[openbeos] Re: Video Codec Support?
- From: François Revol <revol@xxxxxxx>
- To: openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 12:31:21 +0200 (MEST)
I think we really need an Huffman codec in BeOS...
It's both fast, quite reducing, and _lossless_, not like JPEG.
There is one for windows, GPLed.
I'll port it to BeOS, one way or another.
I's veryinteresting for video captures, when you want to rework the
captured stream, because it's losless.
P.S. My first name is Francois :)
En réponse à Timothy Covell <timothy.covell@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
> On Monday 22 April 2002 19:50, Jonathan Tarbox wrote:
> > From: "Timothy Covell" <timothy.covell@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > > 0. Why is that Be's PhotoJPEG format is so good,
> > > yet no one else appears to use it? Is it because
> > > Apple, M$, and Real have different agendas?
> >
> > From what I can tell, it's embedded jpeg still images as Revol
> suggested.
> > I tended not to use it as it wasn't compatible accross platforms.. at
> least
> > not compared to other codecs..
>
> Well, my point is that the quality is _very_ good. When I move my
> video
> to, say quicktime, it ends up very bad. Anyhow, I guess that at some
>
> point I shall have to bite the bullet and try to re-encode my stuff.
>
> >
> > > 1. Will OpenBeOS work include rewriting the codecs
> > > or will it rely on binary compatibility?
> >
> > OBOS will have to make new ones. As Revol mentioned, the API from
> Be's
> > codec plugin modules are private and thus we can't use it. Prolly
> couldn't
> > use it anyways as some of the codecs are licensed to Be anyways (Indeo
> was
> > licensed if I member correctly.. did anyone actually use Indeo?)
>
> Ah. That's too bad, but that's life.
>
> >
> > > 2. Moving forward, if a PhotoJPEG implementation
> > > is made with a BSD licence, it would simplify the
> > > work on a GPL'ed version. How does the OpenBeOS
> > > team feel about people making GPL'ed forks of their
> > > BSD code?
> >
> > Why infect anything with GPL? BSD/MIT is perfectly fine.
>
> Well, my point was that I recall that the Linux folks have made
> use/reference to xBSD code. So, it would appear that one
> can move BSD/MIT --> (L)GPL, but the reverse is not
> possible. That's also why it was good that you chose to
> use the MIT license because it can allow commericalizing
> of some of the code if someone down the road wanted to
> make a fancy distro based on OpenBeOS.
>
>
> Thanks to everyone for tackling my questions.
>
> tim
>
>
>
Other related posts:
