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 290207
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Video Quality
by Beta on Wed 12th Dec 2007 12:12 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Video Quality"
Member since:

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. Youíve 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 isnít royalty-free, so however much you wave the h.264 flag, they canít 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; whoís to say another vendor wont ignore the spec, promote their format, and weíre 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 isnít 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:

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

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:

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
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