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 466402
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: WebM vs H.264 benchmark
by lemur2 on Wed 16th Mar 2011 12:53 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: WebM vs H.264 benchmark"
Member since:

"The most recent release of the libvpx reference code for WebM is 12.8% better quality than the version shown in the graphs plotted in June 2010 at

Hope this helps.

No, it doesn't. Percentages do not say anything about how it actually looks like to the eye and thus referring to them as some sort of a holy bible doesn't really tell me much.

This observation is perfectly correct. In "blind testing", a group of people are shown different versions of a video, without being told anything else about them, and they are asked which version they prefer.

Blind testing of WebM launch release showed that people were simply unable to pick the difference between h264 and WebM. Some preferred one, other preferred the other, and still others said they couldn't pick between them.

"The eye" effectively can't pick these small differences in measured video quality.

PS: It was you who asked for video quality benchmark results, not I.

Edited 2011-03-16 12:59 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2