Linked by Brooss on Wed 23rd Mar 2011 23:14 UTC
Benchmarks A new set of x264 and vpxenc encoder benchmarks have been published. The new benchmarks address many of the concerns raised in the comments about the methodology used in the previous article, such as using SSIM for quality measurement. Theora is also included in these tests.
Permalink for comment 467616
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Good set of benchmarks
by lemur2 on Thu 24th Mar 2011 02:10 UTC in reply to "Good set of benchmarks"
Member since:

I found this quite enlightening. It still doesn't answer every question I might have, but then again, you can't expect a benchmark to ever answer every possible question. As for the results: vpxenc is still under heavy development but it's very promising to see that as of now it matches x264 baseline in SSIM-quality. Considering how young the encoder still is this promises lots of optimization potential is still left, both quality- and speedwise!

Exactly what these benchmarks mean is subject to interpretation. In reality, what they mean is that in order to encode WebM to the same quality as x624, it will take longer. Alternatively, they mean that if you are only prepared to devote the same period of time to encoding, then the video produced by x264 within your time budget will be a little better quality per bit than WebM.

In real life, since encoding is done only very rarely by the vast majority of people, the latter comparison doesn't come in to play, and the former comparison is the only thing that has any practical importance.

For all practical intents and purposes, all this means is that it will take you a little longer (and cost you infinitely less) to encode your video clips in WebM to the same quality as you would have had if you were using x264 legally.

If you install a copy of the new Firefox 4 browser you can see for yourself that the WebM video clips themselves do not lack for quality:

Reply Parent Score: 7