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 557025
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[18]: Big picture...
by lemur2 on Fri 29th Mar 2013 05:50 UTC in reply to "RE[17]: Big picture..."
Member since:

I'm not sure where you're getting your 1/3 number, can you provide data for that?

However, you can make up the quality difference in that one third of cases where h.264 is better by opting for a higher profile when encoding VP8.

Ok, you pick the highest profile from each of VP8 and x264 and you find x264 gives you better quality: how do you now make up for the quality difference?

Several times I said that this applied "to the quality of video as used over the web". This is more or less "default profile", as very little web video is encoded at high profiles. When you are looking at a video of a newscaster on some web news page, or looking at standard resolutions on youtube, you are simply not looking at the highest profile.

When you are constrained to use only one profile for each codec (even though profiles are not equivalent), then one can always find some cases where VP8 cannot match h.264. Then again, for another profile and another use case, the reverse can also apply ... one cannot get h.264 to match VP8 in some profiles.


Reply Parent Score: 2