Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 14th Mar 2012 19:37 UTC
Permalink for comment 510691
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:
2006-01-24
I'd like to see some evidence of that. Me and several other people tried it during the latter half of last year and atleast back then you needed much higher bitrate on VP8 to get the same quality and especially at lower bitrates VP8 lost quite clearly.
Well, not exactly 'evidence' but I've downloaded 720p youtube videos in both webm (vp8), x264 (mp4) and I can't see any difference in visual quality despite the webm versions generally being smaller in filesize.
Also since I don't have flash installed I'm impressed at the webm compability rate on youtube these days, must have been months since I came across a youtube video which didn't play as webm.