Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 23rd May 2010 09:41 UTC
Benchmarks Now that Google has opened up VP8, the big question is obviously how it'll hold up to H264. Of course, VP8 already wins by default because it's open source and royalty free, but that doesn't mean we should neglect the quality issue. Jan Ozer from StreamingMedia.com has put up an article comparing the two codecs, and concludes that the differences are negligible - in fact, only in some high-motion videos did H264 win out. As always, this is just one comparison and most certainly anything but conclusive. Update: Another comparison. I can't spot the difference, but then again, I'm no expert.
Thread beginning with comment 426261
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Thom *might* be blind
by vaette on Mon 24th May 2010 08:58 UTC
vaette
Member since:
2008-08-09

OK, really, if you can put these two up in two tabs, then tab back and forth between them at their full resolution, and can't see any difference between them you may want to get your eyes checked out.

http://193.204.59.68/comparison/park_joy_1080p.y4m_x264.mkv_png/002...
http://193.204.59.68/comparison/park_joy_1080p.y4m_vp8.mkv_png/0028...

I mean, really, the VP8 one looks like a complete mess compared to the x264 one in that example.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Thom *might* be blind
by Neolander on Mon 24th May 2010 09:49 in reply to "Thom *might* be blind"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

OK, really, if you can put these two up in two tabs, then tab back and forth between them at their full resolution, and can't see any difference between them you may want to get your eyes checked out.

http://193.204.59.68/comparison/park_joy_1080p.y4m_x264.mkv_png/002...
http://193.204.59.68/comparison/park_joy_1080p.y4m_vp8.mkv_png/0028...

I mean, really, the VP8 one looks like a complete mess compared to the x264 one in that example.

Source ? Encoder settings ?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Thom *might* be blind
by vpalmisano on Mon 24th May 2010 09:57 in reply to "RE: Thom *might* be blind"
vpalmisano Member since:
2010-05-23

I updated the x264 encoded sequence with the latest encoder version (93). The command line is:
x264 --bitrate 15000 --threads 4 -o ouput.mk input.y4m

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Thom *might* be blind
by vaette on Mon 24th May 2010 10:13 in reply to "RE: Thom *might* be blind"
vaette Member since:
2008-08-09

It is from the "Another comparison" part of the story as posted by Thom, linked up above, the one that Thom says he can't spot any difference in. All the info is listed there.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Thom *might* be blind
by lemur2 on Mon 24th May 2010 10:19 in reply to "Thom *might* be blind"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

OK, really, if you can put these two up in two tabs, then tab back and forth between them at their full resolution, and can't see any difference between them you may want to get your eyes checked out.

http://193.204.59.68/comparison/park_joy_1080p.y4m_x264.mkv_png/002...
http://193.204.59.68/comparison/park_joy_1080p.y4m_vp8.mkv_png/0028...

I mean, really, the VP8 one looks like a complete mess compared to the x264 one in that example.


The H.264 one has artefacts, and the VP8 one is slightly blurred (normal for motion frames). Almost identical, quality-wise.

The VP8 one is unencumbered by patents for everyone to use.

Everyone uses H.264 = 0.00001% of people make money, and everyone else pays.

Everyone uses VP8 = 99.999999% of people reduce their costs, and no-one pays.

Win-win for VP8.

Edited 2010-05-24 10:20 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Thom *might* be blind
by vaette on Mon 24th May 2010 10:24 in reply to "RE: Thom *might* be blind"
vaette Member since:
2008-08-09

Just so you know, that green stuff is actually supposed to be grass and not some homogeneous pile of slime. The VP8 looks absolutely atrocious and I am rather surprised that anyone would try to defend it in that comparison.

Patents and pricing aside of course, I am just discussing the technology here, since that is what the story is about.

Reply Parent Score: 1