Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 14th Mar 2012 19:37 UTC
Permalink for comment 510677
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Anonymous on 06/18/13 22:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:25 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:32 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 21:03 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 20:46 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 17:32 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-02-17
Otherwise, even Google is not claiming that VP8 is better than H264, just that they've improved by a certain percentage on a certain metric.
One can unfortunately debate this topic ad infinitum. About a year ago, after WebM quality had twice been significantly improved compared to its initial release, on OSNews there was a topic about encoder speed, and a poster who knew how to do so provided a couple of examples using WebM and h264 encoder profiles such that the quality of the output was all but identical. As close as could be achieved.
The x264 encoder was far faster. The WebM files were actually a bit smaller.
Google have significantly improved the encoder speed of WebM twice since then.
http://blog.webmproject.org/2011/08/vp8-codec-sdk-cayuga-released.h...
http://blog.webmproject.org/2012/01/vp8-codec-sdk-duclair-released....
I think that the x264 encoder speed is still faster than libvpx, but nevertheless the point remains that the WebM format actually needs slightly fewer bits for the same quality of output.
Edited 2012-03-15 08:36 UTC