Has anyone considered Bink video as a viable option?
http://www.radgametools.com/bnkmain.htm
Bink is a better-than-DVD class codec - it compresses at higher
quality than DVD
at up to three times the playback speed!
Bink uses up to 16 MB less memory at runtime than other codecs.
It has been
Out of the question, it must be royalty-free. That's one of the requirements,
so unless you can convince the holder to go RF, no chance.
El Lunes 07 Ene 2008, Federico Bianco Prevot escribió:
Has anyone considered Bink video as a viable option?
http://www.radgametools.com/bnkmain.htm
Bink
If you need to pay ¢1 for copies distributed, then it isn't royalty free and
it can't be on the standard as a requirement. Flat fee is not royalty free.
YES, I MEANT BEING ABLE TO USE IT WITHOUT PAYING ANY KIND OF FEE.
Am I too daft for my words to be understood?
El Lunes 07 Ene 2008,
At 19:29 +0100 7/01/08, Federico Bianco Prevot wrote:
Has anyone considered Bink video as a viable option?
http://www.radgametools.com/bnkmain.htm
I get the impression that this is not an openly-specified codec,
which I rather think is a problem. That is, there is neither a
publicly
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 01:50:09PM -0800, Dave Singer wrote:
I get the impression that this is not an openly-specified codec,
which I rather think is a problem. That is, there is neither a
publicly available spec. nor publicly-available source, which means
that it is controlled by one
On 07/01/2008, Dave Singer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 19:29 +0100 7/01/08, Federico Bianco Prevot wrote:
Has anyone considered Bink video as a viable option?
http://www.radgametools.com/bnkmain.htm
I get the impression that this is not an openly-specified codec,
which I rather think is a
I don't find anything objectionable with that suggestion. It gives us the
best of two worlds. Of course, should x264 be freed, there would be no
longer any reason not to put Ogg alongside x264 in the spec as MUST.
I have a suggestion:
Nokia, Apple: you want H.264, you free H.264. Make it
At 21:59 + 7/01/08, David Gerard wrote:
On 07/01/2008, Dave Singer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 19:29 +0100 7/01/08, Federico Bianco Prevot wrote:
Has anyone considered Bink video as a viable option?
http://www.radgametools.com/bnkmain.htm
I get the impression that this is not an
[snip]
How about this permathread gets a @whatwg.org mailing list all of its own?
Just a suggestion...
dan
On 12 Dec 2007, at 01:41, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
1) maybe (I've heard game vendors cited, not sure which ones)
I know someone already posted a list, but it is used within all Unreal
Engine 2.5 (i.e., UT 2004) and Unreal Engine 3 (i.e., UT 3) games
(which I'm sure you can find a long
Ian Hickson wrote:
I've temporarily removed the requirements on video codecs from the HTML5
spec, since the current text isn't helping us come to a useful
interoperable conclusion. When a codec is found that is mutually
acceptable to all major parties I will update the spec to require that
Dnia 12-12-2007, Śr o godzinie 00:11 -0500, Manuel Amador (Rudd-O)
pisze:
I'd rephrase it as
# Has had traction, time and exposure in the market, enough so patent threats
should have arisen already.
That is, as a study of a troll's lifestyle shows, indefinite.
Dnia 11-12-2007, Wt o godzinie 18:53 -0500, Manuel Amador (Rudd-O)
pisze:
Wanna know what happened to the last troll that attacked free software? Ask
Darl McBride. Everyone is under the possibility of constant attack from
trolls.
He was not a patent troll, he was acting for Microsoft and
Ian Hickson wrote:
I've temporarily removed the requirements on video codecs from the
HTML5 spec, since the current text isn't helping us come to a
useful interoperable conclusion.
I don't think this solves any problem, neither in the short term or
the long term. I suggest that the should
On Tuesday 2007-12-11 02:39 +, Ian Hickson wrote:
I've temporarily removed the requirements on video codecs from the HTML5
spec, since the current text isn't helping us come to a useful
interoperable conclusion. When a codec is found that is mutually
acceptable to all major parties I
The text you replaced the requirements with [1] includes the
requirement that the codec:
# is not an additional submarine patent risk for large companies
Is this something that can be measured objectively, or is it a
loophole that allows any sufficiently large company to veto the
choice of
On Dec 11, 2007, at 3:27 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
On Tuesday 2007-12-11 02:39 +, Ian Hickson wrote:
I've temporarily removed the requirements on video codecs from the
HTML5
spec, since the current text isn't helping us come to a useful
interoperable conclusion. When a codec is found
On 12/12/2007, Maciej Stachowiak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think there are some objective criteria that can help determine the
scope of risk:
1) Is the codec already in use by deep-pockets vendors?
...
Vorbis:
1) maybe (I've heard game vendors cited, not sure which ones)
Microsoft
On 12/11/07, L. David Baron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
# is not an additional submarine patent risk for large companies
Is this something that can be measured objectively, or is it a
loophole that allows any sufficiently large company to veto the
choice of codec for any reason it chooses,
I'd rephrase it as
# Has had traction, time and exposure in the market, enough so patent threats
should have arisen already.
Which is basically the same meaning, and includes Ogg Vorbis technology.
Because if America Online (Winamp) is not a big company, then I don't know
the meaning of the
20 matches
Mail list logo
