Linked by Brooss on Tue 15th Mar 2011 23:32 UTC
Benchmarks A comment on the recent article about the Bali release of Googles WebM tools (libvpx) claimed that one of the biggest problems facing the adoption of WebM video was the slow speed of the encoder as compared to x264. This article sets out to benchmark the encoder against x264 to see if this is indeed true and if so, how significant the speed difference really is.
Permalink for comment 466325
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Things we already knew about
by smitty on Wed 16th Mar 2011 03:37 UTC in reply to "Things we already knew about"
smitty
Member since:
2005-10-13

From his conclusion:

>comparisons in quality are always somewhat subjective

No, they're not. Just use a pixel difference utility and do it objectively. For my tests I use this: http://pdiff.sourceforge.net/

Except that certain pixels are often more important to scene quality than others. It is subjective, even if you can quantify parts of it.

Yup. Not good good enough. Not for video services,

Note that Youtube is already encoding everything in VP8, so apparently it is good enough for them.

Clearly, it has a long way to go before it catches up with x264. I don't think anyone has ever claimed otherwise. Luckily, they are continuing to release updates every 3 months and the gap will continue to close. The improvements from the original release are already significant. Also remember that all these tests tend to be against x264, which is the best in class h.264 encoder. It actually blows away a lot of the commercial encoders as well, and plenty of companies are making lots of money off them without being told their codecs are useless.

Edited 2011-03-16 03:40 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 5