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 466328
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Things we already knew about
by TechGeek on Wed 16th Mar 2011 03:55 UTC in reply to "Things we already knew about"
TechGeek
Member since:
2006-01-14

How much difference is there between a PSNR of 39 and 45? Numerically that's only a 12% difference, at most.

There is also the issue that there is only a 4% difference between the best x264 settings and the baseline. Saying that WebM can only keep up with the x264 baseline really isn't saying anything bad.

The only thing this data proves is that WebM NEEDS a multi threaded encoding machine. Now do you really think anyone doing anything serious with video is going to try to encode it on a single core computer? If we're really gonna talk about Google and other video sites, understand that they will have a cluster on the back end. The cost of the license to use H.264 probably far outweighs the cost of the extra hardware it *might* take to produce video of the same quality in the same time frame. Hardware is cheap these days.

There is also NO data here on decoding, so you really cant speculate from this article about how they will perform on a mobile platform.

I am sick and tired of hearing people declaring that professionals are never going to support WebM. Google owns the largest video site and they choose WebM. They obviously can make it work.

Reply Parent Score: 5