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 290309
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 20:50 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Video Quality"
Eugenia
Member since:
2005-06-28

We are talking about video codecs here. Quality is just about the only thing that matters.

So here I am, I am writing an article to show that theora is not as good, and all I get is the free software apologists saying that "quality does not matter".

This is ridiculous. I am not going to reply here again. Thank you for reminding me why I don't do much osnews anymore.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[8]: Video Quality
by Kokopelli on Wed 12th Dec 2007 21:42 in reply to "RE[7]: Video Quality"
Kokopelli Member since:
2005-07-06

We are talking about video codecs here. Quality is just about the only thing that matters.

So here I am, I am writing an article to show that theora is not as good, and all I get is the free software apologists saying that "quality does not matter".


I would say quality is not the only thing that matters. It is the balance of Quality at any given file size and cost. Note I am not necessarily saying that a codec needs to be completely unencumbered, but if it costs the browser distributor money to be in compliance with the HTML5 spec then this cost should be taken into account. I honestly like h264, and use it for all my video encoding. However, based on what others have said here it does not seem like a practical choice for inclusion in HTML5 due to licensing costs.

This is ridiculous. I am not going to reply here again. Thank you for reminding me why I don't do much osnews anymore.


The commentary can get very polarized, I mostly lurk now. But OSNews still has an interesting mix of articles (including yours when you submit them) and a few posters worth reading.

Edited 2007-12-12 21:44

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Video Quality
by sbergman27 on Wed 12th Dec 2007 22:28 in reply to "RE[7]: Video Quality"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""

We are talking about video codecs here. Quality is just about the only thing that matters.

"""

That is a very absolutist statement on a very subjective topic. With respect to a web standard, I don't really see how issues outside of that one very narrow one can be ignored.

"""
So here I am, I am writing an article to show that theora is not as good, and all I get is the free software apologists saying that "quality does not matter".


This is ridiculous. I am not going to reply here again. Thank you for reminding me why I don't do much osnews anymore.

"""

Will all due respect, that is not accurate. There have been some good things said here which cannot be dismissed as apologist rhetoric. I do not have a strong opinion on the relative qualities of the two codecs. I do have a somewhat stronger opinion on the relative long-term benefits to "the people" of more open and unencumbered standards. Accepting your opinion of their relative qualities, which I neither challenge nor endorse here, I would say that it is unfortunate that theora cannot claim technical superiority in this area. But that's not the whole ball game. That's my position, and I think it is a reasonable one.

Edited 2007-12-12 22:30

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[8]: Video Quality
by griffinme on Wed 12th Dec 2007 23:33 in reply to "RE[7]: Video Quality"
griffinme Member since:
2005-11-09

"We are talking about video codecs here. Quality is just about the only thing that matters."

Quality is vital but not the only thing that matters. This reminds me of the Firewire vs USB wars.

"This is ridiculous. I am not going to reply here again. Thank you for reminding me why I don't do much osnews anymore."

Please don't be upset. I found your article very informative. Articles like this are one of the reasons I come here.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[8]: Video Quality
by segedunum on Wed 12th Dec 2007 23:49 in reply to "RE[7]: Video Quality"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

We are talking about video codecs here. Quality is just about the only thing that matters.

I'm not saying that quality doesn't matter. It obviously does to audiophiles, videophiles and people who want to do a lot of professional stuff with multimedia, but clearly quality is a trade-off. It's a trade-off between quality, convenience and stuff like bandwidth in day-to-day use. In terms of HTML it's also a case of having something good enough (not fantastic) that everyone can implement. How far would we get if HTML was proprietary and had some severe patent issues?

So here I am, I am writing an article to show that theora is not as good, and all I get is the free software apologists saying that "quality does not matter".

There are plenty of formats that are not as good as others, but they get more widely used for a wider variety of reasons other than video and audio quality. Not everyone has to have optimum quality, and I dare say Ogg Theora will still improve and get better and be something everyone can use everywhere for video - if Nokia, Apple and Microsoft leave the bloody thing alone and actually get involved positively. Sadly, all we have to look forward to is the status quo and continued stalemate we have today, because that isn't going to happen. Do we really want YouTube, via Flash, to be the only means of getting video content piped reliably over the web? It's certainly not going to be MP4, despite many years of posturing.

You know what? What we really need is less committees, less companies squabbling over their own petty self-interests and a bunch of meritocratic people, particularly on the desktop, saying "This is what we're going to do".

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Video Quality
by abraxas on Thu 13th Dec 2007 14:04 in reply to "RE[7]: Video Quality"
abraxas Member since:
2005-07-07

We are talking about video codecs here. Quality is just about the only thing that matters.

You're wrong. We're talking about the HTML5 spec and what the best choice would be for the spec. This includes many factors, not just quality.

So here I am, I am writing an article to show that theora is not as good, and all I get is the free software apologists saying that "quality does not matter".

It would help if you didn't insult people and their choices and actually tried to understand why people want a free and unencumbered codec for standarization. You don't even attempt to address the issues.

This is ridiculous. I am not going to reply here again. Thank you for reminding me why I don't do much osnews anymore.

Well I say if you can't take the heat...

Reply Parent Score: 5