Linked by Eugenia Loli on Wed 12th Dec 2007 05:56 UTC
Benchmarks A lot was said lately about the Vorbis/Theora vs h.264/AAC situation on the draft of the HTML5. As some of you know, video is my main hobby these days (I care not about operating systems anymore), so I have gain some experience on the field lately, and at the same time this has made me more demanding about video quality. Read on for a head to head test: OGG Theora/Vorbis vs MP4 h.264/AAC. Yup, with videos. And pictures.
Permalink for comment 290158
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: I don't get it
by hobgoblin on Wed 12th Dec 2007 09:01 UTC in reply to "I don't get it"
hobgoblin
Member since:
2005-07-06

"must" was never used, "should" on the other had.

basically ogg for both audio and video was put forward as a kind of baseline. without it the media tags becomes a kind of joke, as one just moves the video controls out of the flash file and the plugins are still needed for the codecs.

but, as anyone could expect that ogg should at least be supported, everyone would be using it unless they had some kind of specific reason not to.

as for choosing? i would go for open vs quality any time...

hell, i suspect that most users would not care as long as they had a simple way to put that family movie online. or maybe that shaky party movie, taken using a low quality mobile phone or camera while drunk.

only issue then is that you really need to look around to find a chip that can encode ogg native. but you will find plenty of chips that will do mpeg/h264 in one form or other...

and i think thats whats getting the codec companies and hardware companies up in arms. they either loose market share (cant sell their IP to others), or have to find new chips to put into designs. designs that maybe have been on the drawing board for a year or more, waiting for the steam to run out of the existing ones.

ogg is a wild card in all this, and was suggested by the wild card in the browser field, opera.

thing is, they all know ogg would be acceptable for most users. just look at how much high def formats in audio and video stand vs divx and mp3 (to use known examples). i suspect that the non-technical consumer is tired of formats that give no no practical value vs the old ones. the cd is dead, long live the audio file, and there the mp3 have become ubiquitous (but i cant help wonder what would happen if you could get ogg support in those small flash devices from sandisk, or heaven forbid, the ipod. this not because of quality, but because you didnt have to run into alternative os's that could not support the format because of some vague patent issues).

the dvd is dying a similar death. and for most, hd-dvd or blu-ray isnt interesting as its still a physical format. and one that requires the user to replace both player and display for it to be of any use. hell, is there not a physical audio media based on dvd? does anyone own, or know of someone that do, any copies in that format?

all im saying is that for most users quality comes second to ease of use. and whatever format that would be the base line for streamed media on the net would be king of ease.

and introducing a wild card, by someone that have no vested interest in either hardware or codec. they only produce a browser, for many platforms.

hmm, when i think about it i can suspect one reason for opera suggesting ogg, licencing. as it stands, they have to licence flash, windows media and maybe quicktime to make sure that they are covered when supplying a third party (like say nintendo) with a browser for their product.

with ogg they could probably show the middle finger to all of those, and keep the difference.

so i guess everyone have some kind of interest in the choice of codec chosen, and i fear that quality is the last of those.

Reply Parent Score: 12