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 443471
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Comment by hornett
by Gusar on Fri 1st Oct 2010 22:55 UTC 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

RE[9]: Comment by hornett
by Gusar on Sat 2nd Oct 2010 00:44 in reply to "RE[8]: Comment by hornett"
Gusar Member since:
2010-07-16

Also, webm not being as good as h264 doesn't make 'completely blow', that's just the fanboy in you talking.

No, the fact that it completely blows makes it completely blow. A blurry mess, devoid of any details. That you need to resort to name-calling only confirms me saying that you are the one with a bias.

I know that vp8 is royalty free and I know the web needs such a codec. The problem is that libvpx is *not* good enough. If Google was smart, they'd hire Dark Shikari to work on a high quality vp8 encoder. It's not the format that blows, it's libvpx, the currently only publicly available encoder for that format.

Reply Parent Score: 1