a good
For 720p25 you might need more than 3.5Mbps for more
demanding scenes. (Except increasing the bitrate or using a
better encoder will make iPlayer look better than the
broadcast...)
You do get an awful lot better results when you
are not compressing in real time, of course, because you
can
From: Brian Butterworth
On DVB-T it is everything. BBC One used to have reserved bandwidth, but is
now statmuxed with everything else. My assumption is the BBC delivers
motion-JPEG to the regional encoders and the services are statmuxed from
there.
Don't know the gory technical details,
Kieran Kunhya wrote:
For 720p25 you might need more than 3.5Mbps for more
demanding scenes. (Except increasing the bitrate or using a
better encoder will make iPlayer look better than the
broadcast...)
You do get an awful lot better results when you
are not compressing in real time, of course,
On 27 Jan 2010, at 08:31, Mo McRoberts wrote:
that's a good point: I wonder how much of the broadcast output *is*
encoded in real-time? all of it?
I believe so.
after all, live programming is in the minority on BBC1-4, and assuming
things sit on sensible boundaries and are pre-packetised,
On 27 Jan 2010, at 08:31, Mo McRoberts wrote:
that's a good point: I wonder how much of the broadcast output *is*
encoded in real-time? all of it?
I believe so.
Not unless they've changed their previous policy of ingesting popular /
headline shows prior to their airing, then making
On 27 Jan 2010, at 11:59, Christopher Woods wrote:
On 27 Jan 2010, at 08:31, Mo McRoberts wrote:
that's a good point: I wonder how much of the broadcast output *is*
encoded in real-time? all of it?
I believe so.
Not unless they've changed their previous policy of ingesting popular /
That's on-demand content, not broadcast. The two are encoded
via separate systems.
Were we not talking about the iPlayer videos?... derp sidles off
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please
visit
Well exactly, there are THREE main desktops, and one doesn't and wont have
h264 preinstalled.
This wouldn't be a problem if The Guardian and other news broadcasters
stopped bystanding and made the videos they publish available in Xiph
formats earlier; they continue to squander their significant
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
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
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
-
From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk]
On Behalf Of Mo McRoberts
Sent: 26 January 2010 12:55
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] Users just want video to work. You Mozilla people are
such idealists?
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 12:48, Ian
, M60 1SJ
-Original Message-
From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:
owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Mo McRoberts
Sent: 26 January 2010 12:55
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] Users just want video to work. You Mozilla people
are such idealists
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
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
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
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
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 16:57, Ian Forrester ian.forres...@bbc.co.uk wrote:
Web video has never really been open, unencumbered and free. We've had Real
Networks RM format, Apple's QuickTime, Microsoft's Windows Media Video (now
standardised as VC-1), the DivX and XviD codecs, and Adobe Flash
Web video has never really been open, unencumbered
and free. We've had Real Networks RM format, Apple's
QuickTime, Microsoft's Windows Media Video (now standardised
as VC-1), the DivX and XviD codecs, and Adobe Flash among
others. There might never be one open standard, simply
because
In the meantime, though, Firefox is going to get left behind. Some
sites will go to the trouble of transcoding to Theora, but mostly
they'll just run with H.264 + Flash or QuickTime fallback (which works
pretty well in my testing, if done carefully).
Surely tho some clever person will
On 25-Jan-2010, at 18:59, Barry Carlyon wrote:
Surely tho some clever person will write a plugin for Firefox to enable the
H.264 codec, assuming they can get a version that will plugin/addon nicely
As far as I know, FF provides no plugin interface for video and audio
codecs.
It’s been
29 matches
Mail list logo
