- Are you or have you been an MPEG member?
While I haven’t participated in the MPEG process for some years, I am happy and proud to have been deeply involved in the standardization process for MPEG-4, eventually becoming one of the MPEG-4 systems specification editors. - What do you think makes MPEG special?
MPEG is a rare coordination of industry, academia and interested individuals who work jointly – often with slightly different interests – but coordinated to produce broad agreement that yield standards, without which, adoption of video (and many related areas) would not have been as successful. - What do you think is the most important MPEG impact?
MPEG-2, MPEG-4, HEVC, DASH… all have been widely deployed. - Do you think MPEG is a good conduit for research?
I think MPEG can be a conduit for research, but industry profit motive makes that complicated. Arguably, research should focus on results, not profit. I think that MPEG is definitely a driver for research, however, as participants push to drive innovation into emerging specifications. - Can you comment on your MPEG experience?
My MPEG experience was a pleasant learning experience. While I’m happy to have inserted some of my ideas into some of the specifications, in hindsight, I would have done things somewhat differently. For myself, the drive to be efficient, clever, and innovative sometimes outweighed the value of simplicity and clarity. - Are you satisfied with MPEG standards?
There’s no doubt that many MPEG standards are wildly successful, and this – of course – is satisfying. My opinion is that there are areas where the process could improve.
For example, while IP is contributed under RAND conditions, there is a drive for companies to include any and all IP into the specification in order to participate in whatever IPR patent pools will be created. I’m not sure if there is (or if it is even possible to have) a force to counter that drive.
Another example is sprawl – the specs are large. That’s partially a result of the broad problems the specifications address, but also a consequence of the drive for inclusion and consensus. Everyone tends to allow everyone’s ideas to flow in.
Both of these problem are difficult to address, and maybe they are intractable. - Do you think MPEG standards are the right choice?
The MPEG process has been successful, but whether it’s “right” depends on many forces. To follow the examples above, it can be argued that the licensing of MPEG technology has created similar and parallel problems that fragment the market. It’s not as bad as having separate technologies – the problem MPEG tries to solve – but almost. And per the second example above, many MPEG specifications require subsequent industry fora that profile the specification and create best practices documents. - What do you expect from MPEG in the future?
Perhaps there is a way to solve both problem – technology and adoption – as part of the MPEG process?
Skip to content