Back to News
Advertisement
Advertisement

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

73% Positive

Analyzed from 1603 words in the discussion.

Trending Topics

#video#patent#patents#mpeg#codecs#xvid#years#resolution#while#still

Discussion (65 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

at1asabout 19 hours ago
Moving in the right direction, but unfortunately it's still quite a few years before H264 is off patent, globally:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Have_the_patents_for_H.264_M...

At which point, the continued march towards higher resolution and bandwidth video will probably limit their utility

ronsorabout 17 hours ago
> At which point, the continued march towards higher resolution and bandwidth video will probably limit their utility

Just as the patent system intended: maximum extraction was enabled while the product was useful.

goaliecaabout 16 hours ago
Now if only copyright didn't last forever..
ronsorabout 16 hours ago
The Berne Convention has permanently burned us there
Teeverabout 13 hours ago
[the United States Congress shall have power] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause

The purpose of the system as it was originally conceived was not to provide maximum economic extraction -- the purpose was to promote the progress of science and useful arts.

It is not necessarily the case that the maximization of economic extraction coincides with the progress of science and useful arts.

ronsorabout 12 hours ago
I am familiar with the Copyright Clause. You need to remind the courts, Congress, and rights holders, not me. If I had my way, rent seeking would be dead.
avazhiabout 12 hours ago
Interesting how you’ve chosen to interpret that section.

When I was in law school we were taught what seemed obvious then and is obvious now: that Congress has the power to promote the progress of science and useful arts by giving authors and inventors exclusive right to the economic fruits of their works. You can argue about flaws in the system but it’s pretty laughable to suggest that copyrights and patents don’t exist for the purposes of maximum economic value extraction for inventors and authors.

There is quite literally no other reason for granting a copyright or patent. It’s also why if a plaintiff is successful in a claim for an infringement of either, he’ll get awarded money in the United States that at a bare minimum is designed to compensate him for the money he would have made if the patent or copyright had been complied with. Europe has some different ideas about moral rights in this space, but since you’re quoting US material I assume you aren’t referring to our funny brothers across the pond.

It’s obvious to most people that humans act in certain ways due to incentives, and we like to incentivise invention and creativity in the West.

matheusmoreiraabout 13 hours ago
Intellectual property is total bullshit as a concept but I suppose patents are at least tolerable since they only last 10 to 20 years, unlike copyright which lasts for our lifetimes plus a million billion years.
superxpro12about 8 hours ago
I really have a hard time accepting software patents. Like amazon patenting the one click to buy shopping cart for example. Crazy Taxi patented a directional arrow... The infamous "nemesis" patent for shadow of mordor.

IDK.... its all bits and bytes. This seems to stifle innovation more than anything imo.

jbkabout 13 hours ago
Read the list of patents left: a lot of them are on SVC (no one uses this) and on higher profile.

For a lot of use cases, including Basic and Main profile, H.264 is already free.

kasabaliabout 6 hours ago
Main profile is very mediocre. Any file I see in the wild is encoded in high profile.
userbinatorabout 16 hours ago
I don't think video resolution will increase all that much in the future, except for niche uses, as the resolution of the human eye becomes a limiting factor.
joshspankitabout 14 hours ago
You may be underestimating the desire to earn through differentiation.

Assuming the product companies accept the plateau on resolution (I agree it’s likely), there are many ways to exploit the other stuff. Colour space, tacling each type of compression artifact, additional channels (probly not long until we have HDR RGBW), etc etc and those will each come with their committees made of patent-hungry companies seeing non-encumbered encodings as “undesirable”

smackeyackyabout 10 hours ago
I don’t think it matters in a practical sense. Our streaming overlords have already shown that by crippling the effective color space of supposedly 4K video they care little for quality of broadcast. Crushed blacks and smeared video are all you’ll get no matter what the standards say. They were, are and remain terrible on 1080 video, 4K is a farce.
ColdStreamabout 12 hours ago
Pretty much. 1080p it very good, 4K is near perfect to me. By the time you can see the pixels you are WAY too close to the screen.
makeitdoubleabout 15 hours ago
I read "resolution" as pixel count more than DPI.

As it becomes cheaper to capture and process higher res content, we're bound to push it to bigger displays (VR included). I guess the human eye will be the limit when we're at retina levels of DPI on a sphere.

Dylan16807about 14 hours ago
Most videos are probably going to stay aimed near 30-40 degrees of width. So while we already can do 8k or higher pretty easily, 4k is enough for a huge amount of content. Even 1080p can hit "retina" at 30 degrees, if barely. And while that threshold for "retina" is flawed it's pretty good for video content.

We'll see how much 360 content shows up, but the size gap is so big it basically needs to be handled entirely differently. A 16x9 screen, 40 degrees wide, is only 2% of a sphere.

dabinatabout 12 hours ago
For distribution perhaps, but for acquisition it makes sense to have the highest resolution possible.
pdntspaabout 12 hours ago
Hey now, MP3 is still relevant even though better codecs have come (and gone)

Something tells me H264 is going to be sticking around for a while just on sheer compatibility and compute requirements

ColdStreamabout 12 hours ago
Very likely, look at JPEG. It was released in 1992 and it is still wildly popular on line.
theandrewbaileyabout 20 hours ago
> While the US and EU patents around MPEG-4 Part 2 expired in recent years, until today there remained one patent still active in Brazil.

Since MPEG-this Part that is hard to keep straight, this is the MPEG standard backing Xvid and DivX codecs. So let's encode video and torrent like it's 2002!

CharlesWabout 20 hours ago
FWIW, Via Licensing listed this patent as standards-essential to several MPEG codecs (AVC/H.264, HEVC/H.265, VVC/H.266), and it's also listed for VC-1 (a SMPTE standard).
p1mrxabout 19 hours ago
The openness of those codecs depend on the last patent expiring, not the first.
CharlesWabout 19 hours ago
Of course.
ColdStreamabout 12 hours ago
Time do get out the old CD of The.Matrix.1999-DVDrip(aXXo).Xvid.
anal_reactorabout 3 hours ago
I specifically remember that my dad brought from work crappy projector and I watched Harry Potter and the Order of Phoenix that was RMVB encoded camera rip from cinema. RMVB was all the rage on my 128kbps internet.
dylan604about 16 hours ago
> So let's encode video and torrent like it's 2002!

Let's have a meet up a Circuit City!!

xatttabout 16 hours ago
I’m not sure how to get there. Do you have Microsoft Streets and Trips directions I can print off?
p1mrxabout 19 hours ago
Note that MPEG-4 part 2 is H.263/DivX/XviD, not H.264.
jchwabout 19 hours ago
Yeah. I think h264 is coming soon, too, though. Most of the remaining known h264 patents expire next year, with only one patent extending out further.

I do believe that more modern codecs like h265 and AV1 have a lot to offer us, but having h264 be fully unencumbered by patents will be nice. By modern standards it is very well-supported in both hardware and software, computationally cheap to encode and decode, and still does a good enough job for most use cases. h264 doesn't seem like it will be displaced any time soon to the degree that h264 once displaced its own predecessors, though obviously that's not to say that we don't see or won't see more adoption of newer video codecs across the internet in general, just that I think the h264 long tail will be one of the longest long tails of a video codec.

And thanks to the availability of codecs like AV1 which are effectively not patent encumbered (seems there is no practical reason to take the threats otherwise seriously) it seems the era of patent encumbered media formats is slowly coming to a close. Good riddance.

edit: Bit of a mess but here is some source for the h264 expiration.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Have_the_patents_for_H.264_M...

So it seems 2030-11-10 is the date where h264 (version 3) will become patent unencumbered world wide, a bit earlier for the U.S. The other profiles/newer versions like AVC/SVC will take a while longer.

Dylan16807about 18 hours ago
> computationally cheap to encode and decode

Well I'm not sure about decode, but as of a few years ago weren't h.265 and AV1 able to do much better compression than h.264 at almost all levels of compute? https://people.videolan.org/~unlord/SVT-AV1_BD-rate.png And h.266 encoders can probably go faster now too.

jchwabout 18 hours ago
I would hope so! Otherwise the Pareto front wouldn't have moved in ~20 years which would be rather hard to believe.

However, at the same time, h265, h266 and AV1 are all vastly more complicated, and will have less broad hardware acceleration support than h264, which, again, even if it is not optimally efficient use of compute, just doesn't require a whole lot by modern standards.

So I'd argue there is really no reason to be rushing away from h264 unless you have a compelling reason. There are some obvious compelling reasons in some cases; nobody is going to be terribly surprised that an entity like Netflix is eager to switch to codecs that will save bandwidth, because at their scale saving bytes definitely adds up, bonus points if it can increase the quality at the same time.

On the other hand, though, unless you are absolutely sure you can switch to only new codecs, you will probably want to keep some h264 encodings around to act as a fallback baseline for legacy devices. And thus, you also have to take into account the complexity brought on by needing to store and maintain multiple encodings - in many use cases, like simple <video>s thrown into website backgrounds, I can see just eating the extra bandwidth costs and keeping it all h264 as a valid strategy.

userbinatorabout 18 hours ago
just that I think the h264 long tail will be one of the longest long tails of a video codec.

I think MPEG-1 and 2 (from which MP3 comes) might be even longer.

drmpegabout 15 hours ago
MPEG-2 video is still very much alive. In the US, almost all terrestrial OTA broadcast (ATSC 1.0) and all SD channels on cable systems. Even Comcast VOD was all MPEG-2 (including HD) until they shut down the QAM version in 2023.
userbinatorabout 18 hours ago
DivX/XviD yes, but not H.263. Patents for H.263 expired long ago. This is MPEG-4 ASP, which is a superset of H.263.

(Source: have written a H.263 decoder as a learning exercise.)

anthkabout 17 hours ago
H.263 was used as the former codec of Netmeeting (and maybe some other VoIP software too).
userbinatorabout 16 hours ago
H.263 was definitely a standard in videoconferencing and low-bitrate video in general (YouTube and many other streaming sutes used FLV1, which was a variant of H.263) prior to H.264.
1317about 14 hours ago
as everyone is saying, this is Xvid, NOT h264. pretty poor reporting by phoronix here

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Have_the_patents_for_H.264_M...

rcarmoabout 19 hours ago
Good. I have been poking at rcarmo/go-264 but was hesitant to tackle encoding :)
midnightbobarunabout 20 hours ago
Very nice, I hope this means increased support for it in open source projects
rurbanabout 19 hours ago
But they sold xvid decoders already for the last 20 years. Every Chinese dvd players could play xvid already. Just not >1 b-frames
nikanjabout 17 hours ago
It's so weird to look at the patents list for H.264 and see multiple patents granted after the H.264 specification was released. Was the situation similar for MPEG-4?
wmfabout 16 hours ago
The patent pool system is really bad. There's no incentive to weed out bad patents.
userbinatorabout 16 hours ago
Those patents may not necessarily be required to encode or decode, if they're just a new way to implement some part of the specification.
aboardRat4about 14 hours ago
When MPEG-5?
ksecabout 12 hours ago
There is. MPEG-5 EVC Basic Profile that is Patent unencumbered, with only dozens patents that is soon to be expired, and EVC High Profile that competes with VVC in terms of quality.

There is also LCEVC ( Not connected with EVC ) that is a scaling layer on top of existing video codec. You can apply LCEVC on top of EVC, VVC, HEVC or AVC as well as AV1 and AV2. LCEVC has been selected by Brail as part of their TV 3.0 technology stack on top VVC.

While there are momentum on LCEVC, I actually wished EVC gained more momentum. I guess everything is too late now.

LtdJorgeabout 13 hours ago
Never, I hope
anthkabout 18 hours ago
Too late; software patents in Europe were void so most people grabbed XVID/DIVX encoders from Debian Multimedia. PKF and the like.

And, yes, I remember w32codecs until MPlayer's bundled set superseded them. And mencoder for sure ;)