pouët.net

Blu-ray is dead anyway... even for movie studios ([ur=]http://www.uvvu.com/index.php]uvvu[/url]) :-D

Blu-ray is dead anyway... even for movie studios (bbcode sux) :-D

Mindcandy 3d would be nice ;-)

Delays have been all mine -- bad job :-( , new job :-D , holidays, vacation, and, up until an hour ago, a screwed up Vista installation.

MC3 is 95% finished -- all of the commentary is recorded, the assets are done, and I'm in the authoring stage. My authoring program is giving me some trouble; some button routing isn't working, I can't hide the easter eggs (yet), and most troubling is that the "commentary on/off" buttons aren't working (you can switch audio tracks with the audio button on the bluray remote, but that's not as "cool"). Once I get these fixed I'm sending an alpha release to the guys to test.

The video and audio quality is superb. I was worried that 720 60p video was going to look pixelated on my new 55" tv, but the 60fps motion totally makes it worthwhile. It really looks great.

I'll keep y'all posted...

@ryg on x264. It is probably Google is cancelling it in Chrome instead of WebM. WTF is going on with that!

They want control of the interwebs? It's ok, because it's free and open source, and has nothing to do with making billions from advertising.

Problem with H.264 is that, according to the MPEG LA, will only be safe from royalties *if* the video content is free aswell... obviously Google will want to make paid content in the future, and would rather make it in WebM than having to pay royalties to MPEG LA for it.

Getting people used to WebM (unlike today, where MOST high def video content is made in H.264, even for the internet), goes the way of just not playing it on its browser. Most people will just switch to WebM (since it's as easy to make as H.264, if not easier), and way less will change browsers for that move... so Google wins again.

The fact that they can also make it "look" to the mass of the internet people as if it was a philantropical move and succeed, just turns Google into pure genius :-)

The whole thing looks really shady to me actually. Not because of webm/patents/whatever else.. but hardware support. They say they're going to drop h264 support, but how many computers have a hardware webm decoder? Zero? All of those computers will go back to software decoding. Or more likely, flash.

Then what happens to android? All of the android phones have a hardware h264 decoder, and a weak mobile CPU. Switching them to webm is going to cripple performance and battery life.

If they're supporting webm AND h264, it makes plenty of sense. All they need to do is move youtube to webm (keeping h264 support for legacy devices), and specify webm hardware decoding as a requirement for future android handsets. It'll replace h264 by default.

psonice: you make a good point there... however i wonder how different WebM is, so that current H.264 hardware decoders can't decode WebM via a firmware update... wether those devices are upgradeable though, is another question.

My guess (I don't really know, haven't ever got into tech stuff) is that more than likely, H.264 is WAY too similar to WebM to really make a difference (same as say... Xvid vs Divx)... however, this is just a guess

trixter: no room left for magellan by fr i suppose? :)

I honestly don't understand the webm craze. It's an inferior codec with an inconsistent reference implementation and there is no hardware support for it... When x264 added blu-ray compliancy last year, that was pretty much it. Nobody should be using anything other than h.264. And I fucking HATE Matroska, don't get me started.

So, you're worried about future licensing concerns? Well, remember Fraunhofer and mp3 in the 1990s? Big scare then too, but it didn't stop us from using mp3 and I don't see consumers paying big bux to companies to encode and use mp3 today... The tunes I can buy online are $0.99, so I don't feel any licensing costs at all.

@magic: Sorry, playlist was fixed after Happiness Is Around The Bend. But Rove is there (although we have no commentary for Rove, would ryg or chaos be willing to record something?)

It seems that Google believes that if they just repeat that WebM doesn't infringe on any patents over and over again, then ultimately it becomes true.

trixter and kusma have leading. That WebM stuff makes me cry -- after all those years of codec chaos, we finally had a common standard everybody uses, called H.264. Fuckings to Google for destroying this state of perfection again. (And don't get me started on technological details or that "but it's patent-free!!!11" bullshit ...)

I must say that, despite my previous post in this thread... I DO agree with trixter and kusma... I was just stating how Google can do something like "killing" (or trying to kill) H.264, and still be seen as the "web-saviour" by the majority of people.

It takes a genius to do that :-)

Seems the general opinion is that the majority of sites will simply support h264/html5 as they're already doing, and send h264/flash to chrome users. I'll be uninstalling chrome if/when that happens :)

As long as there's a workaround (or flash) to still see H.264 in chrome, I don't care wether it [natively] supports it or not... chrome is by far the best browser right now (IE9 looks promising though... I don't have my hopes too high in Firefox 4, and I don't like either Opera or Safari), so I'm not uninstalling it :-)

The web is not just video :)

Hi,

how is this project going?

Yeah. Would be nice to know if I can give some as Christmas presents ;)

Join the group at http://www.facebook.com/mindcandydvd for the latest updates. The original homepage at http://www.mindcandydvd.com has been stagnant, but the vol 3 release site will be launched in a few weeks.

The short of it: Artwork is done. DVD is done. BluRay is at RC2 and final testing will be done by next week. Pre-order should happen later this month and discs should be going out in early November. That's my guess at least.

Thanks for your patience. :)

Yay!

Awesome!