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 458845
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Encode quality and speed
by ichi on Tue 18th Jan 2011 11:08 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Encode quality and speed"
Member since:

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