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 443451
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Comment by hornett
by Valhalla on Fri 1st Oct 2010 20:57 UTC 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[5]: Comment by hornett
by Gusar on Fri 1st Oct 2010 21:35 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by hornett"
Gusar Member since:
2010-07-16

Dark Shikari doesn't care about "web video" per se, he's just interested in high quality.

And btw, x264 is *already* dual licensed and being sold. Lots of companies want it. And you know why? Because it's simply that good.

As another commenter said, if you don't trust DS results, do your own test. These conspiracy theories regarding DS here at osnews are quite silly to me.
(if that last sentence gets this comment downvoted, so be it. won't chance the fact that by constantly accusing DS of bias, you're doing nothing but actually showing *your* bias)

Oh, and regarding using a motion picture... here's what Dark himself said (yes, it's advisable to read all the comments to his blog post):
"That video is taken on 65mm film by a camera that costs more than most houses — it is higher quality than almost any image taken by any “photo camera”. I highly doubt your average Creative Commons images even have a quarter the detail that an Arriflex 765 can take."

Edited 2010-10-01 21:39 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[6]: Comment by hornett
by Valhalla on Fri 1st Oct 2010 22:29 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by hornett"
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24

Dark Shikari doesn't care about "web video" per se, he's just interested in high quality.
If h264 becomes the 'web standard' he and other x264 devs will stand to make more money from licencing x264 then they would otherwise.

so be it. won't chance the fact that by constantly accusing DS of bias, you're doing nothing but actually showing *your* bias)

Again, he has money to make on the success/dominance of h264, I am always VERY sceptical when people with a monetary interest claim their technology is much better than the competition.

Oh, and regarding using a motion picture... here's what Dark himself said (yes, it's advisable to read all the comments to his blog post):
"That video is taken on 65mm film by a camera that costs more than most houses — it is higher quality than almost any image taken by any “photo camera”. I highly doubt your average Creative Commons images even have a quarter the detail that an Arriflex 765 can take."

Well, A) that is his words B) it is ONE image, hardly makes for a serious study by any measurement. Also, I wonder what codec the video was encoded in, if it was in h264 then it would seem logical that in reencoding a still frame from it x264 would be favored since it uses the same compression technique as the source (note, I do not know what codec was used for the original video from which the frame was captured, I am just assuming it was h264, I may be dead wrong here). Also, why did he use jpgcrush on the jpg image? It seems to me that he wanted to be able to use a higher quality setting for the jpg while keeping it at the same file size as the webp file. I don't know exactly what jpgcrush does (other than optimizing the file size obviously) but I guess the added compression time from using that is why it's not normally part of standard jpeg compression and chances are the same techniques used in jpgcrush could be applied to a webp image to make it smaller while keeping the same quality. Again, this test smells tailored to me. Again, I will await a serious study using a wide range of non-lossy images.

Reply Parent Score: 3