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 458832
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Encode quality and speed
by lemur2 on Tue 18th Jan 2011 09:44 UTC in reply to "RE: Encode quality and speed"
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

"When you talk about the encoding quality and speed of WebM, it is important to clarify what release you are talking about. The initial version of WebM released by Google when WebM was first announced circa May 2010 is still being optimised in an ongoing process.

It will make a big difference to the quality of the results obtained depending if one is using the "Aylesbury" release or not.

From the same blog article linked above, Google also mentions the upcoming "Bali" release, which is due in Q1 2011.

It would appear that the Bali release is intended to have an impact on encoding speed.


Please, get over yourself already!

When sugardaddy hadn't bought VP8 for his young and Theora was still all the rage, you were advocating that soon-soon-any-day-now, the newest bleeding edge Theora release (ptlasagasdiogasdg or whatever it was called) was going to blow everything away.

Fast-forward into today and now we all should still wait for some bleeding edge developers release of VP8 so that we could see for ourselves that it's the best thing since sliced bread (and free(tm), unlike sliced bread).

And comparing this to a industry-agree-upon standard having several implementations and relatively wide usage...It seems like the ONLY thing that matters is that VP8 is royalty-free (pending possible submarine patent royalties). Gotten used to getting things for free?
"

You might be surprised to find that "free" (as in zero cost) is nowhere near as important as "unencumbered" (as in anyone may implement it without restriction). Freedom, not zero cost.

WebM is freedom like Theora, but it is also quite a bit better in performance. It might have been possible with effort and persistence to squeeze acceptable performance out of Theora, but WebM is there already.

I agree with Eugenia that none of these external encoders matter. The only things that matter are the plugins for widely-used video editing software such as Premiere or Final Cut Pro. These external tools can only be sufficient for small-scale usage.


I disagree. Software such as Premiere or Final Cut Pro is rip-off, pure and simple. It is pay-through-the-nose "branding", like Gucci or Ferrari, as opposed to super-value-for-money, like encoding to WebM using a command line program in conjunction with a simple GUI frontend or a couple of convenience scripts.

I tell you what ... you and I both go into business converting raw video working files to final output files sourced by someone else ... you can use a hyper-expensive $3 grand "brand" royalties paid product with a flash GUI like Final Cut Pro, and I will use a command line and a couple of handmade scripts. We will each charge the same money per file to our clients.

Lets see who makes the most money.

Edited 2011-01-18 09:51 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

manjabes Member since:
2005-08-27

I disagree. Software such as Premiere or Final Cut Pro is rip-off, pure and simple. It is pay-through-the-nose "branding", like Gucci or Ferrari, as opposed to super-value-for-money, like encoding to WebM using a command line program in conjunction with a simple GUI frontend or a couple of convenience scripts.


Why is it then that virtually nobodys workflow consists of Kdenlive+multiple command-line encoders, whereas them Premiere, FCP et al. have so many users that they run a business catering to them?

Reply Parent Score: 1

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"I disagree. Software such as Premiere or Final Cut Pro is rip-off, pure and simple. It is pay-through-the-nose "branding", like Gucci or Ferrari, as opposed to super-value-for-money, like encoding to WebM using a command line program in conjunction with a simple GUI frontend or a couple of convenience scripts.


Why is it then that virtually nobodys workflow consists of Kdenlive+multiple command-line encoders, whereas them Premiere, FCP et al. have so many users that they run a business catering to them?
"

Same reason why Gucci make bucketloads of money ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gucci

... selling cured animal skins.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Encode quality and speed
by ichi on Tue 18th Jan 2011 11:08 in reply to "RE[3]: Encode quality and speed"
ichi Member since:
2007-03-06

They are each talking about different things: NLE vs batch encoding/transcoding.

If you are editing video then obviously out of convenience you will use some format out of the list of supported output formats in FCP.

On the other hand, as soon as you upload your video to vimeo, youtube or whatever it'll be transcoded, so the point is the huge majority of videos being streamed don't retain the encoding format from the NLE as they have been transcoded later.
Whether you use h264 or WebM on FCP is hence largely irrelevant when it comes to web video.

Reply Parent Score: 3