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 426271
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Thom *might* be blind
by lemur2 on Mon 24th May 2010 10:19 UTC 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

RE[3]: Thom *might* be blind
by lemur2 on Mon 24th May 2010 10:52 in reply to "RE[2]: Thom *might* be blind"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

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.


You prefer artefacts that aren't there? When things are moving, people see blur. Even cameras see blur.

Your examples are very high resolution. People don't have that much bandwidth on the net, they would be watching that video at one frame every ten seconds. (We are talking here about a codec for the web, not for a blueray player).

To give a little more bandwidth to high-motion areas and de-blur (without introducing invented artefacts) is a matter of tuning (of the encoder only). Activity masking and Altered Skip weighting are techniques that have helped Theora improve recently, and at first blush these look as if a bit of tuning might also help VP8.

http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/theora/demo9.html

There doesn't seem to be anything unique to Theora in those methods.

The basic, unpolished VP8 encoder performance is almost indistinguishable from H.264. A bit of fine tuning of the encoder here and there to polish out effects like these, and it will be sweet. Just discussing the technology here, there is absolutely no reason why we should invoke costs for 99.9999% of the people on the planet, and direct money to 0.0001% of the people, just for the sake of a bit of fine tuning of the VP8 encoder.

Oh, and because the fine-tuning needs to be done only to the encoder, people can go ahead with the decoder (player) software embedded in browsers right away.

Edited 2010-05-24 10:53 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2