digitalFAQ.com Forums [Archives] - KVCD Encoder

Page 2 of 4

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

digitalFAQ.com Forums [Archives] (http://www.digitalfaq.com/archives/)

- Video Encoding and Conversion (http://www.digitalfaq.com/archives/encode/)

- - KVCD Encoder - It's about to happen. (http://www.digitalfaq.com/archives/encode/12776-kvcd-encoder-happen.html)

rendalunit

11-01-2004 12:15 PM

hey kwag, will this run under linux?
thnx,
ren

rds_correia

11-01-2004 03:08 PM

Hi Ren :),
So far I know that Karl is going to do it most probably in PB.
And I know that there is already PB for linux and PB for Mac OSX is about to go public.
The problem will be basically with the inside codecs being or not multi platform.
Let's see what codecs he'll choose.
Right now I think it will be down to libavcodec which is in fact multi platform.
But there are a bunch of them that can be used as well.
Cheers pal

fingerbob

11-01-2004 03:08 PM

So whats this encoder then? In easy to grasp terms is it a DIKO for DVD only sources? If it's free, then will it eclipse DIKO GOLD (where you have to pay to convert properly from DVD)? If it requires payment then will it be a direct competitor to DIKO GOLD?

Sorry, I only ask cos to me its not obvious. :?

rds_correia

11-01-2004 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwag

So the way I see it, The KVCD Encoder will be free, just because of this.
Or at least for a VERY long time, and many versions to come.
I have also looked into several commercial Codecs, which require royalties (again for MPEGLA), and maybe there will be a small charge for a "Professional Version", which bundles other less known Codecs, which some companies prefer.
Who knows. Time and many factors will tell.

Hi figerbob :)
Here's what Karl thinks about being paid.
The frontend or GUI (like DIKO) will be free at least for a looong time.
But the codecs used inside may have to be paid like tmpgenc mpeg-2 encoding is paid but not mpeg-1 ;-)
So anything that the KVCD Encoder charges for is for th MPEGLA if it chooses to use commercial codecs.
That is not the case with libavcodec :!:
Cheers

fingerbob

11-01-2004 03:25 PM

Right so, its gonna be free for some time...

But what benefit is there in using this 'encoder' over something as good as DIKO? If it's cos it lets you encode DVD to KDVD/KVCD as accurately as DIKO GOLD but for no cost, then this just sounds like how DIKO was in the early days before VMesquita decided it was about time he made a profit for his labours.

If this 'encoder' proves popular (which, if its a Kwag product its bound to) then eventually he's gonna want to reap the benefits and then we're back at the same situation that DIKO reached.

Am I looking at this the wrong way :?:

Hydeus

11-01-2004 04:12 PM

@Karl

Go go go ... ;)
:crashed: :expert: :dark:

rds_correia

11-01-2004 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fingerbob

Am I looking at this the wrong way :?:

Basically you are.
If users come to register here and they pay the small amount for the registration it is most likely that Karl will let the encoder free for a long long time just as he said.
But I am just reading between the lines of what he wrote ;-)
Cheers

fabrice

11-01-2004 04:42 PM

Can't wait anymore!

What? Still have to wait 2 week!?
:bawl: :bawl:

Salu2
Fabrice

fragmaster170

11-06-2004 10:05 PM

Kwag, I dont think its about the royalties as much as greed.
I dont mean to bash YMPEG, I love YMPEG and have used it since it first was released. But I think to much is charged for it, if it was $10 or so, I would understand, but $24.95 is pretty ridiculous IMHO. Than again im not the guy who spent night after night coding my butt off on it, and it is his product, but these are the royalties due to mpegla.

Quote:

Under the MPEG-2 Patent Portfolio License the party that offers MPEG-2 Royalty Products (Section 1.25) for Sale (Section 1.30) to the end user is responsible for royalties on the various categories of end product (in hardware or software) sold or placed into the stream of distribution. Section 3 of the License agreement provides the schedule of royalties that apply to the sublicenses granted under Section 2:

(1) For MPEG-2 decoding products in hardware or software (such as those found in set-top boxes, DVD players and computers equipped with MPEG-2 decode units), the royalty is US $2.50 from January 1, 2002 and $4.00/unit before January 1, 2002. (Sections 2.2 and 3.1.1).

(2) For MPEG-2 encoding products in hardware or software, the royalty is US $2.50 from January 1, 2002 and $4.00 before January 1, 2002 for each encode unit (Sections 2.3 and 3.1.2). This does not grant a license to use MPEG-2 encoding products to encode/produce DVDs or other MPEG-2 packaged medium for other than personal use of Licensee’s customer, however; the grant to encode/produce DVDs or other MPEG-2 packaged medium for other than personal use of Licensee’s customer is covered by the sublicense for MPEG-2 packaged medium, and the royalties for that sublicense are assessed on the MPEG-2 packaged medium itself (see (5) below). Encoding product Licensees are required to give notice (covering the exclusion from the sublicense granted by Section 2.3) that encoding products may not be used in any manner for encoding MPEG-2 Packaged Media without a license under applicable patents (Section 7.16).

kwag	11-06-2004 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fragmaster170

Well, that would mean he's making around $20.00 (after PayPal charges), and that's still cheaper than TMPGEnc :)
I consider that a very reasonable price, for the efforts and time that are involved in creating an encoder.
I still think that TMPGEnc is too cheap, and commercial MPEG encoder prices should be around what MainConcept charges. CCE is just way too high.
I'm a little worried about how I will release this encoder, that is, the mechanics and legalities.
If I release the encoder bundled with avcodec/avformat, etc., I'm bound to be contacted by MPEGLA for royalties, because that's the law.
Unless I strictly disable all MPEG-2 encodings, and only supply the MPEG-2 version via a small purchase, which will cover the MPEGLA royalties, which I would have to send to them on every sale.
As I said before, I'm still evaluating other Codecs, so in the mean time, this is still in the design phase.

-kwag

Prodater64

11-06-2004 11:05 PM

Why or how then there is a lot of software freeware that plays mpeg2?

kwag	11-06-2004 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prodater64

Why or how then there is a lot of software freeware that plays mpeg2?

Guess :?:
Every software that produces MPEG-2 streams or decodes MPEG-2, by law, has to pay them royalties.
So I guess there's a lot of illegal encoders/decoders out there :roll:

http://www.mpegla.com/m2/m2-faq.cfm
And
http://www.mpegla.com/m2/

-kwag

fragmaster170

11-07-2004 01:33 AM

If you dont distribute binaries you dont have to pay royalties.

Quote:

A party that makes an MPEG-2 Intermediate Product (defined in Section 1.20, with emphasis on the last nine words "but which is not a product that is Sold") may avail itself of the Intermediate Product License in Section 2.1, allowing it to make MPEG-2 intermediate products that perform any of the above functions (e.g., OEM products, ICs, circuit boards, subassemblies and firmware and software that are sold for the purpose of integration into a product intended for end-users), but their customers may not use these products unless the applicable royalty is paid. (As noted above, a royalty is applied on MPEG-2 end products, not on the intermediate product; and MPEG-2 Intermediate Product suppliers are required to give notice that MPEG-2 Intermediate Products may not be used without a license under applicable patents [Section 7.16].) Companies may be end-sellers of some products (in which case they are responsible for royalties) and intermediate product suppliers of others (in which case the product does not bear a royalty). In addition, there is nothing that precludes a supplier or other third party from paying applicable royalties to MPEG LA on the end seller’s behalf, but that is a matter between the MPEG-2 end-seller and its supplier; the end-seller is responsible for assuring that they are paid to MPEG LA.

fabrice

11-07-2004 02:55 AM

So, I'm the one who sould pay royallties, if I compile mencoder (for example), to make my own encoding?!
Because I don't see anything about private use...

Salu2
Fabrice

Peter Cheat

11-07-2004 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwag

I'm a little worried about how I will release this encoder, that is, the mechanics and legalities.
If I release the encoder bundled with avcodec/avformat, etc., I'm bound to be contacted by MPEGLA for royalties, because that's the law.

Well, you could distribute source with code relating to avcodec/avformat commented out. It's out of your hands if people would compile it themselves with avcodec/avformat enabled :lol:.

You are not responsible for royalties if you are creating an interface for other encoders. That ofcourse does not apply to avcodec because royalties have not been paid for its use, and you would be treated as the distributor.

Latexxx

11-07-2004 10:31 AM

If you only distribute sources, you don't need to worry about licensing because you aren't distributing an encoder or decoder. Xvid and libavcodec use that trick all the time to get around license fees.

rds_correia

11-07-2004 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Latexxx

Hi Latexxx,
Does that mean that Karl could code it's GUI/Wrapper and include libavcodec sources with it, but he can't distribute it (libavcodec) as a DLL or as a EXE otherwise he or we would have to pay fees?
I'm sorry but I am not really understanding the way it works :roll:
Cheers

kwag	11-07-2004 12:17 PM

Thanks guys :)
Well, if that's the case, then I might just point to mplayer's site so people download the sources. Or to other sites that have precompiled dll's :lol:
I might as well do that, because I have no intention on modifying the library, so I can just point to their site, and I don't have to include sources because of the same reason I won't change them.
But as to releasing the actual GUI sources (it's going to be more than that :cool: ), that's out of the question.

UPDATE: I am almost done translating all needed C Header file definitions to PB, and last night I finally had a clean compile, calling several internal DLL calls :!:
Now it's 'Bug Time", finding out where I screwed up, specially in the structures, data types/pointer mappings to PB equivalents.
I hope to have a simple command line encoder soon, after I correctly validate all the needed DLL calls. So far, many calls succeed, and many blow up in my face :D (which was to be expected).
Once I get past that roadblock, the first GUI (version 0.0000001? :lol: ) should be out in a matter of days (hours?) ;) ;)

-kwag

Latexxx

11-11-2004 11:51 AM

Any progress?

kwag	11-11-2004 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Latexxx

Any progress?

Yes, but not ready for another couple of days :)
The last 2 days have been WORK, and no play :(

-kwag

Page 2 of 4

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page