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 466345
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Things we already knew about
by konfoo on Wed 16th Mar 2011 06:37 UTC in reply to "RE: Things we already knew about"
konfoo
Member since:
2006-01-02

People don't encode videos on mobile devices, and decoding WebM has less overhead than decoding H.264. Try again.


But yes, they do. 99% of SoC chipsets on mobile devices these days are capable of encode and decode. Any mobile device recording video is doing encoding. The abundance of 1st and 3rd party on-device (iMovie for iPhone, etc.) software speaks for itself as to consumer adoption.

As for WebM, repeat after me: WebM SoC/DSP acceleration is not yet widely available. Right now it is completely irrelevant to even attempt to assert that CPU usage is less than H264 when H264 devices are using SoCs/DSPs with no battery drain.

Last, we can fight about this all day but the only real thing that counts is that consumers don't care as long as their content can be recorded and viewed without problems. WebM has a long way to go.

Reply Parent Score: 0