[HN Gopher] Google wants to take on Dolby with new open media fo... ___________________________________________________________________ Google wants to take on Dolby with new open media formats Author : mmastrac Score : 296 points Date : 2022-09-22 16:17 UTC (6 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.protocol.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.protocol.com) | sportstuff wrote: | There is difference between hearing vs listening vs feeling. I | hope more creative stuff comes out this. My first experience on | 5.1 was Top Gun.. The next one to top that was in Audium with | sound and vibrations from everywhere. Nothing to top the sound of | silence. | chadlavi wrote: | obligatory relevant XKCD: https://xkcd.com/927/ | crazygringo wrote: | This is amazing. It's truly bizarre that 5.1 surround sound, or | HDR, or spatial audio, would be proprietary paid formats -- I | mean, what if someone told you there was a license for _stereo_ | audio? | | And sure it's in Google's self-interest so that they can bring | these technologies to YouTube without paying anyone else. But it | benefits everybody, so this is really fantastic news for everyone | if it's something that takes off. | EGreg wrote: | Yep. Once again, open standards smashing capitalism's | rentseeking proprietary schemes helps a wide array of people | around the world including new entrants who would have | previously been priced out. | dimitrios1 wrote: | > capitalism's rentseeking proprietary schemes | | Correction: greedy assholes rentseeking proprietary schemes. | There is nothing in capitalism that says you _must_ obtain | your money through unethical means. | EGreg wrote: | It is also true that there is nothing in capitalism that | precludes this rentseeking scheme. Everything about it is | quintessentially capitalist: a top-down organization | employs people (job creation) and pays them money which it | gets by restricts other people and organizations from using | something (private ownership) unless they pay (rentseeking) | and to take down its rivals (competition) to take over an | entire industry. The only aspect that's missing is to abuse | publicly available resources (extraction) and dump its | waste (pollution). | | It is actually fine for trailblazers to charge large | amounts for new tech. But open source gift economies can | eventually break their stranglehold. | | Unless they use the power of government to enforce their | rentseeking, which can be especially egregious with | "intellectual property". | | (Yes it is possible to be a libertarian who criticizes | capitalism as using government force.) | | https://twitter.com/mozilla/status/1549775652123033601 | js8 wrote: | That's lack of understanding of origins of the term | "capitalism". Capitalism is typically characterized by (a) | free market for labor and (b) private ownership of means of | production. Both of these concepts have been considered | unethical. The fact that liberals also consider "rent | seeking" unethical doesn't change that. | dTal wrote: | > There is nothing in capitalism that says you must obtain | your money through unethical means. | | There is. Ethics constitute a voluntary constraint on | behavior. Businesses with no ethics are less constrained, | and therefore can outcompete businesses so encumbered. | SllX wrote: | They're paying to use Dolby's encoding schemes. It's not the | idea of "stereo audio" that's patent encumbered, it's some of | the encoding schemes that can output stereo audio (much less so | these days, patents are expiring and all of MP3's have). Same | with surround audio and spatial audio and HDR: Dolby has an | encoding scheme that works well and gets the desired result, is | high quality, usually higher quality than the alternatives, and | they market it well. | | I'll welcome anyone that wants to enter the space that thinks | they can do better, but Dolby is good at what they do, and | Google often has massive commitment issues for new projects | (although notably, not usually when it comes to codecs). I | suspect what will happen is YouTube will develop their own HDR | and audio codecs, and it'll just be used on YouTube and almost | nowhere else. That'll be enough to drive client support, but | it'll be one more HDR format in addition to HDR10+ and Dolby | Vision, and it'll be one more set of audio codecs in addition | to like the half dozen to a dozen they already decode, and | ultimately this will be to increase the quality of YouTube | while minimizing their licensing costs. That's fine. | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | > I'll welcome anyone that wants to enter the space that | thinks they can do better, | | "Do better" is tricky to define. By some metrics, Ambisonics, | a decades-old, license free technology, "does better" than | Atmos does. But by others, it does worse. Which metrics are | important? | dTal wrote: | I think the most important figure of merit is sadly how | much money it will make the people in charge of | implementing it in consumer devices. | SllX wrote: | Content is King here. Do you have source material and do | you have playback devices or software out in the world? | | Google has both with YouTube, Chromecasts and Android | phones and TVs. They're one of the few power players that | can unilaterally change up their codec and metadata suite, | but only as far as YouTube goes. | | So "do better" means getting enough content behind a tech | stack and still delivering a satisfying experience to the | customer. If they can meet or exceed what Dolby delivers, I | think that would be great! Even if they only match Dolby, | that's still pretty good. | kasabali wrote: | > I suspect what will happen is YouTube will develop their | own HDR and audio codecs | | It is stated in the article they're backing HDR10+. | | Not sure about the audio. | m0RRSIYB0Zq8MgL wrote: | For audio they are working on something new called | Immersive Audio Container | | https://aomediacodec.github.io/iac/ | SllX wrote: | Yeah there's some supposition in the article so I'm not | clear if it's HDR10+ or an extension of it, just that | Google wants to do something to break Dolby's bank and | they've got a heist crew with something to prove (i.e. | Netflix, Samsung, Meta, et al.) and a placeholder name for | the audio stuff ("Immersive Audio Container"). The | distinction hardly matters since it'll just be one more | format (or set of formats) for manufacturers to support. | klabb3 wrote: | > and ultimately this will be to increase the quality of | YouTube while minimizing their licensing costs. | | Yes, I can also imagine they have specific requirements on | the file format like quickly skipping to timestamps, highly | variable bitrate, handling text and graphics well etc. I | imagine their requirements to be so general that it'll | benefit anyone, especially those that do streaming. | | In either case "just one more standard" (or relevant xkcd) is | an unavoidable obstacle for every new standard, and does not | mean the project will fail. I have lots of critique against | Google but this is one thing they are positioned to do well, | and have a decent track record. And given how the competition | operates, is frankly refreshing. | SllX wrote: | Agreed. | daveslash wrote: | Speaking of Stereo Audio vs Encoding Schemes, there was a | great article posted here a while back about diving into | audio formats on 35mm movie film [0]. There's a photo showing | the analog stereo wave-form alongside two digital tracks: | Dolby and Sony [1]. So the audio is physically printed onto | the film in 3 different formats (1 analog, 2 digital) and | it's up to the projector to decide which one is needs/has- | the-hardware-for. | | [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30919904 | suzumer wrote: | Youtube already has it's own HDR video codec with VP9. Also, | HDR10+ and Dolby Vision aren't HDR formats, they're formats | for storing dynamic metadata that can help TVs better display | HDR video. The article seems to misinterpret what their | purpose is. HDR video can be presented just fine without | HDR10+ or Dolby Vision. | SllX wrote: | Thanks! | CharlesW wrote: | > _HDR video can be presented just fine without HDR10+ or | Dolby Vision._ | | To see HDR content at its full dynamic range, you'll need | an HDR-capable device or display. Viewers watching on non- | HDR devices/displays will see an SDR1 video derived from | the HDR source. | | 1 "Standard dynamic range" or "smooshed dynamic range" | jmole wrote: | > To see HDR content at its full dynamic range, you'll | need an HDR-capable device or display. | | Not exactly - you need an HDR Mastering display to see | HDR content at full dynamic range. There are essentially | no high volume consumer-level devices, with the exception | of maybe Apple's XDR lineup (MBP, iPad, iPhone, Pro | Display) with the capability of displaying non-windowed | HDR content at full brightness. | | Everything else relies on tone mapping, even the latest | 2022 OLED & QDOLED TVs. | suzumer wrote: | Even HDR mastering monitors can only reach 2000 to 4000 | nits [1], whereas PQ gamma goes up to 10000 nits. This is | why most hdr streams contain metadata containing | mastering display peak luminance. | | [1] https://www.usa.canon.com/shop/p/dp-v3120 | CharlesW wrote: | Good info, thanks! Can you elaborate on why you qualified | this with "non-windowed"? | pa7ch wrote: | So if VP9 and AV1 already store HDR data, How is Dolby | Vision used? Its HDR metadata shipped alongside video | formats that don't already encode this data? | | Like if I stream netflix to a TV supporting Dolby Vision | what format is the video being streamed in and is the TV | manufacturer just paying Dolby for the right to correctly | decode this HDR info then? | [deleted] | izacus wrote: | Dolby Vision is a format of that metadata - it's hiding | either at the beginning or as part of a frames in | proprietary metadata extensions. When the video is being | played, this metadata is extracted by video decoder (or | demuxer) and then sent together with video frames to the | display where the display then applies the (color, etc.) | metadata to correctly show the frames based on its | capabilities. | | Since the format of this metadata is proprietary, the | demuxers, decoders and displays need to understand it and | properly apply it when rendering. That's the part that | needs to be implemented and paid for. | | But that's really not all of the technology - Dolby | Vision isn't just the metadata format, it's also | definition of how the videos are mastered and under which | limitations (e.g. DV allows video to be stored in 12-bit | per pixel format, allows mastering with up to 10.000 nits | of brightness for white pixels and defines wider color | range so better, brighter colors can be displayed by a | panel capable of doing that). | | https://www.elecard.com/page/article_hdr is actually a | pretty good article that overviews this topic (although | you do need a basic understading how digital video | encoding works). | suzumer wrote: | Dolby Vision supplements the HDR data already present in | a video. For example, when you buy a Blu-ray disc that | supports Dolby Vision, the disc contains several m2ts | files containing HEVC encoded videos. Present within the | HEVC stream is also the metadata, which supplies metadata | for each frame. To see what this data is, I used[1], and | then got the info for frame 1000 and saved it as a json | in this [2] pastebin. As you can see, it contains info | regarding the minimum and maximum PQ encoded values, the | coefficients of the ycc to rgb matrix, among other | things. This allows TVs to better display the HDR data, | as currently, video data encoded using rec. 2020 color | primaries with max light level of 10000 nits is far | outside what current TVs are capable of displaying, so | metadata showing max pq of a frame or scene allows these | devices to make better decisions. | | [1] https://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=183479 [2] | https://pastebin.com/m5NfUTbc | Melatonic wrote: | This could put pressure on Dolby to release their older stuff | for free (no licensing) which would be a huge win for | everyone. But I agree about Google - the whole point of Dolby | is to have a high quality standard that is the industry | choice for consistency. That does cost money (mainly in | licensing their stuff or chips that use their encoder) but | the way I see they have to make profit somehow. Is it | overpriced? Probably. | | Is older standard dolby digital (and dolby digital plus) 5.1 | surround sound still pretty damn good? Yep - and it should be | free. They have 20 years of newer, superior stuff to make | money from! | SllX wrote: | AC-3's (Dolby Digital) patents all expired in 2017. I'm not | sure about E-AC-3 (Dolby Digital Plus), but my | understanding is producers just move onto new sound | technology. It's not that DD and DD+ don't both sound | great, it's that people move with advances in sound | production to stay on or near the state of the art. If you | want to write an AC-3 encoder/decoder, go for it, but | that's not much help for folks that want to use AC-4, | TrueHD and Atmos. | UltraViolence wrote: | All of this is basically easy to make an alternative | implementation of. Just use a slightly different audio codec | and rearrange the fields a bit in the format. | | Probably most important for good uptake is a fancy name. HDR10+ | just doesn't sound snazzy enough. | dylan604 wrote: | Right, HDR11 sounds so much better. | | --But it goes to 11. | pdntspa wrote: | Thank god. Do you know how much of a pain in the ass it is to | cleanly sample most modern movies because of this proprietary | codec bullshit? | | The best results come from ripping voiceovers out of the center | channel... but busting through encryption and figuring out the | right proprietary codec to open the audio is a pain. | suzumer wrote: | I've found that the easiest way to extract audio data from a | Blu-ray movie is to rip the file using MakeMKV and then use | FFMPEG to convert the audio data to my codec of choice be it | wav, aac, opus, etc. FFMPEG takes care of identifying the | right codec to decode. | pdntspa wrote: | Does it work with the proprietary stream formats like DTS? | I believe I am using some plugin for Audacity for that, but | I hate doing the actual sampling in Audacity so it then | gets loaded into another editor. | suzumer wrote: | Yes, it works with DTS. Here is the full list of | supported codecs: https://www.ffmpeg.org/ffmpeg- | all.html#Audio-Codecs | sosborn wrote: | Perhaps of interest: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_patent_394325 | rodgerd wrote: | > This is amazing. | | Company with online video and advertising monopoly wants to use | that monopoly to destroy competitors isn't "amazing", it's | "business as usual". | Bombthecat wrote: | Dolby vision is patented. There is already a free version,hdr+ | , which samsung supports. | | But no one is using it. | izacus wrote: | And you can read in this article why - Dolby aggressively | made deals with streaming services to push their technology | to profit from royalties on end-user devices. | BonoboIO wrote: | What is exactly patented in Dolby Vision? There has to be | some innovation to be patentable. HDR10 and HDR10+ exist. | zokier wrote: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrightSide_Technologies | | HDR10 and all the other stuff came along much much later | jiggawatts wrote: | Dolby Vision is poorly documented but I did find a long PDF | explaining how it works. | | It does provide significant value worthy of patent | protection. | | The main thing they did was develop a nonlinear color space | designed so that each "bit" of information provides equal | value. This way no bits are wasted, making compression more | efficient and have fewer artefacts. | | The color space is also set up so that the "lightness" | channel is accurate and brightness can be rescaled without | introducing color shifts. | | They also came up with a way of encoding the HDR brightness | range efficiently so that about 12 bits worth of data fits | into 10 bits. | | The format also allows a mode where there is an 8-bit SDR | base stream with a 2-bit HDR extension stream. This allows | the same file to be decoded as either HDR or SDR by devices | with minimal overhead. | | Last but not least they work with device manufacturers to | make optimal mapping tables that squeeze the enormous HDR | range into whatever the device can physically show. This is | hard because it has to be done in real time to compensate | for maximum brightness limits for different sized patches | and to compensate for brightness falloff due to | overheating. Early model HDR TVs had to have FPGAs in them | to do this fast enough! | suzumer wrote: | While Dolby did design the perceptual quantizer gamme | (PQ) [1] that almost every HDR device today uses, they | waived patenting it [2] when it was standardized in SMPTE | 2084 [3]. Everything that is proprietary about Dolby | Vision (everything except PQ gamma) is relatively mundane | and just dynamic metadata. | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perceptual_quantizer | | [2] https://f.hubspotusercontent00.net/hubfs/5253154/Dolb | y%20208... | | [3] https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7291452 | adolph wrote: | It may be in someone's self interest to make anything that any | of us do zero cost, at which point we do not have a business | model for living (other than some form of the dole contingent | on agreeing to whatever conditions put thereupon). To the | extent that Dolby creates value and reasonably licenses their | development I think the employees of Dolby have a better claim | to a fair living than a pure patent troll or an ad farm. | 52-6F-62 wrote: | There _was_ a license for stereo audio. See: Blumlein and EMI, | Fantasound, etc | crazygringo wrote: | It made a lot more sense back in the analog days, when | figuring out how to encode and decode stereo audio on an LP | was non-trivial. | | But things like 5.1 audio or HDR or spatial audio aren't that | much more than adding a bunch of extra channels/bits to a | stream, defining relative power levels, and the signal | strength follows a curve, and oh there's some positional | metadata. | | The heavy lifting is done by compression algorithms which | deserve to be patented because they do genuinely non-obvious | stuff. Just like the way Dolby got digital audio onto a | filmstrip was similarly clever. | | But stuff like 5.1 surround sound... it's just channels, man. | In the digital world, it seems like it should be awfully easy | to design an open standard. | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | Ambisonics has existed since the 1970s. It is license-free, | and doesn't define a speaker layout (which is one of the | reasons why it is not widely used). | layer8 wrote: | It's not just channels. If you want just channels, you can | use 5.1 PCM no problem. | 52-6F-62 wrote: | "Seems like", and the reality are often different. That's | some of the ingenious nature of these inventions--they seem | like they should be obvious and easy. And yet they aren't. | Not at first. It took a _heavy_ amount of investment, | organization, and talent to get to the point of | stereophonic sound alone. | Dylan16807 wrote: | > It took a heavy amount of investment, organization, and | talent to get to the point of stereophonic sound alone. | | Sure, because that adds a ton of new complexity! | | Going from 2 to 3+ in a digital format does not add | complexity. | worik wrote: | > Going from 2 to 3+ in a digital format does not add | complexity. | | What adds complexity is determining how many channels to | use and what to put through them. | | That is the important part now. | bradstewart wrote: | Is certainly can add complexity when you consider | bandwidth and/or processing constraints. | Dylan16807 wrote: | If you figure out a particularly clever way to save on | those, sure. | | But the baseline of "okay, compressed audio isn't very | demanding, throw 3x as much bandwidth and processing at | it" does not add meaningful complexity. | crazygringo wrote: | Yup. Joint encoding [1] is really the main thing, but | that's something that codecs already do, ever since MP3 | with stereo music. | | The overall point remains: multichannel open container | formats exist, and open audio codecs exist. An open | standard for 5.1 surround sound, for example, seems like | a relatively straightforward combination of the two. I'm | not saying you can do it overnight, but compared to other | open-source efforts, it's tiny. | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_encoding | KerrAvon wrote: | Multichannel joint encoding doesn't sound trivial to me. | | Hmm, it's not: | | https://patents.google.com/patent/JPH1051313A/en | KerrAvon wrote: | That's like saying "we should all drive hydrogen cars | because you can just replace all the existing petroleum | infrastructure with hydrogen infrastructure." Yes, but | you have to execute on that. Any practical use of digital | multichannel audio must consider bandwidth and decoding | power as constraints. | mschuster91 wrote: | > The heavy lifting is done by compression algorithms which | deserve to be patented because they do genuinely non- | obvious stuff. Just like the way Dolby got digital audio | onto a filmstrip was similarly clever. | | Or... we could have governments begin funding universities | like they did in the past, and the research would be | available for all? | | Seriously, we have to re-think patents. The amount of money | all that rent-seeking crap is costing societies each year | is _absurd_ , and not just in payments to trolls, but also | stifled progress - think of stuff like e-Ink that's | _barely_ affordable. | deltarholamda wrote: | Imagine my shock when I found out I have been paying | royalties to Doug Stereo for decades. | | Stupid Doug. | worik wrote: | Cleaver Doug! | | Stupid deltarholamda! | | Na. Just kidding I'm sure deltarholamda is fucking smart! | JohnFen wrote: | > what if someone told you there was a license for stereo audio | | Interestingly enough, stereo was under patent in the 1930s -- | so you did need a license then. | 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: | I believe HDR10+ is open and royalty free. Dolby Vision is not. | __david__ wrote: | I was involved with digital cinema in the mid 2000s and | attended standards meetings. Dolby was constantly trying to | push their proprietary format for 5.1 audio into the standard | but luckily everyone else at the table pushed back, correctly | pointing out that just raw PCM 5.1 audio was perfectly adequate | (and didn't require a bunch of licensing fees!). Dolby had to | actually innovate (with Atmos) to get anyone to actually listen | to them. | | Though I'm quite disappointed with ATSC 3.0 which appears to | have given in to them and used their proprietary audio codec | which no one supports yet. I'm extremely skeptical that it | provides a tangible benefit over more widely supported formats. | Yay, regulatory capture. | phh wrote: | Well French dvb standard is requiring e-ac3, so not all | standardizers got the memo... (And it's being used mostly in | stereo) | | Fwiw, Dolby does bring something compared to PCM, which is | metadata to dynamically change dynamic range on the final | device, allowing higher ranges with perfect home cinema and | smaller range when in a noisy environment | splitstud wrote: | babypuncher wrote: | You don't need a license from Dolby to encode or play 5.1 audio | unless you are using a format that Dolby owns (like AC-3, | TrueHD, etc). Plenty of free and non-Dolby proprietary audio | formats support arbitrary numbers of audio channels. | aesh2Xa1 wrote: | From the fine article: | | > Google has a lot of influence on hardware manufacturers | justinclift wrote: | Wonder how well this will compare to Ambisonics? | | That's supposed to be a "full sphere" surround sound format | (developed ~50 years ago), but hasn't been picked up widely: | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambisonics | TD-Linux wrote: | It is, in fact, Ambisonics (among other features). | | Though you don't actually need any of the fancy new stuff being | worked on to use Ambisonics - you can already use Opus with | Ambisonics today in MP4. | ilamont wrote: | While I don't have sympathy for proprietary formats that come | with an added use charge, alternative Google formats forced upon | the world in the name of a "healthier, broader ecosystem" tend to | create friction and unwanted overhead. Thinking of AMP and webP | in particular. | | And uncertainty ... how long will such efforts last before Google | loses interest or is forced to abandon them? | izacus wrote: | AMP is not a format. | bmicraft wrote: | Webp wasn't bad and back then there really weren't any | alternatives that performed significantly better than jpeg | ck2 wrote: | Until they cancel the project and it is in the Google Graveyard | | https://KilledByGoogle.com | | https://Gcemetery.co (nice layout but stopped updating?) | crazygringo wrote: | The irony of GCemetary being dead is kind of amazing. Maybe | keeping things going is a little harder than they thought ;) | ck2 wrote: | When I see a website that stopped updating in 2020 I kinda | get sad. | | We lost a lot of people. | crazygringo wrote: | Fortunately, in this case the creator listed on the About | page appears to be very much alive :) | https://twitter.com/naeemol/ | anigbrowl wrote: | As a consumer, I don't care. dolby makes money from licensing, | but don't ask that much, they innovate constantly, and they do a | lot of public education. | | This seems like one corporation flexing on another rather than | great sense of mission; it's not like Google doesn't have IP of | its own that it prefers to keep locked up. I suspect that this | signals a strategic desire to move into the A/V production space, | where customers have big demands for storage and computing | resources. | anotherman554 wrote: | Dolby vision playback effectively doesn't work on PCs, so if | you are a consumer that uses PCs, you have a reason to care. | hparadiz wrote: | Dolby vision is basically broken on Linux and not great on | Windows. | Melatonic wrote: | From what I remember it basically does not work in any | browser based setup - have to use Netflix apps or dedicated | software? | anigbrowl wrote: | I can't argue with that as I only know about their audio | side. | Seattle3503 wrote: | I care because ATSC 3.0 includes AC-4, a proprietary Dolby | format. None of my software will play the audio from ATSC 3.0 | over the air broadcasts for this reason. | | ATSC 3.0 is a government standard for how public airwaves | should be used. It strikes me as wrong that the government has | basically mandated Dolby licensing for hardware manufacturers | and software libraries. | layer8 wrote: | ATSC 3.0 doesn't mandate Dolby AC-4, it also supports MPEG-H. | Both require licensing. The thing is, there is no equivalent | patent-free technology available (object-based 3D audio). | izacus wrote: | Exactly. Which is why "I don't care" is a very shortsighted | and terrible look on a standard that's at least royalty | free. | layer8 wrote: | Yeah, my point is you can't blame ATSC 3.0 for making use | of the existing standards. And it's not too different | from how a lot of mobile/wireless technology depends on | patents. | scarface74 wrote: | Do you feel the same way about the EU forcing exertions to | use USB C? | anigbrowl wrote: | That's a good counter-argument which I agree with. I was | looking at the issue in terms of voluntary consumer behavior | (visiting theaters, buying TV or hifi equipment) and | industrial supply rather than public good considerations. | Where limited resources are allocated by government as | (ideally) neutral broker we should certainly prefer openness. | | There is an argument for patent protection as innovation | motivator, but lockup periods are more likely to lead to | runaway market dominance due to preferential attachment. | Where there's a monospony (like government as owner of | spectrum) that's probably going to lead to negative outcomes. | | Thanks for widening my perspective on that issue. | toast0 wrote: | Well of course ATSC 3 includes a new proprietary Dolby | format, ATSC 1 got AC-3 as a mandatory audio format, too. | | I'm not sure if ac-4 is mandatory, but it seems like it is? | Kind of a big pain indeed. | kieranl wrote: | Atsc mandates ac-3. Ac-3 audio is actually dolby-d. They | just could not call it Dolby in the standard so they | renamed it to ac3 instead. | izacus wrote: | Competition is always good for a consumer, especially here | where right now you simply don't have a choice but to pay the | rent to Dolby on every TV audio device. | | C'mon, this is market capitalism 101 | rodgerd wrote: | How is one of the richest monopolistic companies in the world | deciding to destroy a market segment "competition" that is | "good for the consumer"? | anigbrowl wrote: | Luckily I'm not a capitalist and am not convinced my life | will be improved by shaving costs down to nothing until there | is only one supplier left standing. Fort that matter I'm not | much of a consumer, I'm still using a 10 year old TV XD | | What's weird to me is how google is selling this as a win for | the public, when the marginal costs added by Dolby are so | low. Even in the audio production space, Dolby stuff is a | little expensive for an individual (surround sound plugins | costing hundreds of dollars) but it's not a big overhead for | a recording studio. Their product is quality and consistency | at industrial prices and imho they deliver on this. | | There isn't an underground of frustrated audio engineers | dreaming of how theatrical sound could be so much better if | it weren't for big D. Spatial audio rebels build quadrophonic | sound systems for raves, but you didn't hear it from me. | debacle wrote: | I have an entire speaker setup that runs on the chromecast | protocol(s?) | | They've been repeatedly bricked (features rolled back, support | changed, can't set up complete groups, etc) by Google in the last | few years, to the point where I don't even think I have them | connected right now. | | I don't trust consumer products from Google at all. | keepquestioning wrote: | Surprised Dolby has survived for so long. | mikeyouse wrote: | The EU is randomly investigating the Alliance for Open Media on | antitrust concerns -- | https://www.reuters.com/technology/exclusive-eu-antitrust-re... | | Can anyone understand how it's in anyone's best interest to | investigate / potentially stop an open source standard / royalty- | free format that has buy-in from tons of big orgs? | rodgerd wrote: | > Can anyone understand how it's in anyone's best interest to | investigate / potentially stop an open source standard / | royalty-free format that has buy-in from tons of big orgs? | | Because "using my monopolistic profits in one area to destroy | your business in another area" is textbook anticompetitive | behaviour. | mikeyouse wrote: | I guess I get it but is anyone aside from the rent-seeking | royalty holders worse off if open standards win out? | 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: | > randomly The Commission has information that | AOM and its members may be imposing licensing terms (mandatory | royalty-free cross licensing) on innovators that were not a | part of AOM at the time of the creation of the AV1 technical, | but whose patents are deemed essential to (its) technical | specifications | | Sounds worth looking into. | GreenPlastic wrote: | The last thing I want to do is upgrade all my TVs and audio | equipment for new standards | RubberShoes wrote: | (Someone who works in streaming) | | While I see both sides, I don't agree with this strategy. In | fact, I think the public should be more aware of just how | damaging Google/YouTube is to the streaming ecosystem and if you | really stretch this argument, the planet. | | It is true - HEVC's original licensing structure was a nightmare, | but it seems to have been resolved and we now have hardware | decoders in nearly all modern consumer devices. | | This is also becoming true of Dolby's formats. maybe I am biased | or not as informed as I could be but they did the R&D, worked | with some of the brightest (pun intended) in the industry and | created a production-to-distribution pipeline. Of course there | are fees, but vendors are on board and content creators know how | to work with these standards. | | Now here comes one of the largest companies in the world. HEVC? | Nope - they don't want to pay anyone any fees so instead they're | going to develop the VP9 codec. Should they use HLS or DASH? | Nope, they are going to spin DASH off into our own proprietary | HTTP deliverable and only deliver AVC HLS for compatibility | reasons. Apple customers complain and after years they cave and | support VP9 as a software decoder starting with iOS14. This means | millions of users eat significant battery cycles just to watch | anything, including HDR video. | | Then we get to Chrome. HEVC? Nope. Dolby? Nope. HLS? Nope. The | most popular browser in the world doesn't support any of the | broadcast standards. It's their way or fallback to SDR and the | less efficient AVC codec. | | So now anyone else in the streaming industry trying to deliver | the best streaming experience has to encode/transcode everything | three times. AVC for compatibility (and spec) reasons, HEVC for | set-top boxes and iOS, and VP9 for Google's ecosystem. If it | wasn't for CMAF the world would also have to store all of this | twice. | | In the end, to save YouTube licensing and bandwidth costs, the | rest of the industry has to consume 2-3x more compute to generate | video and hundreds of millions of devices now consume an order of | magnitude more power to software decode VP9. | | If and when Project Caviar becomes reality, it'll be another | fragmented HDR deliverable. Dolby isn't going away and Chrome | won't support it, so the rest of the industry will have to add | even more compute and storage to accommodate. In the name of | 'open' and saving manufacturers a couple dollars, the rest of the | industry is now fragmented and consumers are hurt the most. | | YouTube weirdly admitted this fragmentation is becoming a | problem. They can't keep up with compute and had to create custom | hardware to solve. Of course, these chips are not available to | anyone else and gives them a competitive edge: | https://www.protocol.com/enterprise/youtube-custom-chips-arg... | izacus wrote: | As someone who worked in streaming, I hope new opensource | formats burn down the incestual cesspool of rentseeking codecs | and bury them under tons of concrete. | | You're literaly commenting here on an article where Dolby CEO | gleefuly explains how he made profit by using streaming | services to make users pay for their own patents and royalties. | And we didn't even get to the DRM which lies deeply integrated | into every part of those formats. Or insane complexity of HEVC | and Dolby Vision profiles which somehow don't bother you at | all. | | So, AVC, HEVC, Dolby anything, DTS anything, burn the | rentseekers to the ground. I'm sorry if you need to transcode | an additional video format for that. | _HMCB_ wrote: | Through Google Fonts, they can track page views under the guise | of beautiful fonts for your site. I wonder if they could do the | same with these media formats. | agilob wrote: | Would be nice if they started from opensourcing chromecast | dmitrygr wrote: | Month M + 0: Google to take on $INDUSTRY_STANDARD with | $GOOGLE_THING standard | | Month M + 4: Google shows off $GOOGLE_THING and announces | $PARTNER devices | | Month M + 9: $PARTNER releases first devices with $GOOGLE_THING | support (also supports $INDUSTRY_STANDARD, of course) | | Month M + 18: Google disappointed with lack of adoption of | $GOOGLE_THING announces first-party products with $GOOGLE_THING | support | | Month M + 24: Google's internal team working on first-party | $GOOGLE_THING products dissolved | | Month M + 36: $PARTNER announces future products will no longer | support $GOOGLE_THING due to lack of demand | | Month M + 48: Google removes all mentions of $GOOGLE_THING from | their websites, docs, etc. | [deleted] | mmastrac wrote: | I think Google's commitment to core technologies bucks this | trend. Go has been long-lived and received lots of love. | AV1/VP8/etc have been evolved and they've continued putting | money into them. | taylodl wrote: | That's because Google uses Go internally. It's not consumer- | facing technology. | bzxcvbn wrote: | AV1 wasn't created by Google. Neither was VP8, although they | did release it to the public after acquiring the company that | created it. | 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: | What's in it for Google? Less friction allows users to consume | more which gives Google more data? | izacus wrote: | Dolby is earning money by jumping in the bed with streaming | services and then asking every purchased device to pay them | money for the privilege of decoding it. | | Making hardware devices like Android TV cheaper helps adoption | of Googles platforms and services. | olyjohn wrote: | It's not about making their stuff cheaper. They just want to | take the royalty money they pay and put it in their pockets. | They're not going to pass the savings onto the customers. | | Nobody ever passes the savings on to customers. | | The royalty is probably a couple of cents at the most per | device. It makes more sense for them to just pocket the | millions in savings and show extra profit to their | shareholders. It would be dumb to give up millions to drop | the price a few cents, which won't even be noticed by | consumers anyways. | izacus wrote: | The Google formats are explicitly royalty free, so I'm not | sure what you're talking about here. | | Is Google evil because it wants the royalty money how can | it be so low that it doesn't matter? :P | sudosysgen wrote: | Integration on YouTube and Play Video for free. | digdugdirk wrote: | Perhaps just a computationally inefficient process they see | some potential in throwing AI at? | | Maybe it would be easier for them to tie in to their speech | recognition/translation if they controlled the whole stack? | | Does anyone have any experience with Dolby and could shed some | light? | TuringNYC wrote: | Being able to sell TPU compute instances via algos fine-tuned | to run cost-effectively on TPU instances? | duped wrote: | There is already an open media format (edit: for object-based | immersive audio), it's called SMPTE 2098. Granted it's basically | the mutant stepchild of DTS and Dolby ATMOS, but it does exist. | | The real problem isn't the hardware manufacturers but the content | producers. Dolby engages in blatant anticompetitive behavior that | basically requires hardware manufacturers to support their codecs | and make it impossible to innovate on the actual media formats in | a way that might compete. For example: paying for content to be | released in atmos or giving away the tools to author it for free. | scarface74 wrote: | So it's anticompetitive to give away tools for free or paying | content owners to use it? | | Would you say the same about a search engine company that gives | its browser away for free and pays its competitor in mobile a | reported $18 billion a year to be the default search engine for | its platform? | | I would much rather tie my horse to Dolby than a company that | has the attention span of a toddler. | diob wrote: | Yes and yes. | | Although honestly, it's always a nuanced thing. | | But typically the idea is to use money and undercutting to | force out competition, then when the competition dies quality | goes to crap. | scarface74 wrote: | So it would be like if a big tech company used its money | from search to fund an audio standard and give away the | software for free to undercut a rival... | diob wrote: | Yes | duped wrote: | Yes, loss-leading in general can be anti-competitive. And I'm | not the only one who thinks so! It obviously depends on the | scale, but having been in the space in the past I can tell | you the "we are literally paid to use this" hurdle is next to | impossible to clear. | | https://www.aeaweb.org/research/loss-leading-bans-retail- | com.... | mattnewton wrote: | > So it's anticompetitive to give away tools for free or | paying content owners to use it? | | If the intent is to drive others out of the market, it could | be right? | scarface74 wrote: | So what is the intent of any company that gives away | software or any startup that operates at loss funded by VC | money? | | Or if the same company gave its mobile operating system | away for free to undercut a rival and then as soon as it | became ubiquitous, started making much of it closed source | and forcing companies to bundle its closed source software? | mattnewton wrote: | If you ask Peter Thiel, it's certainly not to engage in | competition for the ultimate benefit of consumers. Not | that he somehow speaks for everyone in VC funded startups | at all. I just don't find many other voices willing to | say "competition is for losers" out loud where regulators | might hear, even if the structure of their investments | looks like it needs to find a monopoly to me. | [deleted] | water-your-self wrote: | >So it's anticompetitive to give away tools for free or | paying content owners to use it? | | Absolutely. Go look at how carnegie won the steel market by | starving his competition. | asveikau wrote: | More recently, Microsoft and Internet Explorer. | scarface74 wrote: | And absolutely nothing came of it in the US. Microsoft | was not forced to unbundle IE, no browser choice, | nothing. | | Now all platforms are bundled with browsers and plenty of | other software. | asveikau wrote: | I think that has more to do with who was running the DOJ | in the 90s vs. the early 2000s. | | > Now all platforms are bundled with browsers and plenty | of other software. | | This is an interesting question. You could take it as | Microsoft's argument before the DOJ being correct, that | browsers become an inextricable part of an OS. Whether or | not they would have been _had they not included it_ , it | seems like we can say in hindsight, of course it would | have. But surely Microsoft's decision to do so influenced | the way the market went. | scarface74 wrote: | Does that also apply to every other service and software | that is either given away for free to gain traction? Does | it apply to money losing VC backed companies? | duped wrote: | Impact and outcomes matter more than explicit behavior | when you look at this, it isn't a binary "do x and get | banned" kind of program. | freedomben wrote: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque | monocasa wrote: | Google is anticompetive and Dolby is. Just like in Google v. | Oracle there are no true good guys here, only outcomes that | are better or worse for the general public that various | corporate entities have aligned themselves to for some | perceived short term benefit. | | Open standards are good for the general public, as are | allowing re-implementations of APIs. Taking a look at | Google's anticompetive use of search combined with ads would | be absolutely fantastic too, but I'm not going to gate other | actions on it unless there's some semblance of a chance that | the connections between the two actions are anything other | than theoretical. | scarface74 wrote: | So it's open source? What happens as soon as Google | abandons it and stops supporting in Android? YouTube? Do | you think Apple will ever support it? | monocasa wrote: | It's an open standard, so better than open source per se | since you're not reliant on any particular source tree. | | And in those cases you've listed, you're left with | strictly more options than if it's not an open standard. | scarface74 wrote: | You're not left with an "option" of an audio standard | that none of your customers hardware or browsers support. | ipaddr wrote: | The browsers will support this. Customer hardware from | large venders will take more time or never happen if they | are getting paid not to. But other hardware can take it's | place. | scarface74 wrote: | You think Apple will support it or even Microsoft? The | large hardware vendors not supporting it is really a big | deal don't you think? | slac wrote: | They both support the AOM. | monocasa wrote: | If the open solution doesn't take off in favor of the | proprietary solution, then you're in essentially the same | end state as if there was no open solution in the first | place. | scarface74 wrote: | Not after you've already encoded your audio to support | it. From history we know that Google isn't going to do | the leg work it takes to make the standard ubiquitous. | monocasa wrote: | Why would you only encode your media in a format that | none of your customers have support for in the first | place? | | Additionally, being an open standard, you can probably | rely on ffmpeg supporting it. This allows you to | transcode into something that your proprietary encoder | will support for ingest if it comes to that. | scarface74 wrote: | Yes because transcoding audio couldn't possibly lead to | lesser quality. | monocasa wrote: | Neither of these (HDR10+/DV, open spatial audio/Atmos) | are due to compression, so yeah, kind of. They're both | metadata schemes on top of other, pluggable compression | schemes. So yeah, I wouldn't expect a conversion to | necessarily end up with a loss of quality. | | This is also ignoring the first sentence: your whole | supposition is based on a scenario where you as the | content producer for some reason encoded in a format that | your customers don't have, and don't have the masters for | some reason. Which is basically absurd for anything that | would need dynamic HDR or spatial audio. | izacus wrote: | This is a standard, not a piece of software. Nothing | "happens" just like nothing "happened" to mp3 or jpeg | when they stopped being actively changed. | TheRealPomax wrote: | MP3 was not "an open standard", it was a patented | technology, owned by the Fraunhofer institute and lead to | hilarious lawsuits against people putting MP3 | capabilities in both hardware and software without even | knowing they had to pay license fees, until Fraunhofer | gave up and gave MP3 to the world. And not "way back | when", this is a story that didn't have a happy ending | until 2017. And then only because technology had passed | it by with the industry having mostly moved on to newer, | better codecs. | worik wrote: | > until Fraunhofer gave up and gave MP3 to the world | | I thought the patent ran out. | nightski wrote: | Standards are only as open as their implementations. The | fact that google isn't really involving anyone in this | and first introduced it in a closed door hush hush event | makes me extremely skeptical. | ipaddr wrote: | A standard created by one body requires adoption by | others before it can be a standard unless the first party | owns the market. Implementations don't have to be open.. | [deleted] | andirk wrote: | Is there any relation to this situation and how there | were attempts to enforce the _patent_ (not the standard) | of JPEG[1] that ultimately mostly failed? | | [1] http://www.pubpat.org/jpegsurrendered.htm | galdosdi wrote: | Sometimes, yes. Selling something for below cost with the | intent to drive your competitors out of business is called | "dumping" and has been illegal since the 1800s. | | Because selling a product below cost is fundamentally | unsustainable, there is no logical reason to sell a product | for less than cost besides doing so temporarily with the | hopes of being able to later recoup the loss with higher, | above cost prices. This is anticompetitive because an | inferior product can win out if it is backed by bigger | pockets that can afford to stay unprofitable longer than the | company making the superior product. | | This is basic economics, not really something that needs to | be thought out and debated from scratch by HN over and over | everytime it comes up, so it really would be helpful if | everyone who is thinking about commenting on economic issues | like this tries to at some point spend a couple hours reading | an AP Microeconomics text. If a high school kid or college | kid can do it in a semester, and intelligent adult can cover | the high points in a weekend. | monocasa wrote: | Like most calls to just understand econ 101, the real life | applications are significantly more complex. | | > Because selling a product below cost is fundamentally | unsustainable, there is no logical reason to sell a product | for less than cost besides doing so temporarily with the | hopes of being able to later recoup the loss with higher, | above cost prices. | | There are plenty of other reasons. The one applicable here | is "commoditize your complement". Zero cost to consumer | codecs mean more eyeballs on youtube videos, which means | more ad revenue for Google. That thought process doesn't | lead to later ramping up consumer costs. And if it's truly | an open standard, how are they going increase costs when | anyone can simply release a free implementation? | scarface74 wrote: | Anyone can release a "free version" of a phone that runs | Android. How successful of an effort will that be without | proprietary Google Play Services? | monocasa wrote: | Which wouldn't be an issue if play services was an open | standard. | arbitrage wrote: | How much demand is there for phones that run Android | _without_ Google Play Services? | scarface74 wrote: | In the US - none. That's the point, Google used open | source and gave software away for free to crush | competitors and then used its market dominance and slowly | made more of Android closed. | | https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/07/googles-iron- | grip-on... | Aissen wrote: | If only it was the only thing... Did you know Dolby is actively | fighting open source software like VLC behind the scenes ? | Anyone having a Dolby license is pressured to stay away from | VLC, even when it's a superior technical solution. | | The reason is simple: VLC/OSS developers have been implementing | Dolby technologies without paying a dime or using proprietary | blobs. How dare they! | hot_gril wrote: | I look at the current reality of VP8/9 with dissatisfaction. | Google went all-in with it and made Meet/Hangouts use it. But | encoding, decoding, or both end up being done on the CPU usually, | since hardware support is way behind. Zoom and FaceTime just used | H.264 (and 5?), and it's way more efficient as a result. I don't | normally care a ton about efficiency, but it actually matters | when your laptop's fans are overpowering the audio in a meeting | and draining your battery to 0 within a short time span. | | Also, ironically, even Google Chat didn't seem to support webp | images until recently. I appreciate the idea of open standards, | but compatibility matters way more to the end user. | ugjka wrote: | Whatever the pirates adopt will be the de facto codec | IshKebab wrote: | Nah, piracy is much less popular than it used to be. And there | are plenty of formats that have been quite popular with pirates | but had zero use commercially. Matroska for example. | kyriakos wrote: | And porn | TacticalCoder wrote: | Honest question: what would currently be the most commonly | audio format supported by pirates for pirated movies? I've got | a home cinema projector but never paid much attention to the | audio (just using my stereo: it's a good stereo but it's not | 5.1 or anything). | pixelatedindex wrote: | Personally I see a lot of AAC/AAC+ and some Dolby Digital. | izacus wrote: | You get all of them, since they tend to be ripped as-is from | the source media. I commonly see Dolby Digital+ (because | Netflix/Prime/etc. use them), Dolby TrueHD (because BluRays | use that) and nowadays there's more and more Atmos. | | Ocassionaly you can see an odd DTS/DTS-MA now and then, but | not a lot. | foghorp wrote: | What does Dolby actually do on a day to day basis? | | Do they have researchers working on new audio and video formats? | | Or is it now all just a self-perpetuating machine for generating | licensing revenue, based on existing patents? | | Sorry for the ignorant question but I'm clueless about their | ongoing contributions to the industry. | Mindwipe wrote: | Most of the industry uses HDR grading tools made by Dolby. | Anechoic wrote: | _Do they have researchers working on new audio and video | formats?_ | | Short answer is yes. Search for "Dolby" under "Author | Affiliation" in the AES paper search [0] and you can see the | research they publish. (the papers themselves are unfortunately | behind the AES paywall, but if usually authors will send you | the paper if you ask nicely). | | [0] https://www.aes.org/publications/preprints/search.cfm | kllrnohj wrote: | Yes. Dolby Laboratories is what came up the PQ transfer | function which is what's responsible for HDR10, HDR10+, and | Dolby Vision, for example. Dolby Atmos is similarly an actually | new way to handle spatial audio. They've also created things | like ICtCp ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICtCp ) | | So they do actually contribute some worthwhile stuff. And some | of it is open standards (like PQ & ICtCp). | | They also absolutely troll licenses though. Dolby Vision being | a perfect example, check out the "profiles" section of | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolby_Vision and you'll see some | truly dumb Dolby Vision profiles that exist obviously just to | slap a Dolby Vision license & branding on an otherwise boring, | generic video format. Dolby Vision 9 is a perfect example, it's | not even HDR at all. It's literally the same stuff we've all | been watching for a decade+, but with marketing wank shoved | onto it. | izacus wrote: | Sue everyone violating their patents probably :P | solarkraft wrote: | We are seeing a deeper and deeper split between Google (webm/VP9, | webp, AV1, strongly pushing their formats) and Apple (HEVC, HEIC, | Atmos, completely boycotting Google's formats), with Microsoft | caught in the middle, supporting neither that well. | | Apple's stance is especially interesting because it's unclear to | me what they gain by pushing license fee encumbered formats. | CharlesW wrote: | By supporting de jure standards (vs. Google projects which hope | to become de facto standards), Apple gets a 3rd-party ecosystem | for use cases where it wants one. Examples include USB, Wi-Fi, | MPEG-4, Thunderbolt/USB4, web standards, etc. In many cases, | Apple is an active participant in the standards process of de | jure standards which are important to their business | objectives. | | When de facto standards develop enough momentum to have | customer value on their own or as part of other de jure | standards, Apple will support them at the OS or app level. | Examples include MP3, VP9, Opus, VST3, etc. | shp0ngle wrote: | Apple is a governing member of Alliance for Open Media that | develops AV1 standards. | | They joined quite late but are there. | theandrewbailey wrote: | I figured that it was because Apple is more heavily involved | with Hollywood than Google is, from production to distribution, | and Apple would rather side with standards formulated by | trusted experts, professionals, and academics with long track | records like MPEG than ones that seemingly came from nowhere. | ajross wrote: | > standards formulated by trusted experts, professionals, and | academics with long track records like MPEG | | I genuinely can't tell if this is humor or not. If it is, | bravo. | tpush wrote: | Perhaps formulate a point instead of pretending to be | incredulous. | kmeisthax wrote: | Fortunately, MPEG got lobotomized by ISO a few years back[0]. | So there's room for a new standards org (e.g. AOM) to | overtake them. In fact, Apple joined AOM recently, so | presumably they will be providing their own expertise to that | organization too. | | [0] Specifically, Leonardo Chiariglione got fired and the | MPEG working group cut up into a bunch of pieces. | kyriakos wrote: | Apple prefers to pay dolby than help Google in any way it | seems. | asciimov wrote: | Apple is just supporting the technology people likely already | have in their homes. | mminer237 wrote: | I think it's actually the opposite. Historically, nothing but | Apple devices have been able to easily view HEIC images. I | think half the reason Apple does it is to make life as hard | as possible for people not using Apple devices, so they will | give up and switch. | sparrc wrote: | > Apple...completely boycotting Google's formats | | This is not exactly true, they are a "founding member" of AOM: | https://aomedia.org/membership/members/ | | > Apple's stance is especially interesting because it's unclear | to me what they gain by pushing license fee encumbered formats. | | My guess is cheaper hardware. AV1 is simply behind HEVC in | terms of hardware (ie, ASIC encoder/decoders) support. | lelandfe wrote: | They also recently added WebP/M support to macOS, iOS, and | Safari: https://caniuse.com/webp | [deleted] | phyzix5761 wrote: | Given Google's history of killing projects I'm not jumping on | this ship just yet. | robertheadley wrote: | Subtext: Google doesn't want to pay licensing fees. | limeblack wrote: | Or wait for the patents to expire. H.264 won't take to much | longer to expire it's around 12 years I believe and yet Google | has released vp8. | pier25 wrote: | Anyone remembers the open format HDR10+ pushed by Fox, Panasonic, | and Samsung? | | Me neither. | | The world at large has settled on Dolby Vision and Atmos and it | will be very difficult to change this. Not only from the consumer | end but specially in the pro audio/video end. | | Google would need first to offer plugins for DAWs, video | software, etc, to work with these formats before there's enough | content that manufacturers and streamers consider it. | kllrnohj wrote: | Of course I remember HDR10+, along with HDR10 and HLG. All of | which are quite common and broadly used. | | _Hollywood movies_ primarily standardized on Dolby Vision, but | the entire HDR ecosystem very much did not. Sony cameras for | example primarily only shoot in HLG, even for their cinema | cameras. | | Similarly games regularly opt for HDR10/HDR10+ for their HDR | output instead of Dolby Vision. Why? Because it's cheaper, and | dynamic metadata is largely pointless in an environment where | the lighting content of the next dozen frames aren't known | izacus wrote: | If I remember correctly, broadcasting is on non-Dolby | standards as well. UK uses HLG right? | kllrnohj wrote: | Broadcast TV is HLG because it's backwards compatible with | non-HDR TVs. And yes used by UK (BBC is the one that came | up with HLG even) | pier25 wrote: | > _Hollywood movies primarily standardized on Dolby Vision_ | | No, pretty much the entire video/streaming industry did. | Apple, Netflix, Disney, HBO, etc, either stream in DV or | HDR10 (non plus). | | Physical Bluray is slowly dying (I own a bunch of those) so | streaming is really where most of the HDR video content | lives. | | > _Similarly games regularly opt for HDR10 /HDR10+ for their | HDR output instead of Dolby Vision_ | | Fair point, but consumers keep complaining the PS5 doesn't | have DV which is an indicator of what people want. DV is | actually a big selling point for the Xbox Series X. | | On PC, I don't know. I've been playing HDR in consoles for | years but support on Windows has been pretty bad until | recently. My impression is HDR is so much more popular on | consoles vs PC. Same with Atmos and surround. | izacus wrote: | That's funny, since PS5 doesn't support Atmos at all and on | Windows you need to buy a paid plugin to make it work for | anything that's not a Home Theatre system. | | (And even if you have a home theatre system, Windows games | will still prefer outputting 5.1 / 7.1 PCM and mixing 3D | effects by themselves). | | I'd also be interested to hear where those Dolby Vision | complaints for PS5 are coming from, I haven't heard anyone | really say that despite HDR being debated quite a lot :) | TheTon wrote: | For games another reason they don't need dynamic metadata is | they produce their content on the fly and they're doing tone | mapping themselves already and can tailor it to the display | characteristics. | gjsman-1000 wrote: | It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Dolby Vision is | actually a mess of a standard, with several different not-quite- | compatible "profiles." Streaming video is Profile 5, UHD Blu-ray | Discs are Profile 7[1], and iPhone Dolby Vision is Profile 8. | Profile 7 cannot be converted into Profile 5 [completely | incompatible and different algorithms!], devices that implement | Profile 5 can't necessarily play Profile 7, but Profile 7 can | with difficulty be theoretically converted into Profile 8 which | is basically stripped-down Profile 7 with quirks[2]. Basically, | Dolby Vision is fragmented within itself. Fun stuff. | | [1] And within Profile 7, there is the difference between the MEL | (Minimum Enhancement Layer) which just adds HDR data, versus the | FEL (Full Enhancement Layer) which actually adapts a 10-bit core | video stream into a 12-bit one for FEL compatible players. Not | all Profile 7 implementations can handle FEL, but can handle MEL. | So even the profiles themselves have fragmentation. FEL and MEL | are, within Profile 7, actually HEVC video streams that are | 1920x1080 that the player reads simultaneously with the 4K | content. So a FEL/MEL player is actually processing 2 HEVC | streams simultaneously, so it's not a huge surprise why it isn't | used for streaming DV. | | [2] Profile 8 comes in 3 different versions, Profiles 8.1 through | 8.4. 8.3 is not used. Profile 8.1 is backwards compatible with an | HDR10 stream, Profile 8.2 a SDR stream, and Profile 8.4 an HLG | stream. Big surprise that iPhone uses 8.4 because HLG can be | seamlessly converted into SDR or some other HDR formats when | necessary. | | https://professionalsupport.dolby.com/s/article/What-is-Dolb... | smm11 wrote: | Pono Player checking in. | mirkodrummer wrote: | Any suggested readings about codecs/encodings/formats/algorithms | used or whatnot? I'm afraid it's the thing I lack most as a dev | fnordpiglet wrote: | AKA we will crush your smaller company focused on high quality | standards with our half assed support that lasts until you're | dead, maybe people will confuse this for "open" | CobrastanJorji wrote: | I love it when a powerful corporation's self interest happens to | align with the public's interests. | Bombthecat wrote: | Do they? | | Imagine android tv disabling atmos because of licensing or | netflix, then using the new format which needs a new receiver. | | I spent 2k on mine for atmos 4 ceiling speakers.. | kyriakos wrote: | By the time that happens dolby would have the next iteration | of atmos and you'll have to get a new receiver. This is the | sad truth about modern consumer electronics, very short life | span. | izacus wrote: | Why would they disable Atmos? | foxbee wrote: | 'Google wants to take on...' | | My immediate reaction to reading these few words is - "another | tool for the Google graveyard" | rektide wrote: | It's super unclear to me why Dolby keeps being the ones to do | basic things. What is underneath the marketting gloss? It feels | like we are all paying a lot for high bit depth, paying a lot for | multi-channel audio. | | I have never understood how or why it is that expensive | proprietary codecs keep taking over. Maybe there is more value | add somewhere, but it's very unclear, esepcially under the gloss | of (usually deeply non technical) marketting fluff. | 52-6F-62 wrote: | They invented a lot of this stuff first, some of the | preliminary work going back decades. It's not a secret. It | predates digital audio. | | There's nothing stopping open source digital codecs from | ruling, but they need people working for them. | | Personally, I'd rather pay dollars than data. | anigbrowl wrote: | Partly marketing and licensing deals with studios - they do | market very heavily. But they did pretty much invent the whole | surround sound thing as we know it today, as well as a host of | other realtime audio processing technologies. They're kinda the | luxury mattress company of theatrical audio - it's expensive, | but once you get it installed it's really nice to have. | | When I did audio production in the film industry, Dolby stuff | was a post production expense but not e very big one. Their | license fees aren't staggeringly expensive, and the quality and | reliability of the playback system was its own argument - if | the Dolby 5.1 sounds right in one theater it's going to sound | right in another, and that's a big deal because bad sound can | really kill a movie, even if the audience can't articulate why | (most people don't think too much about sound). | | Digidesign (the manufacturers of Pro Tools & later owners of | Avid) are a far more aggressive company that has maintained a | virtual lock on its market with a combination of very expensive | hardware and moat-building strategies. | izacus wrote: | Don't underestimate existing business relations and contracts. | The format you're using is the format that your | TV/soundbar/tablet support. There's only a few manufacturers of | those and they have decades of business relationship with | Dolby. | | Breaking those proprietary realtionships with open source has | always been a losing battle - look at HEVC vs. VP9 vs. AV1 | battles or AptX vs. AAC vs. Opus. | | Media industry is a surprisingly tight knit and very | conservative club that doesn't adopt outsiders easily. | UltraViolence wrote: | Like DTS HD Master Audio (which is basically HiRes PCM) and | Dolby TrueHD (which too is basically HiRes PCM)? We're | basically paying for an alternative WAV or FLAC format. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-09-22 23:00 UTC)