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 467633
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Good set of benchmarks
by rr7.num7 on Thu 24th Mar 2011 03:54 UTC in reply to "RE: Good set of benchmarks"
rr7.num7
Member since:
2010-04-30

[q]

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.


You are absolutely right. But you know how it is, some "pro" content providers complain because they're too lazy because of that little extra time or extra step in converting the output from their video editing software.

I say: who the fuck cares? As a software developer I wish I could choose the language/frameworks/tools for every project I work in (that would make my job way easier) but often I can't. So what? That's why it's called a job.

As a content consumer I really hope WebM becomes the dominant format of the web. If this means professional filmmakers' work will be 2, 3, 4 times harder, then so be it. To all of them: grow up, do your jobs and get over it.

Reply Parent Score: 4