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 466385
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Things we already knew about
by lemur2 on Wed 16th Mar 2011 11:15 UTC in reply to "RE: Things we already knew about"
Member since:

"WebM won't make it, in my personal, and professional opinion as a videographer. I wish it did, because I hate MPEG-LA and all they stand for, but there is no h.264 killer out there. Except h.265 that is, that comes out in 2013.

I don't really understand you. You're saying that because the currently existing WebM encoders are slow that they'll never be able to be fast?

Gee, remember when H.264 came out and it was still new? All the tools were abysmal and it took years to encode something. Well, lookie here, we have the exact same situation: a young, new codec and abysmal tools. So why is WebM treated differently?

I'm just saying that YES, the encoders are still slow, but for f*ck's sake look at their age! Drawing the conclusion that because it's slow NOW it can't ever be fast is just plain short-sighted ignorance, nothing else.

Especially considering the very first software upgrade which was aimed at improving the decoder speed achieved a factor of 4.5x improvement.

Also consider that the next release, which aims for another similar improvement factor again, is due in about three months time.

Edited 2011-03-16 11:19 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4