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 426279
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by cerbie
by cerbie on Mon 24th May 2010 11:18 UTC
cerbie
Member since:
2006-01-02

1st comparison:
In 1 and 4, H.264 was obviously superior. 2, 3, and 5 I couldn't tell a difference in quality (H.264 is a bit blocky in its shadows, but VP8 smoothed those over a bit too much, or made it splotchy--very much a draw), and 6 looked better with VP8. In #1, look how much clearer the man's wrinkles and dimples are in H.264.

So, for web streaming: it's ready right now.

2nd comparison:
Even my Superbit DVDs aren't all up to 7.5Mbps. I'm not terribly enamored with HD, I guess. It would also have been nice to just see the saved 480 frames at 100%, too, rather than scaled up. Some of the live frames are fuzzy, but not too bad. I'll stay optimistic about the encoder. The live video as a whole looks quite good, IMO.

For high quality video: the encoder needs some work, but it's not bad.

Most of the, "indistinguishable," Theora videos looked like Hell with any real motion. VP8 seems to be up to the task of competing with H.264, and is free, to boot. Let's give it a year to spread around, get a more mature encoder, and so on, then ditch H.264, and rejoice.

Edited 2010-05-24 11:34 UTC

Reply Score: 2