Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 23rd May 2010 09:41 UTC
Benchmarks Now that Google has opened up VP8, the big question is obviously how it'll hold up to H264. Of course, VP8 already wins by default because it's open source and royalty free, but that doesn't mean we should neglect the quality issue. Jan Ozer from has put up an article comparing the two codecs, and concludes that the differences are negligible - in fact, only in some high-motion videos did H264 win out. As always, this is just one comparison and most certainly anything but conclusive. Update: Another comparison. I can't spot the difference, but then again, I'm no expert.
Permalink for comment 426759
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
They are different codecs
by ptmb on Wed 26th May 2010 23:39 UTC
Member since:

I just gave a quick look to the "Park Joy" videos (the videos themselves and not the still images) on the quavlive link. My conclusions:

- h.264 has a lot more artifacts than VP8;
- on still screenshots, h.264 wins in all cases;
- on (almost) all resolutions (in motion), both codecs seemed the same;
- the exception was SD video, which seemed strange in h.264 and more "natural" in VP8.

At least it is my opinion, but who cares? Here is my opinion about the much more interesting topic of the codecs themselves:

- The visual output of each one is incredibly different on low framerates;
- Yet, both are able to reproduce the intended image!
- So, they are not comparable;
- This happens because for us to compare them, we would need an objective way of deciding which are good and bad losses.
- We don't have that.
- So, opinions on how close to reality it gets will vary from person to person.

At least it is my opinion... on something much more interesting than a boring comparison of different moving images.

Reply Score: 1