Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 23rd May 2010 09:41 UTC
Permalink for comment 426230
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/25/13 0:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 23:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Howard Fosdick on 05/24/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 14:44 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-10-13
The Park Joy video is an extremely difficult one to encode, which is why it's often used in the these encoder tests. Note that in addition to the high level of motion and detail present, it's running at 50 fps. So for a standard video, you would cut the bitrate in half and have identical levels of quality.
VP8 clearly looks blurry in that video when you take a screenshot and compare them side by side. When you view the video in motion, though, it's tough to spot any difference unless you are really trying to spot it. And the other video with the bee shows that there's really no difference in the result for some easier videos.
VP8 is clearly good enough for web videos, it's going to be other factors that determine it's success. Patent issues and hardware support spring to the top of list.