John, you asked how to move publisher workflows into a different codec in view of the possibility of HTML5 choosing Theora as the baseline codec. I agree that this is a hard problem.

A person that has an existing workflow of video production and publication will not want to change that. And indeed, up until the last step where it goes to publishing, they probably won’t even if a new codec is in town. Even if I publish my videos in Ogg Theora format, I will continue using iMovie or Windows Movie Maker and probably the DV format for editing.

An organisation that has an existing transcoding workflow will actually not have much of a problem. They will simply replace or add to their existing workflow a transcoding to Ogg Theora, which can be easily done using ffmpeg2theora.

People that are new to the HTML5 Web and would like to author videos may indeed be the most interesting of all. Not only will they be keen to use online tools to edit their video. They will also set up new workflows that will include transcoding and handling of Ogg Theora video. It’s this group of people that tools other than transcoding tools are directed towards. It’s these people that will appreciate the new tools online around Ogg Theora, e.g. Metavid, or Firefogg. More tools will certainly be necessary to address the full set of issues.

(Two of the big ignored questions since the start of VIDEO tag discussions has been how to move publisher workflows into a different codec, and then how to earn enough consumer adoption to make it worth publishers’ effort.)

I agree with you that “everyone pays for codec innovation”, because when companies like Adobe foot the bill for updating the world’s desktops and devices, that’s an opportunity cost for other things Adobe could have done with the money. On the other hand, the techincal improvements offered by modern codecs offer benefits of their own. Fortunately, the cost of modern codecs is not paid directly by either content creators or audiences.

tx, jd/adobe

So let me start by saying that while the un-reflected bashing of “proprietary” is indeed an issue with “open” enthusiasts, the bashing of “old codecs” is an issue with “proprietary” enthusiasts. Vorbis is a newer codec than MP3. Dirac is a newer codec than H.264. CELT is a newer codec than anything else. The only open codec that can really bear the sign of “old” is VP3, which is the basis of Theora – but even Theora has developed heaps since VP3. So, maybe we can do away with the “old” stigma on open codecs.

Now let’s look at the rational for patent unencumbered and royalty-free codecs.

As I mentioned, I see the use of proprietary and patent encumbered codecs as an inhibitor towards innovation. This is indeed a problem for tool developers, who are restricted in their abilities to develop new functionality around codecs because the codecs are not accessible. Yet, restricted tools reflect on restricted functionality of applications, and thus restricted possibilities for content producers and audiences. So, this reflects on the complete value chain of audio and video.

Further, I see a need for royalty-free codecs in certain application areas. Don’t get me wrong: in certain business areas I don’t see a problem with licensed codecs – there is enough money made that the royalties for the codecs don’t have a negative impact on the businesses that use them. But when it comes to the Web in particular, the basic data types for publishing need to be available freely, such that the majority of Web publishers – in particular private people and non-profits – are able to publish just like everybody else. Here, “free speech” actually depends on freely available tools.

Since for typical licensable codecs, there are royalties payable on encoders, decoders, and content distribution, basically everybody in the value chain of audio or video will have to pay eventually, not just the tool developers.

So, the answer to your question about whether content producers and viewing audiences come into this equation is an absolute yes – both from a licensing point of view, as well as from a restricted functionality point of view.

Hope this helps explain some more of the motivation behind Xiph’s codecs.

The basis of the argument seems to be “so that people can make new tools without paying for the use of modern codecs”, is that correct?

If so, then do actual content producers or viewing audiences come into this equation, or is it just directed at tool producers?

(btw, I agree on the general desirability of widespread support for patent-unencumber codecs. I object to the “proprietary” bashing that often goes along with it, but suspect we’re more in alignment on general goals than in actual opposition.)

tx, jd/adobe

Silvia Pfeiffer’s recent post on open codecs is a really good read. She really nails why open video is important for an Open Web. I encourage you all to read it through a couple of times. In just a matter of months, 200+ million people will have a Fir…

Are there much examples of commercial usage of Dirac?
It seems to be very little development/discussion about Dirac these days?

Rex.