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 458826
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: ffmpeg
by _QJ_ on Tue 18th Jan 2011 09:08 UTC in reply to "ffmpeg"
Member since:

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 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:

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