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 556810
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[8]: Big picture...
by lemur2 on Wed 27th Mar 2013 09:35 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: Big picture..."
Member since:

All one has to do is go to a higher profile (at the cost of encoding time). You would argue that one can go to a higher profile also for h.264, and that is true, but one can go to a higher profile again for VP8, and so the two chase one another until we reach such a high profile that it is beyond what is used on the web.

False, the high-quality presets were used in both cases. That test represents the upper limit, that's why I used it. There is not an infinite ladder of profiles, there are just a handful.

Sigh! Most video on the web doesn't use high quality presets, but rather a low quality or mid quality preset. Because they aren't the same codec, the presets are not directly comparable. Sometimes to get comparable quality for VP8 you have to use a higher profile. Sometimes VP8 is better than h.264 at the "same" profile. The curves don't follow the same slope, they cross over.

As poster Radio pointed out, in the recent tests done by ITEF, the quality curves for VP8 and h.264 cross over each other at the extremes, and are all-but-identical in the middle::

If you want to get the same quality for webm as you get for h.264, then in some cases only you have to go to a higher preset (sometimes you don't), but it will cost you in encoding time.

Seriously, can you stop now? You haven't presented any hard evidence, so there's nothing to discuss until you do.

Seriously, can you stop now? Why are you trying to pretend h.264 is better than VP8 when there is effectively nothing in it (apart from VP8 longer encoding time)?

Who is paying you?

Edited 2013-03-27 09:42 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1