Linked by Brooss on Tue 15th Mar 2011 23:32 UTC
Benchmarks A comment on the recent article about the Bali release of Googles WebM tools (libvpx) claimed that one of the biggest problems facing the adoption of WebM video was the slow speed of the encoder as compared to x264. This article sets out to benchmark the encoder against x264 to see if this is indeed true and if so, how significant the speed difference really is.
Thread beginning with comment 466304
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
PSNR
by Timmmm on Tue 15th Mar 2011 23:52 UTC
Timmmm
Member since:
2006-07-25

Not a bad comparison, although there are some damn obvious flaws:

1. PSNR? Really?
2. The conclusions don't match the graphs - x264 clearly dominates.

It would be nice if vpxenc were faster. Then again, the encode time is apparently good enough for youtube, and they're probably the people most in need of fast encodes.

Reply Score: 2

RE: PSNR
by Brooss on Wed 16th Mar 2011 01:29 in reply to "PSNR"
Brooss Member since:
2010-11-13

2. The conclusions don't match the graphs - x264 clearly dominates.

Except for noting that x264 baseline and vpxenc in the higher quality ranges are competitive I think that is what my conclusion says. I certainly wasn't trying to give the impression that vpxenc is as fast as x264 in general, it's clearly not.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: PSNR
by Timmmm on Wed 16th Mar 2011 15:24 in reply to "RE: PSNR"
Timmmm Member since:
2006-07-25

Ok, I must have misread. Sorry!

Reply Parent Score: 2