Good background on ongoing codec comparisons is with search term "codec shootout".

Most of the comparisons I've found are over 2 years old, which means they don't compare implementations of the finalized Dirac spec (released January 21, 2008). The ones I've looked at are mainly these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_video_codecs#Freely_available_codecs_comparisons

The recent comparisons I've seen tend to be sloppy in their analysis of Dirac and Theora, failing to provide details on which Dirac implementation they used (Schrödinger or dirac-research) and other test setup information.

Theora improvements over the 2001 VP3 donation seem to have been minimal:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theora#Performance

Fair enough; it may or may not have improved since then. I think Theora will work fine for low-bitrate video while Dirac will cover the high-bitrate market.

H.264 had a _lot_ of grassroots support before Adobe took the gamble on licensing and distributing it. Particularly, many production shops had already moved to H.264 workflows.

Dirac was used by the BBC during the 2008 Beijing Olympics (see And now, Dirac from the Olympics, a new free codec!). Also, there are two independent, interoperable software implementations of Dirac and at least one hardware implementation. Dirac is already supported by VLC, FFmpeg, and GStreamer. I think these facts show Dirac is ready for wider deployment. For more information, see the Dirac Wikipedia page.

And for codecs, it’s companies like Adobe which pay for the consumer use. The big desire for consumer support of patent-unencumbered codecs seems to come from that small minority of toolmakers — not consumers, not content creators. Toolmakers are important, but not so much as consumers and creators.

Perhaps this is where we disagree. Toolmakers are profoundly important. Even though they are a small group compared to consumers and content creators, what they produce impacts everyone far more than what consumers and content creators produce. For example, Firefox has significantly enriched the web by having very competitive standards support, thus forcing Microsoft to keep their browser interoperable and up-to-date. Had it not been for Firefox (the tool) and the royalty-free standards that enabled it, we would be stuck using old standards or, worse yet, depending on IE-only features. AJAX and other useful technologies simply wouldn't have been developed.

This is why the tools are important: they define what consumers and content creators can do. Restrict what tool makers can do and you ultimately restrict the features that consumers and content creators will have available to them, limiting what they can create and consume.

Theora improvements over the 2001 VP3 donation seem to have been minimal:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theora#Performance

H.264 had a _lot_ of grassroots support before Adobe took the gamble on licensing and distributing it. Particularly, many production shops had already moved to H.264 workflows.

And for codecs, it's companies like Adobe which pay for the consumer use. The big desire for consumer support of patent-unencumbered codecs seems to come from that small minority of toolmakers -- not consumers, not content creators. Toolmakers are important, but not so much as consumers and creators.

jd/adobe

Would content providers move back beyond VP6 to a VP3 codebase, and if so, why? These are the types of questions that would have to have compelling answers in order for the world to change to meet your personal goals.

Theora started as VP3, but has improved by leaps and bounds since then. Have you actually compared Theora and VP6?

Even if VP6 or H.264 is better than Theora, there are other royalty-free codecs, which I mentioned. Compare H.264 or VP6 with Dirac; I think the quality will be comparable.

I don't think these are just my personal goals. I'm pretty sure all consumers want to pay less and have more flexibility in choosing video tools.

The consumer cost structure would likely be in higher download times and greater CPU costs for lesser-quality video.

Again, you've made a claim without any supporting evidence. Please provide references that show this is the case.

You also ignore the fact that Adobe added H.264 support to Flash Player in 2007. If Adobe can make room for a royalty-ridden codec like H.264, surely it can make room in Flash Player for some royalty-free codecs like Theora and Dirac.

Content creators would have significant costs in changing their existing workflow and production tooling. Easy to see the costs, hard to see any benefits.

You must have missed the 5 big bullet points in my post. It's easy to see the benefits of switching to royalty-free codecs (ie. they lack the problems proprietary codecs have). Sure, there will be small switching costs. But the benefits outweigh the significant costs of maintaining our dependence on proprietary codecs.

Perhaps we should all have stuck with IE because switching to a better browser incurred a small switching cost. How awful would the web be then?

Hi Denver, that's an option for the future (and I'm not privy to the decision-making process), but your essay fails to say how most would consider the additional runtime download costs to be worthwhile. Would content providers move back beyond VP6 to a VP3 codebase, and if so, why? These are the types of questions that would have to have compelling answers in order for the world to change to meet your personal goals.

"Adobe could gradually migrate developers away from proprietary codecs...."

That isn't the way the world works. People make their own best choices. There's a bit of authoritarianism and mind-control in the world, but we're fighting to minimize such faith-based influences.

"The general public would benefit through lower costs on consumer electronics and video tools, whose price would no longer include a proprietary codec royalty."

The consumer cost structure would likely be in higher download times and greater CPU costs for lesser-quality video. Content creators would have significant costs in changing their existing workflow and production tooling. Easy to see the costs, hard to see any benefits.

Tristan wrote: "I hadn’t see JD’s post, otherwise I would have answered myself (not sure if he would listen though, because it’s always harder for a man to understand something when he’s paid not to)."

Spoken like someone who gets paid to aver things without backing them up.

Go read and comment at my complaint at your continued intemperate, unreasoned speech. It ain't about codecs, it's about insinuation being a weak and despicable debating technique.

jd/adobe

I hadn't see JD's post, otherwise I would have answered myself (not sure if he would listen though, because it's always harder for a man to understand something when he's paid not to).

Thanks a lot for this response, it's spot on. The world will indeed be better place with Open, royalty-free codecs, and you demonstrate it.

Frankly, proprietary codecs where good until we had decent Open codecs such ad Dirac and OggTheora. They solved a problem for a while, but it's time for them to go away and be replaced by Open codecs, which enable more people to do more things in more ways.

--Tristan