What do you guys think of the HTML 5 language? I can't wait to use the video tag. I hope all the places that use flash convert over to this and Adobe shrivels up into a little ball and dies.
>>40
It could be competitive (as opposed to embarrassing, see Theora), but there's no way it would even approach the level of quality you get out of h.264. Not even close.
Designing a video codec with "dodge patents" as an objective is a losing proposition.
See also http://www.openmediacommons.org/ for Sun's trick pony on this race - it looks better than Theora (on paper), yet for some reason nobody seemed to notice its existence.
>>41
You may be right (Supposing you mean quality for low-bandwidth usage), but it's hardly a given.
And BBC differs from Sun in that they're actually a heavy user of codecs, being a major producer and distributor of various forms of media. If they decide to use Dirac Pro/Dirac internally, people will notice, and you'll see hardware and software supporting it in the professional market.
Getting Dirac Pro accepted as VC-2 won't hurt either.
>>19
I just compiled Xpdf... And got several thousand compiler warnings. Why can't those GNU idiots write code properly?
Name:
Anonymous2009-05-29 3:53
>>41
If you're serious about your video and need good compression, you'll use H.264, but Theora is good enough for game developers which don't want to pay royaltees, and it's better than MPEG1 or MPEG2. They can afford to double the video filesize(and bitrate) so they could get about the same quality as you'd have at half the size. It's not that bad of a bargain. There's considerably shittier codecs out there compared to Theora that game companies pay money to license because it costs less than H.264 and offers a worse compression, but still good enough for their needs( would reach nearly the same quality at 1.5-3 times the size ).
>>1
Adobe will never die, and it's all thanks to GNU. If only they had real competition for Photoshop, they wouldn't be able able to continue to exist in their current form.
>>47
Photoshop shouldn't die, through all their flaws and bloat, Adobe really does steal the show with Photoshop, there is simply nothing else like it. Lets face it, no matter how many perl scripting engines and gaussian blur algorithms they add to GIMP it will still be the ugliest abortion the open source community has ever managed to shit out its ass.
Name:
Anonymous2009-05-29 5:16
That's what I meant. It would be really hard for an open-source alternative to gain traction because of how horrible their GNU neigbhor is.
Tons of idiots would be going "why don't you fork the gimp instead", whiners would use the open-source fallacy "if you don't like the GIMP just fix it", and a steady stream of artless aspies would submit patches that ruin the artists' workflow.
But Photoshop really needs a serious competitor that starts out as a clone. I've started using Photoshop with version 3 in 1995, and it was already way better than today's gimp. Fuck, even paint.net is ten times more useful than the gimp, and it's only 5 years old and started out as a CS senior project.
Name:
Anonymous2009-05-29 5:36
>>49
It should be said, however, that the GIMP is not Photoshop and in many ways it isn't trying to be. As far as I can see, the majority of people bitching about the GIMP are just pissed it's not a byte for byte replica for free (lower case). My advice is, if you need Photoshop, use Photoshop, and just leave the GIMP developers to see what they come up with. I'm sure we'd see a much more interesting (and useful?) GIMP that way.
>>50
If they did not come up with something that any real artist (the five people who make lunix icons or HDR photos of their CPU aren't artists) has found worth using in 15 years, maybe it's time to give up.
>>51
It's not as if the GIMP hasn't produced anything useful in that 15 years. We got GTK+ (granted it's horrible but still useful) and the GIMP itself has enough features for the average person. The usability is a whole different matter, but is largely a question of time getting used to it. Besides, if the GIMP gave up, I doubt anyone else would try and fill that niche.
>>65
Just as stupid as asking for contribution when writing software
Name:
Anonymous2009-05-29 16:17
# This troll is free; you can redistribute it and/or modify
# under the terms of the Trolling General Public License as published by
# the Free Troll Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
# (at your option) any later version.
# This troll is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
# but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
# MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
# Trolling General Public License for more details.
# You should have received a copy of the Trolling General Public License
# along with this troll; if not, write to the Free Troll
# Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA
# This troll is free; you can redistribute it and/or modify
# under the terms of the Trolling General Public License as published by
# the Free Troll Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
# (at your option) any later version.
# This troll is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
# but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
# MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
# Trolling General Public License for more details.
# You should have received a copy of the Trolling General Public License
# along with this troll; if not, write to the Free Troll
# Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA