Linked by lemur2 on Wed 9th Mar 2011 00:18 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 465553
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Open vs Free (gratis), H264 v WebM
by WereCatf on Thu 10th Mar 2011 05:16
in reply to "RE[4]: Open vs Free (gratis), H264 v WebM"
For now...
http://review.webmproject.org/#q,status:merged+project:libvpx+branc...
Though I guess they could just call it VP9 and WebM 2.0, once they decide they have to break with their current Bitstream definition.
http://review.webmproject.org/#q,status:merged+project:libvpx+branc...
Though I guess they could just call it VP9 and WebM 2.0, once they decide they have to break with their current Bitstream definition.
What the hell are you going on about? Why would they break the bitstream definition when it is working perfectly fine and all the work to be done is on the encoder itself, not the bitstream?
RE[6]: Open vs Free (gratis), H264 v WebM
by ruinevil on Thu 10th Mar 2011 05:22
in reply to "RE[5]: Open vs Free (gratis), H264 v WebM"
http://blog.webmproject.org/2010/06/future-of-vp8-bitstream.html
Having a fixed bitstream constrains the optimizations that can be done.
Edited 2011-03-10 05:24 UTC
RE[6]: Open vs Free (gratis), H264 v WebM
by lemur2 on Thu 10th Mar 2011 05:32
in reply to "RE[5]: Open vs Free (gratis), H264 v WebM"
"For now... http://review.webmproject.org/#q,status:merged+project:libvpx+branc... Though I guess they could just call it VP9 and WebM 2.0, once they decide they have to break with their current Bitstream definition.
What the hell are you going on about? Why would they break the bitstream definition when it is working perfectly fine and all the work to be done is on the encoder itself, not the bitstream? " This is what the poster was talking about:
http://blog.webmproject.org/2010/06/future-of-vp8-bitstream.html
However, what the poster failed to recognize is that EXACTLY the same consideration applies to H264.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HEVC
High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC) is a proposed video compression standard, a successor to H.264/MPEG-4 AVC (Advanced Video Coding), currently under joint development by the ISO/IEC Moving Picture Experts Group (MPEG) and ITU-T Video Coding Experts Group (VCEG).





Member since:
2009-01-08
For now...
http://review.webmproject.org/#q,status:merged+project:libvpx+branc...
Though I guess they could just call it VP9 and WebM 2.0, once they decide they have to break with their current Bitstream definition.