Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 17th Jan 2011 21:29 UTC
Multimedia, AV "Even if you don't believe all the hype about HTML5, sooner or later, you'll need to start encoding some video to WebM format. Maybe for internal experimentation, for a pay-per-view or subscription project (where H.264 may incur royalties), because you've decided to jump into HTML5 video with both feet, or because Google announced yesterday that it's going to stop supporting H.264 in Chrome. Whatever the reason, you'll be sitting at your desk or poolside one day, and you'll be thinking 'I've got to encode some video to WebM format'. If and when that day comes, set a bookmark in your memory banks for this article, because it's all about encoding to WebM. I'll start by looking at how WebM compares to H.264 in terms of quality, just to set expectations, and then briefly review the quality and performance of several free and for-fee encoding tools."
Permalink for comment 458843
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Encode quality and speed
by manjabes on Tue 18th Jan 2011 10:47 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Encode quality and speed"
Member since:

I disagree. Software such as Premiere or Final Cut Pro is rip-off, pure and simple. It is pay-through-the-nose "branding", like Gucci or Ferrari, as opposed to super-value-for-money, like encoding to WebM using a command line program in conjunction with a simple GUI frontend or a couple of convenience scripts.

Why is it then that virtually nobodys workflow consists of Kdenlive+multiple command-line encoders, whereas them Premiere, FCP et al. have so many users that they run a business catering to them?

Reply Parent Score: 1