 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Nicolas Alvarez
Subject: Re: And you thought flash was only good for youtube.
Date: 26 Nov 2009 22:10:40
Message: <4b0f4330@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> You can Google the codec up yourself. I'm too lazy. Is Vorbis a (video)
> codec?
Vorbis is audio. Theora is video. Ogg is container.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Nicolas Alvarez
Subject: Re: And you thought flash was only good for youtube.
Date: 26 Nov 2009 22:11:51
Message: <4b0f4377$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately, last time I looked at it, it didn't work with Firefox
>> as FF only supported Ogg, or something similar. Works on some other
>> browsers, though.
>
> You know that Ogg is only a container format, not a codec, right? ;-)
I was told by a ffmpeg developer that ogg is quite a crap container format,
and that Matroska is way better. Of course, you're free to use it with
Theora and Vorbis (the codecs usually used with Ogg).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Invisible
Subject: Re: And you thought flash was only good for youtube.
Date: 27 Nov 2009 04:51:52
Message: <4b0fa138@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> You know that Ogg is only a container format, not a codec, right? ;-)
>
> I was told by a ffmpeg developer that ogg is quite a crap container format,
> and that Matroska is way better. Of course, you're free to use it with
> Theora and Vorbis (the codecs usually used with Ogg).
I've read the Ogg spec. Looks OK to me.
(Then again, the only other container format I know of is IFF...)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Warp
Subject: Re: And you thought flash was only good for youtube.
Date: 27 Nov 2009 05:14:09
Message: <4b0fa671@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmail com> wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
> > You can Google the codec up yourself. I'm too lazy. Is Vorbis a (video)
> > codec?
> Vorbis is audio. Theora is video. Ogg is container.
And a codec is a piece of software, so it's nothing of those.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Invisible
Subject: Re: And you thought flash was only good for youtube.
Date: 27 Nov 2009 05:27:24
Message: <4b0fa98c@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> And a codec is a piece of software, so it's nothing of those.
Really? I thought the term "codec" refers to the data format, and the
algorithm for producing/consuming it? (I.e., the specification document
is the codec, the software is an "implementation of" the codec, and any
files using it are "uses of" the codec.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Warp
Subject: Re: And you thought flash was only good for youtube.
Date: 27 Nov 2009 09:48:11
Message: <4b0fe6ab@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > And a codec is a piece of software, so it's nothing of those.
> Really? I thought the term "codec" refers to the data format, and the
> algorithm for producing/consuming it? (I.e., the specification document
> is the codec, the software is an "implementation of" the codec, and any
> files using it are "uses of" the codec.)
"A codec is a device or computer program capable of encoding and/or
decoding a digital data stream or signal. The word codec is a
portmanteau (a blending of two or more words) of
'compressor-decompressor' or, more accurately, 'coder-decoder'."
It's a piece of software (or hardware, if we are technical).
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Invisible
Subject: Re: And you thought flash was only good for youtube.
Date: 27 Nov 2009 10:09:04
Message: <4b0feb90$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> And a codec is a piece of software, so it's nothing of those.
>
>> Really? I thought the term "codec" refers to the data format, and the
>> algorithm for producing/consuming it? (I.e., the specification document
>> is the codec, the software is an "implementation of" the codec, and any
>> files using it are "uses of" the codec.)
>
> "A codec is a device or computer program capable of encoding and/or
> decoding a digital data stream or signal. The word codec is a
> portmanteau (a blending of two or more words) of
> 'compressor-decompressor' or, more accurately, 'coder-decoder'."
>
> It's a piece of software (or hardware, if we are technical).
Mmm, interesting...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Eero Ahonen
Subject: Re: And you thought flash was only good for youtube.
Date: 28 Nov 2009 14:31:58
Message: <4b117aae$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
>
> It's a piece of software (or hardware, if we are technical).
>
And when it's a piece of hardware, it most probably is a piece on
software on that hardware ;-).
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Warp
Subject: Re: And you thought flash was only good for youtube.
Date: 28 Nov 2009 17:50:59
Message: <4b11a953@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Eero Ahonen <aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid> wrote:
> And when it's a piece of hardware, it most probably is a piece on
> software on that hardware ;-).
With simpler codecs it could be hardwired, so no software.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Eero Ahonen
Subject: Re: And you thought flash was only good for youtube.
Date: 29 Nov 2009 05:11:13
Message: <4b1248c1$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Eero Ahonen <aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid> wrote:
>> And when it's a piece of hardware, it most probably is a piece on
>> software on that hardware ;-).
>
> With simpler codecs it could be hardwired, so no software.
>
Well yes, it's possible - that's why "probably".
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
