How come that nobody uses free codecs like x264?

Simon Höfer

Simon Höfer

Veteran
How does it come, that nobody uses free codecs like x264 or Xvid?

Such a superior codec like x264.. and its free!

Do people just don't know about it? Is it the lack of publicity? Is it the power of the industry? Is it to new? Is it to complicated?

What do you guys think about it?
 
so why superior, video comparison. best why ? steaming to web, AVI import.

sell it to me. can i incorporate into Premiere Pro 2.0 and use as a capture codec and can it play out better than DV AVI.

i understand what codec's are but don't understand the extended use or reasons why people use different ones. Maybe i have 2 little info on this or sound like newbie.

but i am always looking for the best quality to capture so my output to dvd is best.

thanks

Tin Man
 
You would use it for showing you work on the web. On this board it is quite common to show your footage compressed as h264 quicktime movie. You get low file size and still amazing quality.

x264 does the same. The difference? x264 is free and h264 is not free.

In your case it wouldnt benefit. To output on dvd you wont use x264 nor h264.
 
x264 isn't a different codec. It's still encoding h.264 video. x264 is just a free implimentation of it.

Use it all you want. It's a fine way to make a video. Just be very, very well versed in the encoding options because you can break compatability and never know why.

I use x264 for a lot of my personal stuff. Videos for iPods, Xbox, AppleTV, etc. For production stuff? I mostly stick to more universal, less open-source types.
 
EDITED: Because Krestofre answered every question I had before I even finshing typing my post, apparently.
:)

thanks for the links, Noomis - I'd actually never heard of x264 before.
Going to do some reading up and see what I can learn.
:thumbsup:
 
krestofre said:
x264 isn't a different codec. It's still encoding h.264 video. x264 is just a free implimentation of it.

Use it all you want. It's a fine way to make a video. Just be very, very well versed in the encoding options because you can break compatability and never know why.
Click to expand...

Maybe thats also my problem. I first thought it can just be used like h.264. But then I had problems with people not being able to play my files. people that definately have the newest quicktime.

My conclusion was, that people need for example ffdshow to play such files. So is it possible to make the files compatible? If so, this discussion is not really necesarry, because you never know if its x264 or not.
 
Hm, I read somewher now, that video encoded with the ffdshow h264 encoder can't be played with quicktime.

Luis Caffesse said:
thanks for the links, Noomis - I'd actually never heard of x264 before.
Going to do some reading up and see what I can learn.
:thumbsup:
Click to expand...

I am all for the free stuff :)
 
Neither XVid nor x264 are actually Free. All implementations of Mpeg4 are covered by patents, so you cannot legally distribute files encoded with these codecs without the proper patent licenses.

Incidentally distribution of the codecs themselves is likely also a violation of the GPL and LGPL licenses they are released under.

Instead of dealing with these patent encumbered formats, I use Ogg Theora. No patent issues to deal with, plus it plays on almost any platform, and offers excellent compression.
 
Excellent point on the patent issues. I should have mentioned that too.

It's been forever since I looked at Theora. I like the idea behind it, but playback is just too limited for my needs. Yeah, if it's a computer you're OK, or will be with a limited amount of tweaking. But there are hardly any hardward pieces that can play it. By hardware pieces I mean AppleTV et. al.


Luis Caffesse said:
EDITED: Because Krestofre answered every question I had before I even finshing typing my post, apparently.
:)
Click to expand...

That's what I'm here for, Luis. :thumbsup:
 
Most people who consider themselves "serious" about making their films own their software, which comes with the codecs. I'm not going to bother learning x264 when I already own final cut & quicktime pro and can export using h264.
 
Use Final Cut and QT Pro all you want, I do too. But suggesting that anyone using x264 doesn't own their own software or isn't serious in some way is a bit beyond the pale in my opinion.
 
mrWr0ng said:
Most people who consider themselves "serious" about making their films own their software, which comes with the codecs. I'm not going to bother learning x264 when I already own final cut & quicktime pro and can export using h264.
Click to expand...

True enough. Sadly, it would seem that (from what I can tell), even professional level software only comes with the patent licenses necessary for you to work with and distribute files for free. When you start selling files that you've encoded with whatever codec, everyone always wants you to pay per copy royalties for the patents. See the MpegLA's website for details.

From what I can tell, the only way to sell your work in any kind of digital format that won't leave you open to a potential lawsuit is to either use a free format such as Theora, or have DVD's replicated -- in that case, the DVD replication house pays the patent fees on your behalf, and you don't have to worry about it. Of course you could always pay for the relevant licenses, but for small quantities it's likely not worth the trouble when DVD replication is getting cheaper and cheaper.

Oh, and as for hardware support for Theora, it's true it's not supported nearly as much as Mpeg4 based codecs. But it's getting better.
 
krestofre:

I can't help with your question (I don't really understand it), but I feel I should point out that you would be guilty of patent infringement if you use x264 for a pay-for service. As soon as you start making $$$ out of H.264, MPEGLA will be wanting some royalties.

So, you could buy a license from MPEGLA. This leaves you with another problem: x264 is licensed to you under GPL. The GPL requires that if you buy a patent license to use x264, that license must allow unrestricted use of x264 for all your users and anyone they might distribute onwards to. So you'd need to go to MPEGLA and ask for a license for every x264 user in the world. Unless you're Bill Gates, I don't think you could afford this ;)

This crazy situation was the brainchild of the GPL authors. They hate software patents and have written the GPL license to ensure that GPL and patents don't play nicely together.

In short, it's safer to use a commercial codec for your VoD service: then the codec vendor takes responsibility of all the licensing and patent issues for you.
Click to expand...

in other words, using x264 (which is an ENCODER, not the CODEC) on a for-pay service is no different than buying the student version of a program when you're not a student. you're still cutting people out of their patent $$$$ which isn't just a little illegal, it's fully illegal.
 
Granted, and good information to post.

Perhaps I was wrong, but I thought the conversation was more general, and not focused on for-pay work. In my own experience I use x264 for personal stuff. It's significantly faster than QT or Compressor, so if I just want to throw a video on my iPod for a flight or something, I run it through x264. My understanding is that doesn't infringe on any patents or copyrights. Again, I could be wrong. If a client wants a video, they don't get one made with x264. They get one made with Compressor, which I have paid for.

The distinction between personal and professional is the only thing I think you and I are missing. If your comment was directed only at using x264 for professional for-pay work, then it's good to have it in this thread so that people don't assume they can use x264 without restrictions.
 
Actually, though, if Compressor comes with the relevant patent licenses for h.264 for use in a commercial work, then there's no reason you couldn't use x264 instead, as you already have the license to use the Mpeg4 technology.

As far as I know, the patents cover the Mpeg4 spec iteslf, not the specific implementations of it. Otherwise, each and every software and hardware encoder would have to been patented separately... which I'm fairly sure hasn't happened.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top