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 443466
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Comment by hornett
by Valhalla on Fri 1st Oct 2010 22:29 UTC 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

RE[7]: Comment by hornett
by Gusar on Fri 1st Oct 2010 22:55 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by hornett"
Gusar Member since:
2010-07-16

He's already swamped with the orders for commercial licensing of x264, h264 being "web video standard" or not.

For the rest... as I said, make your own test. That's the only way you'll be sure. When WebM was released and DS made his blog post, people here were also accusing him of all sorts of things. But instead of coming up with conspiracy theories, I took my favorite clip (chapter 3 of Serenity) and encoded it with various encoders (x264, libvpx, xvid, theora-ptalarbvorm). My conclusion from that test was that libvpx totally and completely blows. And since it's the same libvpx making these images, I've no doubt in DS's results.
But don't take my word for it, or even DS's. Just *do your own test*.

Also, why go "wondering" about the source video? DS provided all the necessary links in his post. I suppose accusations are easier when you skip the provided info and can depend on "wondering".

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Comment by hornett
by Valhalla on Fri 1st Oct 2010 23:25 in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by hornett"
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24


Also, why go "wondering" about the source video? DS provided all the necessary links in his post. I suppose accusations are easier when you skip the provided info and can depend on "wondering".


Well, when I pressed the link before (http://media.xiph.org/video/derf/) it was unavailable (likely due to traffic) from what I gather the video was y4m uncompressed so that's no issue. But again, one single frame makes for a poor testbed. And while I could do my own tests and add another flawed 'here's my impression of how these image formats compare', I'd rather wait for some independent expert tests who can choose a range of test images using experience/knowledge. And yes, I think x264 is great, I've used it in conjunction with VirtualDub and Avisynth to backup alot of my dvd's to mp4 files for convenience, the quality/size is likely the best there is at the moment but that has nothing to do with wether Jason Garrett-Glaser is objective when viewing competing codecs.

Also, webm not being as good as h264 doesn't make 'completely blow', that's just the fanboy in you talking. It's royalty free which is very important when it comes to a 'web standard', if the quality is 'good enough' (you know, like jpeg) for people or not when it comes to web video content is something time will tell.

Reply Parent Score: 3

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

Well, A) that is his words B) it is ONE image, hardly makes for a serious study by any measurement.

Disprove him or shut up.
Your FUD spreading is lame. Go get a camera that can generate RAW files, go out, shoot photos, and compare WebP vs. JPEG.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Comment by hornett
by Valhalla on Sat 2nd Oct 2010 04:21 in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by hornett"
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24


Disprove him or shut up.
Your FUD spreading is lame. Go get a camera that can generate RAW files, go out, shoot photos, and compare WebP vs. JPEG.

I haven't said that his results are wrong, I have said that he is potentially biased and that the test of one image is inconclusive. I have not painted myself as an expert and therefore await a serious comparison from someone who is, using a wide range of images.

And not offering a shred of evidence never stopped you from sprouting things like -"On2 sold a slightly tweaked h264 codec as their own invention", -"Google releases the source code to a modified H264 Baseline codec" etc. Can you prove this? Else maybe you should you practice what you preach, and you know, shut up?

Reply Parent Score: 2