Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 23rd May 2010 09:41 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 426759
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: They are different codecs
by lemur2 on Thu 27th May 2010 00:16
in reply to "They are different codecs"
- on still screenshots, h.264 wins in all cases;
- on (almost) all resolutions (in motion), both codecs seemed the same;
- on (almost) all resolutions (in motion), both codecs seemed the same;
Exactly. People actually see motion as blur. There is no real point in precise sharp definition for parts of the video which are in high motion ... people are going to see it as blur anyway.
These observations also highlight that there are major differences in approach between h.264 and VP8. The codecs use distinctly different methods to achieve the same end (compression of digital video data). Ergo, one would surmise that these codecs do not infringe on one another's patents.




Member since:
2010-05-21
I just gave a quick look to the "Park Joy" videos (the videos themselves and not the still images) on the quavlive link. My conclusions:
- h.264 has a lot more artifacts than VP8;
- on still screenshots, h.264 wins in all cases;
- on (almost) all resolutions (in motion), both codecs seemed the same;
- the exception was SD video, which seemed strange in h.264 and more "natural" in VP8.
At least it is my opinion, but who cares? Here is my opinion about the much more interesting topic of the codecs themselves:
- The visual output of each one is incredibly different on low framerates;
- Yet, both are able to reproduce the intended image!
- So, they are not comparable;
- This happens because for us to compare them, we would need an objective way of deciding which are good and bad losses.
- We don't have that.
- So, opinions on how close to reality it gets will vary from person to person.
At least it is my opinion... on something much more interesting than a boring comparison of different moving images.