Are you sure that a license is needed for H.264 playback? That could seriously impact the viability of YouTube or Vimeo, if all users had to pay a license fee.
My hope is that the license is just paid by the encoder tool maker. If you’re using Adobe Media Encoder you don’t have to pay a license, Adobe already did. In the hope that playback doesn’t involve paying a fee, you could use non-H.264 encoders that make videos that are played back by anything that can handle H.264. That might allow you to use your own tool without a license fee, and still make videos that can play back everywhere. Here is an article that talks about how to solve a gamma/contrast issue that happens with most H.264 encoders: https://myth.li/2010/07/how-to-fix-the-h264-gamma-brightness-bug-in-quicktime/ The solution they have is to use an x264 encoder, and the article has links to a QuickTime component, so that you could export to x264 from anything that uses QuickTime. The results are better looking than regular H.264. > On Jul 19, 2017, at 12:37 PM, Richard Gaskin via use-livecode > <use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote: > > Seems most folks use h.264 for encoding video, but being patent-encumbered it > requires negotiating a license with MPEGLA for commercial use. > _______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
