MPEG has issued a request for comments and a call for further evidence on a royalty-free video codec standard under consideration.
The request is contained in the publicly available meeting resolutions of the October 2010 94th Meeting in Guangzhou, China.
The request follows responses received at the October Guanghzou meeting to the previous August call for evidence on Option-1 licensing (MPEG-speak for royalty-free) and input from the Chinese and US National Bodies.
In addition to information about target performance, the request cryptically asks:
The relevance of pursuing such a standards activity within MPEG, particularly with respect to current market conditions and industry needs.
Presumably this is a veiled reference to the announcement after the August MPEG meeting by the MPEG LA patent licensing administrator of new royalty terms on its AVC/H.264 (MPEG-4 Part 10) pool that has met Internet industry opposition.
————————————————————————————————————————————————
14.6 Option 1 Licensable Video Coding
14.6.1 The Requirements subgroup thanks the following organizations for their response to the Call for Evidence on Option-1 Video Coding Technology: Oracle, Peking University, Tsinghua University, Zhejiang University.
14.6.2 The Requirements subgroup thanks the CNNB and USNB for their input related to Option-1 video coding technology.
14.6.3 The Requirements subgroup recommends approval of the following documents:
| No. | Title | TBP | Available |
| Exploration – Option 1 Licensing Video Coding | |||
| 11676 | Call for Evidence on Option-1 Video Coding Technology | N | 10/10/15 |
14.6.4 Interested parties are encouraged to respond to N11676.
14.6.5 MPEG requests that companies comment on the following topics relating to Option-1 licensable video coding:
-
The relevance of pursuing such a standards activity within MPEG, particularly with respect to current market conditions and industry needs.
-
What are the specific video codec performance targets that may be required in order to secure the desired level of market adoption? As an example, current discussions related to an Option-1 codec have considered a 2x coding gain, in comparison to MPEG-1, as a minimum performance target.
————————————————————————————————————————————————
References
“Resolutions of the 94th Meeting”, ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC29 N11553, Guanzhou, CN, October 2010, http://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc29/open/29view/29n11604c.htm
“Think H.264 is Now Royalty-Free? Think Again – and the “Open Source” Defence is No Defense to MPEG-LA”, Peter Csathy, CEO Sorenson Media, Sept. 20, 2010, http://blog.sorensonmedia.com/2010/09/think-h-264-is-now-royalty-free-think-again-and-the-open-source-defense-is-no-defense-to-mpeg-la/
“Mozilla shrugs off ‘forever free’ H.264 codec license: Uh, will H.264 even be relevant in 4 years?’, Cade Metz, August 26, 2010, http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/mozilla-unmoved-by-royalty-free-h264/9499
“Opera still won’t support H.264 video”, Jan Vermeulen, October 1, 2010, http://mybroadband.co.za/news/internet/15547-Opera-still-wont-support-H264-video.html
“Open Standards for Video — Video standards (formats, codecs, metadata, etc.) should be open, interoperable, and royalty free”, in “Some principles for open video”, Open Video Alliance, http://openvideoalliance.org/wiki/index.php?title=Some_principles_for_open_video