Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 25th Mar 2013 21:09 UTC
Legal Late last week, Nokia dropped what many consider to be a bomb on the WebM project: a list of patents that VP8 supposedly infringes in the form of an IETF IPR declaration. The list has made the rounds around the web, often reported as proof that VP8 infringes upon Nokia's patents. All this stuff rang a bell. Haven't we been here before? Yup, we have, with another open source codec called Opus. Qualcomm and Huawei made the same claims as Nokia did, but they turned out to be complete bogus. As it turns out, this is standard practice in the dirty business of the patent licensing industry.
Permalink for comment 556725
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Big picture...
by galvanash on Tue 26th Mar 2013 16:47 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Big picture..."
galvanash
Member since:
2006-01-25

Firstly it is pretty important seeing that Google Talk is probably using it that it uses twice as much bandwidth.


Goog Talk uses h.264...

https://developers.google.com/talk/call_signaling

So I don't think your point here has any merit at all.

In any case Okay, how about this one?

http://www.osnews.com/thread?556675


Did you read what I said...? That comparison is purely about subjective quality:

The situation could be different if H.264 didn't have such a top-notch encoder as x264 or if we were only comparing to H.264 Baseline, but this comparison is about maximum[1] quality obtainable with each format (using the best encoders available).


and the target encode is:

"Best quality" 2-pass 13600 kbps encode at 1080p50.


No one streams 1080p50 on the internet at 13600 (!!!) khps - that is better than most commercial bluerays are mastered at. All I said is within the parameters I specified it is close enough to h.264 in quality that most people wouldn't notice. I never said (and do not think) it is technically better, and it is definitely slower. But for the common use case it is targeted at it is pretty damn good.

Clue: The reason you won't find many good comparisons between webm and h.264 at commonly used resoltuions and bitrates is because the result is very boring and neither side of the argument can use them as ammo...

Edited 2013-03-26 16:50 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3