Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 13th Jan 2011 20:31 UTC
Permalink for comment 457711
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 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 13:17 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 12:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/15/13 23:03 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-06-28
>which is more like 720p or lower video at maybe 2-4Mbit or so. If that is the metric WebM is pretty damn close to on par with h.264.
No, it's not close to h.264. It's visibly worse. Also, you're forgetting how much slower it is to decode webm video. Which is as important as good quality is. If quality won't kill Webm, decoding times for users will. h.264 is already slow to decode and people complain all the time on Vimeo and youtube for HD videos!!! Webm is many, many times slower!
>The argument could be made that for a content producer webm is mostly irrelevant. It is a last leg delivery format. While I'm sure the tools will come they certainly are not here yet.
Content producers are not irrelevant at all to the whole deal. They're in fact a big part of the road to success for webm. WMV is a good format for example when trying to play it back on Windows Media Player, but since it's so slow to decode inside non-MS editors, and it doesn't stream as well as h.264, it never took off.
Edited 2011-01-13 23:05 UTC