Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 17th Jan 2011 21:29 UTC
Multimedia, AV "Even if you don't believe all the hype about HTML5, sooner or later, you'll need to start encoding some video to WebM format. Maybe for internal experimentation, for a pay-per-view or subscription project (where H.264 may incur royalties), because you've decided to jump into HTML5 video with both feet, or because Google announced yesterday that it's going to stop supporting H.264 in Chrome. Whatever the reason, you'll be sitting at your desk or poolside one day, and you'll be thinking 'I've got to encode some video to WebM format'. If and when that day comes, set a bookmark in your memory banks for this article, because it's all about encoding to WebM. I'll start by looking at how WebM compares to H.264 in terms of quality, just to set expectations, and then briefly review the quality and performance of several free and for-fee encoding tools."
Thread beginning with comment 458761
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Up-to-the-minute comparison
by lemur2 on Mon 17th Jan 2011 23:24 UTC
Member since:


"To be fair, WebM does have several significant disadvantages compared to H.264, including slower encoding times, higher CPU decode requirements, and limited browser and device support."

Hmmm, that comparison doesn't sound quite fair. It sounds a bit outdated.

Firstly, webM has significantly lower CPU decode requirements than H.264 CPU decode requirements, unless H.264 is hardware-accelerated. In the absence of hardware acceleration, WebM decode is significantly less demanding of CPU grunt that H.264 for the same video resolution, quality and frame rate.

As for browser support ... H.264 is well supported only via Flash. Flash doesn't work on iDevices. It would be fair to say that even H.264 doesn't have wide "browser and device support" together ... one or the other, perhaps, but not both.

Finally, WebM decoding for devices is just becoming available now.

For people buying a new Android device later this year (even an Android 3.0 tablet perhaps), none of the "disadvantages" of WebM mentioned in the original article are likely to be a concern any longer.

Reply Score: 5