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 290186
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Video Quality
by Eugenia on Wed 12th Dec 2007 11:06 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Video Quality"
Member since:

Why is osnews an extension of my blog? I made a test which shows clearly what is what, and given the amount of comments here, people are interested in it. That's what we do here, we post interesting stuff. If they are LESS interesting, then they only get posted on our blogs. So, stop trying to make this about me, it ain't. OSNews does not get its stories from sponsors, we just write whatever we find interesting and we think others will too. There is nothing more or less into it. Get over the "become CNN" syndrome.

Edited 2007-12-12 11:07

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[8]: Video Quality
by hobgoblin on Wed 12th Dec 2007 11:18 in reply to "RE[7]: Video Quality"
hobgoblin Member since:

ok, so let me put it this way. if quality is as important as you say, why isnt people moving en mass away from youtube?

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[9]: Video Quality
by Johann Chua on Wed 12th Dec 2007 11:37 in reply to "RE[8]: Video Quality"
Johann Chua Member since:

Because better quality would take longer to load.'s Flash videos are very good quality, but they take way too long to load on a 768kbps DSL connection.

People like YouTube since it loads relatively fast and there's just so many videos uploaded.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[9]: Video Quality
by popper on Mon 17th Dec 2007 09:25 in reply to "RE[8]: Video Quality"
popper Member since:

"ok, so let me put it this way. if quality is as important as you say, why isnt people moving en mass away from youtube? "

because youtube says you need to use this codec, its clear its not good for the future requirements, as can be seen by apple contracting them to re-encode all that youtube content to the AVC codec for their new venture.

if youtube allowed bog standard AVC CIF/pip/sd main profile encoding then people would use that instead,
as AVC gives a far better quality for a far smaller filesize, and thats got to be a good thing to save bandwidth for everyone, with the added bonus its better than your old good enough, and sets a new better 'good enough for TODAY and the future.

youtube dont allow AVC/H.264 on their site (yet?) perhaps in time they will.

dont equate AVC/H.264 to only HD 720 and 1080I/P content, its not.

infact its very good for your average 500mbit/s SD content, and even lower, make your encoed/trancode an even smaller screen size and you can lower your bitrates and still end up with a FAR better filesize to quality ratio than any of the other codecs today and that includes DivX.

the one time your old-hat DivX is good for you is for play back video on the old 500mhz laptops you might have around doing nothing useful today, AVC and the coreAVC codec is all you need for anything faster if your justencoding to CIF/PIP type screensizes and most SD content.

dont just sit there, go get a copy of the x264 if your on windows take any mpeg2 DVB-t/-s TV capture you might have laying around and encode it to SD or below size and at a bitrate of 500kbit/s to se for yourself.

Edited 2007-12-17 09:30

Reply Parent Score: 1