Talk:Dirac (video compression format)

message: Who was the silly fellow who said "[Dirac] uses Wavelet transforms unlike standard codecs which [...] use Wavelet transforms"?
Or rather, who were the silly readers who didn't fix that?
Anyways, it's been remedied. --Scotto 06:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wavelets 

message: One thing the article doesn't mention is whether the bitstream is fixed or not. If it is, then theoretically anything you encode now should be decodable in the future (which doesn't mean you should use a highly experimental coded) whereas if it isn't like snow things could change and what works now may not work in the future Nil Einne 17:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bitstream fixed or not 

message: "In addition, the BBC have checked (by extensive patent search) that Dirac does not infringe any third party patents, enabling the public to use Dirac for any imaginable purpose." This statement contradicts the Dirac FAQ. Hsivonen (talk) 15:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. I've adjusted the article accordingly Nil Einne (talk) 09:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Also I removed the bit about the BBC having patents as they now say they let them lapse. Nil Einne (talk) 09:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced statement about patent search

message: I removed the suggestion the reason they were going to perform well was because of wavelets  doesn't say anything about that. While they did say something like they want to be better then existing codecs, this should really be true for any codec and it doesn't mean they are saying they expect to be better because they are using wavelets Nil Einne (talk) 09:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparison

message: I've updated the entry to more accurately reflect the current state of Dirac, given that it's no longer quite as new or experimental as the article previously suggested. If I've screwed up, please go ahead and fix it -- I'm a Wikipedia newbie and don't really know what I'm doing!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.24.226.239 (talk) 02:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Update (2008-11-13)

message: I recall that there were a couple of guys from BBC Research working on an open FPGA implementation which was documented at opencores.org. It seemed like a serious effort with regular updates, and one of the guys had a blog discussing progress. I can't find the blog any longer, but I vaguely recall the last entry talking about no more blog entries, but saying that the development effort would continue (it all seemed slightly mysterious). Anyone know what's happening with this?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.164.175.201 (talk) 17:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: FPGA Hardware

message: I think I found a better and more up-to-date codec comparison than the one currently listed under the Performance section: http://keyj.s2000.ws/?p=356. What do you all think? Unfortunatly, Dirac performs very poorly in this one too.
:Why is that unfortunate? Is there more motive to include a comparison showing Dirac in a positive light? 67.161.175.54 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 08:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought that it was unfortunate because I have been kind of rooting for a good, free codec to replace the current patented ones. I wasn't trying to imply any bias. Danny (talk) 13:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If there were a shared sentiment that Dirac is better than was being portrayed, I could understand looking for more 'accurate' tests. You have to keep in mind, bias exists in the other direction as well -- in large quantity even. But I am not qualified to make that judgement. 67.161.175.54 (talk) 20:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better Comparison 

message: The first sentence in Technology starts with "Dirac supports resolutions up to HDTV (1920x1080) and greater". This is a semantically null statement. Robbie.coomber (talk) 14:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vagueness in Resolution 

message: Good bbc doing something to support open source because people pay for it with their TV licenses and they would otherwise have to pay for codec licenses and software like mpeg-4 and i see lots of bbc people using mac computers which are very expensive and software is very propriatary restricted. Maybe someone should put links to BBC and UK TV license articles to highlight why it should be so important that the bbc not use expensive propriatary software.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.131.165 (talk) 15:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  BBC and open source 

message: Try as I might, NOBODY seems to have compared video-codecs in terms of quality (error-rate from original, uncompressed video) and of CPU power. NOWHERE gives a core-mark or Dhrystones value for this and all of the other codecs  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.106.56.145 (talk) 16:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  CPU Usage & Picture Quality 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Dirac (video compression format). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090620051634/http://etill.net:80/projects/dirac_theora_evaluation/ to http://etill.net/projects/dirac_theora_evaluation/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090620051634/http://etill.net:80/projects/dirac_theora_evaluation/ to http://etill.net/projects/dirac_theora_evaluation/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081107213150/http://diracvideo.org:80/ to http://www.diracvideo.org/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:51, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Dirac (video compression format). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150503015104/http://diracvideo.org/download/specification/dirac-spec-latest.pdf to http://diracvideo.org/download/specification/dirac-spec-latest.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://etill.net/projects/dirac_theora_evaluation/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081107213150/http://diracvideo.org/ to http://www.diracvideo.org/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:31, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Dirac (video compression format). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090421041153/http://smpte-ra.org/mpegreg/drac.html to http://smpte-ra.org/mpegreg/drac.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)