Linked by Eugenia Loli on Wed 12th Dec 2007 05:56 UTC
Benchmarks A lot was said lately about the Vorbis/Theora vs h.264/AAC situation on the draft of the HTML5. As some of you know, video is my main hobby these days (I care not about operating systems anymore), so I have gain some experience on the field lately, and at the same time this has made me more demanding about video quality. Read on for a head to head test: OGG Theora/Vorbis vs MP4 h.264/AAC. Yup, with videos. And pictures.
Thread beginning with comment 290180
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Video Quality
by Eugenia on Wed 12th Dec 2007 10:45 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Video Quality"
Eugenia
Member since:
2005-06-28

Sorry, but you are talking about of your a$$ (sorry for the language, but you ACCUSED me here).

So, the reason I wrote this article is because I had it on the back of my mind for 2 days now. I wrote a blog post about all this LONG BEFORE I got into that discussion on J5's site. My proof: http://eugenia.gnomefiles.org/2007/12/09/the-next-web-media-format/

>Fine, just dont spoil the party for everyone who doesn’t.

Most people want GOOD quality. So you are in the minority my friend.

Edited 2007-12-12 10:46

Reply Parent Score: -1

RE[4]: Video Quality
by hobgoblin on Wed 12th Dec 2007 10:53 in reply to "RE[3]: Video Quality"
hobgoblin Member since:
2005-07-06

say "good enough" and we agree.

there is no such thing as good in this debate, only good enough for the use its intended for.

and this is not about streaming the latest from hollywood onto that HD tv in the living room, its about putting a already "crappy" recording onto a public page for ease of distribution.

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[5]: Video Quality
by Eugenia on Wed 12th Dec 2007 11:10 in reply to "RE[4]: Video Quality"
Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

I agree with you that GOOD ENOUGH is good enough for most cases. But when there is so much difference in quality, like in this test, the consumer will ask "why not the other fruit"? If the quality was less apparent, then sure, it's good enough.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Video Quality
by Beta on Wed 12th Dec 2007 12:12 in reply to "RE[3]: Video Quality"
Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

I accused you of posting a blog-style rant on a news site, I feel I am correct. If you want to push your own agenda, keep it to your own site. You might want to keep the ass calling there too.
However, I shall correct the speaking-from-ones-arse comment:

Your other blog entry again repeats the same thing. You’ve said W3C has done the wrong thing which is incorrect, the spec is at the WHATWG atm. However, it cannot progress to the W3 with any technology that isn’t royalty-free, so however much you wave the h.264 flag, they can’t accept it.
If, in the discussions, they can convince whomever that the 264 baseline spec would be RFed, then we all win. Except we still might not; who’s to say another vendor wont ignore the spec, promote their format, and we’re back to the codec/browser/os wars. Lovely.

Picking a reasonable baseline codec for the video&audio tags is the best possible idea, even if we compromise marginally on quality.

"Most people want GOOD quality. So you are in the minority my friend."

YouTube isn’t good quality, it is however used by a lot of people. I am not in this category though; I am just arguing with your bullshit.

Reply Parent Score: 8

RE[5]: Video Quality
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 12th Dec 2007 12:23 in reply to "RE[4]: Video Quality"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I accused you of posting a blog-style rant on a news site, I feel I am correct. If you want to push your own agenda, keep it to your own site.


This IS our own site. WE decide what gets posted here. If you want control, start your own website or go to Digg.com.

It's quite silly to tell us what to do with OUR website. I won't tell you what to do with yours either.

Edited 2007-12-12 12:24 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: Video Quality
by Terracotta on Wed 12th Dec 2007 12:34 in reply to "RE[4]: Video Quality"
Terracotta Member since:
2005-08-15

Depends on the purpose, what is youtube used for mostly? music videos, perhaps to watch an anime series, and to show off some work. To get the high res stuf people go elsewhere, think thepiratebay.org.
Besides, youtube does use the better codec, why? better compression = faster download of the complete file. Which is also one of the reasons people use youtube. To have the same bad quality on youtube in ogg/theora it would take longer to load.

Ah well, hopefulle dirac gets finished before the official html5 draft finishes (expected in like euh... 2015 or so ) then there's no need to argue since that one is specifically created for streaming and from the looks of it it's supposed to surpass h264 in quality as well.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Video Quality
by sbergman27 on Wed 12th Dec 2007 15:58 in reply to "RE[3]: Video Quality"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""
Most people want GOOD quality. So you are in the minority my friend.
"""

FWIW. I desire adequate quality. Something I can watch comfortably. Beyond that, it's pretty much just refinement which I would likely not notice unless I were obsessing on the quality issue. The difference is simply not that valuable to me. I strongly prefer an open standard, and the benefits that is likely to bring both now and in the future.

Of course, higher quality is an easier sell to the general internet-browsing public. It would have been nice if Ogg could have claimed a victory. Oh, well...

Edit: I should add that I am simply accepting Eugenia's conclusions as to quality, for the sake of argument, because:

1. I have not paid enough attention to notice a difference in quality between the two.

2. It's unproductive to argue about something so subjective as that.

Edited 2007-12-12 16:03

Reply Parent Score: 3