pouët.net

psonice: Windows 7 includes a H.264 decoder, but it's only available through the relatively new Media Foundation API, which is not very well supported by third-party software yet.

Time to move to win7 then if you want h264 :) Is media foundation reasonably demo friendly?

Well, why? H.264 decoding works just fine on older Windows OSes -- just install MPC-HC or (if you don't have hardware acceleration) DivX 7 and you're set.
What do you mean by "demo friendly"? Media Foundation is a multimedia framework, just like DirectShow (and, to some extent, Video for Windows) have been before it. I don't see a connection to demos there -- except, yes, it can play kkaptured demos, of course :)

Perhaps, but luckily you're allowed to make your own films and store them in that format, which is a completely different thing.

Totally :(

keyj: skrebbel was talking about licensing problems if you use a h264 replayer inside a demo (I've done this before myself, mixing h264 video into a demo). To be 'demo friendly' you need reasonable control over the playback through the API, and you need an efficient way to get decoded frames onto the GPU. Not much to ask, but I've seen similar stuff in the past where the api assumes you want to just play a video, and you get zero control over time and a stupid controls window on screen :/

not a bad read:
http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/04/know-your-rights-h-264-patent-licensing-and-you/?s=t5

###Procedually generated vectors sent to a video decoder as P and B frames###
Could be cool.

there's no license shit when shooting on film.

Kodak and Technicolor would like to have a word or two with you.

Gloom: I actually meant it when I wrote DISCUSS. This is the internets and there's so many sources of info, the more we are, the more point of view we can bring, the better we can gauge the situation.

Gargaj: thx for the link, now something actually useful :)

Also the so reassuring Engadget articleis targeting the Youtubers who film his cat and puts it on the web. I don't really see why it wouldn't stay free for them to create and upload content to Google, even past the 2015 deadline.

However I'm thinking about those who host their things themselves. Capped.tv Demoscene.tv, and the others. It would really sucks to get to a point where you'll be forced to pass by Youtube and the likes to distribute your movie. Sure it helps for bandwidth but it's still not cool. (and very monopolistic)

Quintix, bring them on, my 35mm film stock is Fuji.

All movies have the film maker on the credits. Is it mandatory?

It's not mandatory, but they usually get a discount or something from the film manufacturer in return for the free advertising...

hey guys are we talking about that old radio show rad man did

Just get a nice MiniDV-camera. No MPEG shit, just DV :-)

Soooo... Google has open-sourced VP8 now.

what gloom said.

Also: I drew a picture with my friend's pen yesterday. Now have I violated the law because the pen was not mine? O_o

I think we'll be stuck with h264 for a while still. It's widely supported already, tons of content is already in the format, there's lots of hardware decoders available.. it doesn't make any sense to switch to vp8 now. Imagine what playback would be like on a mobile phone - either slow as hell, or battery killing.

It sounds like there's plenty of interest from the big players though, and amd/nvidia/arm are planning hardware support it seems. In a few years that might mean it's ready for mainstream, and by then we'll know if a bunch of patent trolls have attached themselves to it :)