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 458796
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
ffmpeg
by stabbyjones on Tue 18th Jan 2011 03:18 UTC
stabbyjones
Member since:
2008-04-15

It says on the project site that there's support for webm in ffmpeg >=0.6. Why would you even read about pay programs when you type a single line in the command line?

"One cool feature allows you to click a button (hidden by the preset drop-down list in Figure 1) to see the FFMPEG command-line argument used for the encode and the real-time log file."

Play around with the commands borrow from other encoders and find something that looks good to you and then you don't have to pay $800 to encode video.

Reply Score: 8

RE: ffmpeg
by lemur2 on Tue 18th Jan 2011 03:56 in reply to "ffmpeg"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

It says on the project site that there's support for webm in ffmpeg >=0.6. Why would you even read about pay programs when you type a single line in the command line? "One cool feature allows you to click a button (hidden by the preset drop-down list in Figure 1) to see the FFMPEG command-line argument used for the encode and the real-time log file." Play around with the commands borrow from other encoders and find something that looks good to you and then you don't have to pay $800 to encode video.


Indeed. If one had a need, one could easily take the examples from this page:
http://www.webmproject.org/tools/encoder-parameters/

replace a few of the constants and filenames found there with $n parameters, and create a set of bash scripts or even aliases so that one did not have to remember the laborious details.

A few minutes copying a command into an editor, modifying it slightly, and saving it to a personal script file or as an alias in .bashrc, and one has saved oneself $800 (and probably ended up with a more flexible solution tailored to one's specific needs as well).

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: ffmpeg
by _QJ_ on Tue 18th Jan 2011 09:08 in reply to "ffmpeg"
_QJ_ Member since:
2009-03-12

Yes, I totally agree.

And for common people who don't have too high expectations on their videos unlike some professionals may have:

Support of VP8 with tools like http://avidemux.berlios.de/news.html is coming. In example the release note of version 2.5.4 says:
* Added support for compressed headers, MPEG-2 audio and VP8 video in MKV container
* Added support for VP8 video decoding

GPL tools like Avidemux have the feature to save pre-sets.

So yes, needless to spend a lot of money to meet expectations of "average Joe" (You know, the vast majority of end users...).

... Just use your brain ! :-)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: ffmpeg
by vodoomoth on Tue 18th Jan 2011 12:46 in reply to "RE: ffmpeg"
vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30

Maybe that the real thing is that the average Joe doesn't know much about command line. What is needed here is a simple GUI frontend.

Reply Parent Score: 2