On Slashdot today...
http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/06/15/2250215
What this means is that, while development continues on the Ogg Theora video format, any video encoded with the existing encoder will be playable into the future.
I think we are now in a position to go ahead and start adding Theora videos to Wikipedia, if anybody has suitable video to add!
Given this, also, http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_policy becomes a much more relevant discussion.
Robert Graham Merkel wrote:
I think we are now in a position to go ahead and start adding Theora videos to Wikipedia, if anybody has suitable video to add!
I'm not sure adding videos to Wikipedia in a format that almost nobody can play is really the absolute best thing to do, even if it is all fuzzy and open source...
-Mark
Delirium wrote:
Robert Graham Merkel wrote:
I think we are now in a position to go ahead and start adding Theora videos to Wikipedia, if anybody has suitable video to add!
I'm not sure adding videos to Wikipedia in a format that almost nobody can play is really the absolute best thing to do, even if it is all fuzzy and open source...
The quantification "almost nobody" applies now, but for how much longer? Ogg Vorbis has taken off quite remarkably. I think Wikipedia should help boost the popularity of these open-source formats, *especially* when they are the only free alternative to proprietary competitors.
Timwi
Timwi wrote:
The quantification "almost nobody" applies now, but for how much longer? Ogg Vorbis has taken off quite remarkably. I think Wikipedia should help boost the popularity of these open-source formats, *especially* when they are the only free alternative to proprietary competitors.
I've personally never actually seen a Vorbis-encoded file anywhere except Wikipedia, and non-techies I know typically don't know what to do with them when I send them, especially since apparently they don't play in the installations of Winamp many people have (I don't use Windows, so have no idea if more recent versions of Winamp include a Vorbis codec in the default download package). Basically everyone still uses mp3, with AAC second place, and I've even seen more MPC than Vorbis, though that may not be representatives (codec-elitists tend to like MPC for being a subband, rather than transform, codec, which apparently makes pre-echo artifacts like those you find in MPC/AAC/Vorbis much less of a problem).
At the very least I think we should wait until a reasonably functional player is available for all major operating systems, so even if people can't play them by default, they can go somewhere and acquire software to play them. Even more preferable would be to have reasonably functional encoders available for all major OSes as well, so people could actually contribute the videos. (Vorbis does meet both these criteria.)
-Mark
Hello Delirium,
Tuesday, June 22, 2004, 5:16:21 AM, you wrote:
...
I've personally never actually seen a Vorbis-encoded file anywhere except Wikipedia, and non-techies I know typically don't know what to do with them when I send them, especially since apparently they don't play in the installations of Winamp many people have
They do:
--snip-- http://www.winamp.com/support/help/50/Configuring_Winamp_as_the_Default_Play...
Winamp allows you to play many popular media formats:
* Audio formats include: CDA, MP3, MP2, MP1, AAC, NSA, OGG, WMA, MID, MIDI, RMI, KAR, MIZ, MOD, MDZ, NST, STM, STZ, S3M, S3Z, IT, ITZ, XM, XMZ, MTM, ULT, 669, FAR, AMF, OKT, PTM, WAV, VOC, AU, SND, AIF, AIFF ... --snip--
Winamp supports Ogg Vorbis since version 2.8, which was released >2 years ago:
--snip-- http://www.neilturner.me.uk/2003/Nov/23/ogg_vorbis_101.html ... # Winamp - native support since version 2.8, otherwise installable by an official plugin ... --snip--
See also: http://www.vorbis.com/software.psp
MfG Olaf
On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 03:33:44AM +0100, Timwi wrote:
Delirium wrote:
Robert Graham Merkel wrote:
I think we are now in a position to go ahead and start adding Theora videos to Wikipedia, if anybody has suitable video to add!
I'm not sure adding videos to Wikipedia in a format that almost nobody can play is really the absolute best thing to do, even if it is all fuzzy and open source...
The quantification "almost nobody" applies now, but for how much longer? Ogg Vorbis has taken off quite remarkably.
No it hasn't. It is almost unheard of outside the linux world. Still, I support an open format for music/videos. The effort required to get an ogg plugin for your favorite player is small enough that even if someone hasn't heard of ogg before it shouldn't be a big deal.
Arvind
On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 01:42:51PM +0530, Arvind Narayanan wrote:
On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 03:33:44AM +0100, Timwi wrote:
Delirium wrote:
Robert Graham Merkel wrote:
I think we are now in a position to go ahead and start adding Theora videos to Wikipedia, if anybody has suitable video to add!
I'm not sure adding videos to Wikipedia in a format that almost nobody can play is really the absolute best thing to do, even if it is all fuzzy and open source...
The quantification "almost nobody" applies now, but for how much longer? Ogg Vorbis has taken off quite remarkably.
No it hasn't. It is almost unheard of outside the linux world.
Some comments (to the other replies as well): * "Almost nobody" does not even apply, since Linux and Windoze players are available. (Sure, if you don't have the player, you can't play anything. Not quicktime or even mpeg. A format is useless if there is no player available, if there is some, the format is useful.) * ogg streams are far from "unheard", as there are commercial desktop dvd players as well as mobile players/walkmans playing ogg, apart from the windows players available since Noah. :)
Still, I support an open format for music/videos. The effort required to get an ogg plugin for your favorite player is small enough that even if someone hasn't heard of ogg before it shouldn't be a big deal.
Yes. And a free project ought to popularise free formats, I believe. As ogg/vorbis players popped up in the market people started to create ogg/vorbis sound files (you probably can check on p2p nets around). If there are players [and encoders] and reason to install those players people going to install them and the format will be used and known.
If they're lazy or uneducated to install a player they probably won't miss much since Wikipedia content is not multimedia oriented, and this may be a drive to them to educate themselves and install the players.
Peter
Peter Gervai wrote:
If they're lazy or uneducated to install a player they probably won't miss much since Wikipedia content is not multimedia oriented, and this may be a drive to them to educate themselves and install the players.
That's a damned arrogant attitude. In some parts of the world people would count themselves lucky just to have text available on a slow connection. I support the vision of making information available in these places, so a lot of this fancy stuff needs to be severable.
Ec
On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 08:22:01AM -0700, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Peter Gervai wrote:
If they're lazy or uneducated to install a player they probably won't miss much since Wikipedia content is not multimedia oriented, and this may be a drive to them to educate themselves and install the players.
That's a damned arrogant attitude. In some parts of the world people would count themselves lucky just to have text available on a slow connection. I support the vision of making information available in these places, so a lot of this fancy stuff needs to be severable.
I think you missed my other sentence below that. :-)
It mentioned that apart from those (people who use hardware fit to show video ought to be driven to use free codecs [too]) multimedia *is not*, and *should not* be considered important (or even significant) part of Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia and targeting textual information representation. I guess this shows that I support fully the "viewable by any browser" approach and saves me from being a damned arrogant person. :-)
My opinion could be summarised that "we should concentrate on text, but when we use graphical, sound, movie or other media files we should use and support free formats if they're available".
grin
Peter Gervai wrote:
On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 08:22:01AM -0700, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Peter Gervai wrote:
If they're lazy or uneducated to install a player they probably won't miss much since Wikipedia content is not multimedia oriented, and this may be a drive to them to educate themselves and install the players.
That's a damned arrogant attitude. In some parts of the world people would count themselves lucky just to have text available on a slow connection. I support the vision of making information available in these places, so a lot of this fancy stuff needs to be severable.
I think you missed my other sentence below that. :-)
It mentioned that apart from those (people who use hardware fit to show video ought to be driven to use free codecs [too]) multimedia *is not*, and *should not* be considered important (or even significant) part of Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia and targeting textual information representation. I guess this shows that I support fully the "viewable by any browser" approach and saves me from being a damned arrogant person. :-)
My opinion could be summarised that "we should concentrate on text, but when we use graphical, sound, movie or other media files we should use and support free formats if they're available".
Sorry if my response was too strong, and thanks for the clarification.
Ec
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 02:16:35 +0100, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
Arvind Narayanan wrote:
On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 03:33:44AM +0100, Timwi wrote:
Ogg Vorbis has taken off quite remarkably.
No it hasn't. It is almost unheard of outside the linux world.
Oh really? I didn't know I was even remotely anywhere near the "linux world".
I will note that many informal web broadcasting groups (Internet radio, some stations more legitimate and concerned about copyrights than others) adore Ogg Vorbis for its superior quality at the same or similar bitrates.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
There is another free alternative: the XviD codec. It's free software (GPL). It's stable. Lots of people use it. It's included in popular codec packs (like Nimo Codecs Pack or K-Lite Codecs Pack). And I'm quite sure the DivX decoder can read XviD-encoded videos.
Doom9.org (the best site about video tools) rated XviD "best free video codec" a few months ago. (http://www.doom9.org/index.html?/codecs-203-1.htm)
I've nothing against Theora. But why should we use it if there is another, much more known and probably better alternative ?
MagicTom [[fr:Utilisateur:MagicTom]]
Timwi a écrit : | The quantification "almost nobody" applies now, but for how much longer? | Ogg Vorbis has taken off quite remarkably. I think Wikipedia should help | boost the popularity of these open-source formats, *especially* when | they are the only free alternative to proprietary competitors. | | Timwi
Thomas Jost wrote:
There is another free alternative: the XviD codec. It's free software (GPL). It's stable. Lots of people use it. It's included in popular codec packs (like Nimo Codecs Pack or K-Lite Codecs Pack). And I'm quite sure the DivX decoder can read XviD-encoded videos.
Is XviD legal in the US? My understanding is that it's an MPEG-4 codec, and that there are patents covering fundamental parts of that standard. [IANAL] Surprisingly, this isn't mentioned in the FAQ though talk about it appears in their devel list archives.
I think we'd want some clarification on this before declaring our support for it.
This little note raises all kinds of alarms: "Distributing XviD is allowed and it is encouraged by the fact it is published under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2. But, here at xvid.org, we don't distribute binaries for legal reasons."
http://www.xvid.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&am...
I've nothing against Theora. But why should we use it if there is another, much more known and probably better alternative ?
The patent issue which makes it difficult to support with free software; this is the same reason we recommend Vorbis instead of MP3.
I suspect it's premature to distribute anything with Theora at this time, but it's worth looking at. We're in this for the long term, and videos can always be recoded from the original source material. [Of course that's the thorny issue with video: the original source material is *huge*.]
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Brion Vibber a écrit : | Is XviD legal in the US? My understanding is that it's an MPEG-4 codec, | and that there are patents covering fundamental parts of that standard. | [IANAL] Surprisingly, this isn't mentioned in the FAQ though talk about | it appears in their devel list archives. | | I think we'd want some clarification on this before declaring our | support for it.
You're right, I didn't think about this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XviD: Because of patent laws, XviD 0.9.x versions were not licensed to people/firms in countries where these type of Patents do apply (eg: US or Japan). With the 1.0.x releases, a plain GNU GPLv2 License is used, no explicit Geographical restriction is added. However the legal usage of XviD is still implicitly ruled by user/firm local laws.
In Europe it's still legal (software patents are forbidden... but there will be new laws about them soon), but I didn't know it wasn't in the US.
Well... I'll have a look on Theora, then ;-)
MagicTom [[fr:Utilisateur:MagicTom]]
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 13:22:22 +1000, Robert Graham Merkel wrote:
On Slashdot today...
http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/06/15/2250215
ITYM http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/06/15/2250214
(Did you copy and paste the link or re-type by hand?)
Cheers, Philip
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org