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 466476
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Nice
by lemur2 on Thu 17th Mar 2011 01:27 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Nice"
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

Quality is a mixed bag. Webm looks much better during low motion scenes (detail is higher), but suffers during high motion (smearing). Overall quality is about the same imo.


When people see high motion in real life, they actually perceive it as a blur. It is perhaps a mistake to demerit WebM for having this characteristic.

When h264 videos have to make compromises on quality per bit, which happens in high motion scenes, the compressed video exhibits artefacts ... little extraneous bits that aren't there in the original scene. The human eye doesn't do anything similar when people are looking at scenes real life.

Just saying.

Edited 2011-03-17 01:28 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2