JahShaka

[Brendan Conoboy]

Mike Cronenworth wrote:
> Most people who would want to use a video editor for "realistic work" 
> wouldn't find much value in an Ogg-only output format. They'd expect to 
> be able to output in MPEG-2, MPEG-4, or h.264 to display on their 
> televisions and/or share with customers or friends through the Internet. 
>  Sure, you could output into a non-patent encumbered format and then 
> re-encode the video, but that's a two step process. Not very user 
> friendly; plus if it is a lossy codec it's a degrading process.

If you can output any format that youtube/flickr/etc can consume you 
have something that is useful to a lot of people.  If they're not 
currently accepting ogg, this would be a worthwhile effort to campaign for.

-- 
Brendan Conoboy / Red Hat, Inc. / blc at redhat.com