As well-known, JVT (a joint video team between MPEG and VCEG) has achieved great success in the standardization of the state-of-the-art video compression, including H.264/AVC, SVC, and MVC. The academic and industry want to continue the success in the collaboration between MPEG and VCEG. Some proposals from VCEG suggest the H.NGVC (or H.265) standardization should be collaboratively done with MPEG to produce a significantly advanced video coding standard and to avoid producing multiple similar standards, which confuse the market. VCEG agrees that conducting this work jointly with MPEG will be beneficial to avoid duplication of efforts in this area. Therefore, in this MPEG London meeting, a joint meeting between MPEG and VCEG discusses the future collaboration. However, the collaboration method arouses a lot of controversy, focusing on which one of the following practical experiences should be chosen:
- Practical experience 1: MPEG-2, a integrate part of video subgroup when under WG 11 auspices;
- Practical experience 2: H.264/AVC (JVT), a distinct subgroup of WG11.
However, the joint meeting between MPEG and VCEG did not reach a conclusion on which one to use. The naming of output specification and collaborative team were also discussed, but no conclusion was drawn at this stage.
Permanent Link: Future Collaboration between MPEG and VCEG
# 2009-07-07 Tuesday 9:19 am
I hope that you folks take a cue from the JPEG folks and try to do a standard that can be legally implemented by free software developers in the sad parts of the world that believe in malarkey such as software patents. I know that MPEG LA is a big money maker, but its time to turn them into an adovacte for royalty free stuff rather than a money machine for big companies.
# 2009-07-10 Friday 11:23 am
Video coding standards adopt a much larger number of patented innovations than JPEG. I think it is reasonable to license these innovations at a cost to reward the contributors. Of course, the IP cost should be affordable.
IPR policy of the standard bodies greatly influences the IP cost of the developed standards. ITU-T and ISO/IEC’s IPR policy is so unassertive that the development of necessary patent licensing programs falls to the industry, such as MPEG LA. ITU-T and ISO/IEC also take the risk that the standard may be rejected by the market because of the harsh licensing terms developed by MPEG LA.
It is worth introducing the IPR policy of AVS, the audio and video coding standard of China. AVS IPR policy is designed to consider the licensing in parallel with the technical work, when deciding which contributions to adopt into the standard, the standard committee does not consider only efficiency and complexity, but also considers the IPR implications. To avoid high IP cost, some compromises are required, but the benefits of a non-proprietary open standard and the licensing cost savings easily outweigh the small loss in performance. The IP cost for each AVS equippment is only one CNY.
# 2009-08-19 Wednesday 2:09 am
Nevertheless, it is possible to implement efficient video coding using only royalty-free technology — see http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/projects/dirac/licensing.shtml