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 466330
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Eugenia
Member since:
2005-06-28

>Note that Youtube is already encoding everything in VP8, so apparently it is good enough for them.

Youtube's quality sucks. It's visibly soft on my HDTV (watching its HD videos via my Roku). Vimeo is way better, about 25% better. And youtube doesn't use webm for normal usage, it's only used as a last resort, if h.264/flash is not found.

Reply Parent Score: 2

1c3d0g Member since:
2005-07-06

That's because of people like you who refuse to move to something better and instead cling to proprietary, dead-end software. It doesn't help the fact that you are so close-minded as well.

Reply Parent Score: -1

Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

>people like you who refuse to move to something better

The benchmark article proved that it's not "something better". As for closed minded, I suggest you read more of my anti-MPEGLA articles, general copyright, media articles, etc etc, here on osnews and on my blog, before you blatantly troll here by declaring me "closed minded".

If anything, by being an developer, an ex-tech reviewer/journalist, and a current filmmaker (with quite some following for my tutorials), I have way more visibility than you have on the matter. Just because you'd like a proprietary technology to fail for philosophical reasons doesn't mean that it will. I WANT THE SAME THING YOU DO. But it won't freaking happen.

Reply Parent Score: 4

Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

1. The fact that Youtube is by far the biggest player of video on the web despite sucky quality shows that quality really doesn't matter on the web.
2. It is obvious that you don't know how WebM on youtube works, so you've not even tried it. Interesting...

Reply Parent Score: 5

smitty Member since:
2005-10-13

Youtube's quality sucks. It's visibly soft on my HDTV (watching its HD videos via my Roku).

Sure, but you said no video sites could use it. Obviously the biggest and most important one can.

And youtube doesn't use webm for normal usage, it's only used as a last resort, if h.264/flash is not found.

That's because it's in beta. Or don't you think that in 12 months or so they'll flip the switch and have FF/Chrome/IE9 with WMF codec default to the WebM page and have the Flash/h.264 there as a backup for mobile and older browsers? I don't think they spent all that time re-encoding their entire back library just on a whim, or as a backup. They're going to do something with that.

Reply Parent Score: 6

Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

>Note that Youtube is already encoding everything in VP8, so apparently it is good enough for them.

Youtube's quality sucks. It's visibly soft on my HDTV (watching its HD videos via my Roku). Vimeo is way better, about 25% better. And youtube doesn't use webm for normal usage, it's only used as a last resort, if h.264/flash is not found.


The quality of Vimeo does not matter, as when you visit their site in a Flash-free Firefox 4, you see a download link for Safari... seriously.

Some video is better than no video.

Reply Parent Score: 1