Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 30th Sep 2010 23:04 UTC
Google A few months ago, Google open sourced the VP8 video codec as part of the WebM video project, to create a truly Free/free unencumbered video format for the web as an answer to the non-Free/free patent-encumbered H264 format. Today, Google launched a new image format for the web, WebP, which aims to significantly reduce the file size of photos and images on the web.
Thread beginning with comment 443398
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by hornett
by Neolander on Fri 1st Oct 2010 10:17 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by hornett"
Neolander
Member since:
2010-03-08

You know, I'd tend to trust devs working on H.264 technology talking about their competitors just as much as Xiph devs talking about H.264.

Just sayin'...

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Comment by hornett
by FealDorf on Fri 1st Oct 2010 11:44 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by hornett"
FealDorf Member since:
2008-01-07

But trusting Google is no better, who'd definitely flaunt the format with exaggerations

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by hornett
by Neolander on Fri 1st Oct 2010 12:28 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by hornett"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

But trusting Google is no better, who'd definitely flaunt the format with exaggerations

Indeed. Testing should be done by a third-party who has *no* business interest in orienting the test results.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Fettarme H-Milch Member since:
2010-02-16

You know, I'd tend to trust devs working on H.264 technology talking about their competitors just as much as Xiph devs talking about H.264.

Just sayin'...

Competitor? The very same guy also wrote a VP8 decoder for the ffmpeg project from scratch.
He's an active contributor to both worlds. I don't see him competing with his own software.

If you don't trust him, feel free to repeat his tests and compare the results.

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[4]: Comment by hornett
by Valhalla on Fri 1st Oct 2010 20:57 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by hornett"
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24


Competitor? The very same guy also wrote a VP8 decoder for the ffmpeg project from scratch.
He's an active contributor to both worlds. I don't see him competing with his own software.

If you don't trust him, feel free to repeat his tests and compare the results.


He is a competitor. He is pushing X264 as the web standard for video, and he and other x264 devs are trying to get permission to dual-licence x264 so that they can charge money for propriety projects that want to incorporate x264. The fact that he and some other developers (he wasn't alone) wrote a vp8 decoder for the ffmpeg project does not change this.

No, good old Dark Shikaru has a little too much personal interest in x264 vs webm/webp for my taste. Also, why the heck did he use a motion video frame as source? Smells like a tailored test methinks.

I'll look forward to totally independant comparisons using a wide range of raw images (so that it won't favour either encoder) which can then be compared quality-wise between jpg and webp when encoded to the (near as possible) same file size.

Like I said earlier though, even if webp would prove to be a better format in terms of size/quality than jpeg I seriously doubt it will gain any traction. Jpeg dominates the web by being supported everywhere and being 'good enough' in terms of quality/size. I believe a new format would have to be so much better (quality/size, no submarine patent threat, permissive licencing) that it's simply a no-brainer to do the switch from jpeg even with the pain of transition, and I really don't see that webp is or ever will be that. Time will tell.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by hornett
by vaette on Mon 4th Oct 2010 09:15 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by hornett"
vaette Member since:
2008-08-09

It is hardly an opinion piece, he does rather in-depth technical commentary, and, more importantly, he produces photos using freely available tools. Completely reproducible, and I must agree that WebP has a hard time matching up to even JPEG in his test:
http://x264.nl/developers/Dark_Shikari/imagecoding/vp8.png
vs.
http://x264.nl/developers/Dark_Shikari/imagecoding/jpeg.png

And, as quite often noted, JPEG is more or less the worst case compression-wise these days. The introduction of WebP is a lot like trying to introduce a new audio compression method with the argument that it beats MP3, while failing to match Vorbis and AAC. Sure JPEG is the standard choice on the web, but not because no one else has beat it on quality.

WebM remains a good thing to have around (though its greatest victory already happened when MPEG-LA loosened the h264 licensing deal for web streaming in direct response). WebP seems rather unnecessary though.

Really heartening in some ways to see his link at the end, where Theora through its years of retuning actually does a much better job than VP8 at this task:
http://x264.nl/developers/Dark_Shikari/imagecoding/theora.png
I am hardly a huge Theora fan, but hats off to the Xiph guys for their hard work.

Edited 2010-10-04 09:17 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1