| ||||||||||
| interesting but.... in typical sony speak like digibeta's no its not compression its bit rate reduction technology Mpeg4 uses mpeg1, Mpeg2 or h264 as its codec. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG-4 if sony has indeed developed a NEW SR codec that isn't h264 that would be interesting. then they are packaging it into a mpeg4 wrapper. however, from what I read if very much does indeed look like one of the high quality h264 variants. its entirely possible they are just talking about a 10/12bit 4:4:4 h264 encoder which is part of the Mpeg4 spec and isn't really anything new, just not used very much. long read but - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/MPEG-4_AVC if you go 1/2 way down it lists out the formats " Patent licensingIn countries where patents on software algorithms are upheld, vendors and commercial users of products that use H.264/AVC are expected to pay patent licensing royalties for the patented technology[7] that their products use. This applies to the Baseline Profile as well.[8] A private organization known as MPEG LA, which is not affiliated in any way with the MPEG standardization organization, administers the licenses for patents applying to this standard, as well as the patent pools for MPEG-2 Part 1 Systems, MPEG-2 Part 2 Video, MPEG-4 Part 2 Video, and other technologies. The MPEG-LA patents in the US last at least until 2027.[9] On August 26, 2010 MPEG LA announced that H.264 encoded internet video that is free to end users will never be charged for royalties.[10] All other royalties will remain in place such as the royalties for products that decode and encode H.264 video.[11] The license terms are updated in 5-year blocks.[12] In 2005, Qualcomm, which was the assignee of U.S. Patent 5,452,104 and U.S. Patent 5,576,767, sued Broadcom in US District Court, alleging that Broadcom infringed the two patents by making products that were compliant with the H.264 video compression standard.[13] In 2007, the District Court found that the patents were unenforceable because Qualcomm had failed to disclose them to the JVT prior to the release of the H.264 standard in May 2003.[13] In December 2008, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court's order that the patents be unenforceable but remanded to the District Court with instructions to limit the scope of unenforceability to H.264 compliant products.[13] " or put another way, Sony isn't denying its really h264 Hi444p format, they are just side stepping around it every way they can and trying to call it the SR codec, just like iLink = FW. I'd need them to categorically deny its actually h264 and its really there own non-h264 codec... which I don't think they'll do. its not that I think h264 is bad, or unsuitable, but you know how some people would completely freak if they thought it was actually h264 because, well, you know.... still 220 4:4:4 is overkill for most folks. I'll take 120-150ish or so 4:2:2 for most work any day. s On Dec 27, 2011, at 1:14 PM, TSassoon@aol.com wrote:
|
