Support for VP9

[Chris Double]

I think we should support the VP9 video code. It has recently been
added to Chromium [1]. According to the media it will be rolled out to
YouTube. It's added to WebM [2]. If we don't support it we'll be stuck
in a world where we support 'WebM' but don't play the majority of
'WebM' files in the wild (YouTube). While we wait for Daala to become
viable we need to support the best open source, royalty free, video
codec we can and it's looking like VP9 will be that.

Bug 833023 [3] was opened for implementing VP9 in Firefox and I think
we should proceed. Are there any objections?

[1] http://thenextweb.com/google/2013/06/17/google-finishes-defining-its-vp9-video-codec-adds-it-to-chromium-ahead-of-chrome-and-youtube-rollout/
[2] http://blog.webmproject.org/2013/05/vp9-codec-nears-completion.html
[3] http://xiph.org/daala/

Chris.
--
http://www.bluishcoder.co.nz

[Robert O'Callahan]

On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Chris Double <chris....@double.co.nz>wrote:

> I think we should support the VP9 video code. It has recently been
> added to Chromium [1]. According to the media it will be rolled out to
> YouTube. It's added to WebM [2].
>

I think we should support it. However, there's a question of whether we
should push Google to mint a "WebM2" format instead of shoving the new
codecs into WebM. We had an agreed goal for WebM to be a fixed set of
codecs, to avoid the sort of confusion we have over what support for 3GP or
MP4 means ... it's disappointing to break that at (nearly) the first
opportunity.

Rob
--
Jtehsauts tshaei dS,o n" Wohfy Mdaon yhoaus eanuttehrotraiitny eovni le
atrhtohu gthot sf oirng iyvoeu rs ihnesa.r"t sS?o Whhei csha iids teoa
stiheer :p atroa lsyazye,d 'mYaonu,r "sGients uapr,e tfaokreg iyvoeunr, 'm
aotr atnod sgaoy ,h o'mGee.t" uTph eann dt hwea lmka'n? gBoutt uIp waanndt
wyeonut thoo mken.o w

[Jean-Marc Valin]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 06/17/2013 07:08 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
> I think we should support it. However, there's a question of
> whether we should push Google to mint a "WebM2" format instead of
> shoving the new codecs into WebM. We had an agreed goal for WebM to
> be a fixed set of codecs, to avoid the sort of confusion we have
> over what support for 3GP or MP4 means ... it's disappointing to
> break that at (nearly) the first opportunity.

If Google's going to update its format, then I think it would makes
sense to use Opus for audio.

Jean-Marc

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRv55YAAoJEJ6/8sItn9q9ExAIAI4souWnk+rZ8SfcNRMusfSj
SDWx+IiZwPG7SeV1VCjIEKv/MzHFYE9Dh82uK4tHuqxgG0C757FvuT1d+8QgFE49
tJ/HHhQ5BVCyeicMtkaHKTjpBm1vDSRwNsU6eiDV+mRav+GzDZjGeHf9kV1SCXox
RA9pSYEKLK690KDdpKJBg1MgrWJCjpjjorXkkl8UNcr7J85VLw4klpVrRgJ/898r
Llo4OCTieLf/BtB7Ozrrgi/gkVliydw4+AZfH34zGWQ20TIe5u/ZGukrPW4YzQT0
oHfyJx9IIzPVQljFD70BgOvZ1Gkxj4GNG0MUz9mttaLQ1q5RlFtO0/4yzHx9Hpw=
=n0TU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Robert O'Callahan]

Definitely, whatever we do with the container there's no point in using VP9
with anything other than Opus.

[Henri Sivonen]

On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 2:08 AM, Robert O'Callahan <rob...@ocallahan.org> wrote:
> I think we should support it. However, there's a question of whether we
> should push Google to mint a "WebM2" format instead of shoving the new
> codecs into WebM.

(Metooing here.)

I think we should push for WebM (.webm) referring exclusively to
Matroska/VP8/Vorbis and WebM2 (.webm2) referring exclusively to
Matroska/VP9/Opus. (If there's a use case for recording WebRTC calls
with VP8 and Opus, Matroska/VP8/Opus could be called .webrtc.)

There indeed is value in having a fixed mix of codecs per name that
people see, and it's quite sad if Google is abandoning the plan to
have a clear meaning for "WebM" at the first opportunity.

--
Henri Sivonen
hsiv...@hsivonen.fi
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/