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 466341
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Things we already knew about
by Neolander on Wed 16th Mar 2011 06:18 UTC in reply to "Things we already knew about"
Neolander
Member since:
2010-03-08

Confusing encoding and decoding requirements ? Pretty bad for a professional videographer.

People don't encode videos on mobile devices, and decoding WebM has less overhead than decoding H.264. Try again.

Also, I think you badly overrate the impact of professional video and quality on the web. Video on the web is mostly Youtube and Dailymotion, not carefully polished professional video.

Edited 2011-03-16 06:23 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

konfoo Member since:
2006-01-02

People don't encode videos on mobile devices, and decoding WebM has less overhead than decoding H.264. Try again.


But yes, they do. 99% of SoC chipsets on mobile devices these days are capable of encode and decode. Any mobile device recording video is doing encoding. The abundance of 1st and 3rd party on-device (iMovie for iPhone, etc.) software speaks for itself as to consumer adoption.

As for WebM, repeat after me: WebM SoC/DSP acceleration is not yet widely available. Right now it is completely irrelevant to even attempt to assert that CPU usage is less than H264 when H264 devices are using SoCs/DSPs with no battery drain.

Last, we can fight about this all day but the only real thing that counts is that consumers don't care as long as their content can be recorded and viewed without problems. WebM has a long way to go.

Reply Parent Score: 0

smitty Member since:
2005-10-13

But yes, they do. 99% of SoC chipsets on mobile devices these days are capable of encode and decode. Any mobile device recording video is doing encoding.

Which they do through hardware, so the speed of libvpx isn't important to this discussion. The solution to this is simply to update the hardware being pushed out in these devices, something which Google has apparently convinced all the hardware manufacturers to do. It will take probably 2 years before that support is truly widespread, but it's coming.

As for WebM, repeat after me: WebM SoC/DSP acceleration is not yet widely available. Right now it is completely irrelevant to even attempt to assert that CPU usage is less than H264 when H264 devices are using SoCs/DSPs with no battery drain.

Quite correct. h.264 will be far superior on mobile devices until this is rectified. This will happen, the only question is how long it will take.

Last, we can fight about this all day but the only real thing that counts is that consumers don't care as long as their content can be recorded and viewed without problems. WebM has a long way to go.

Agree again. Consumers don't care, they just want their video to work. People like Eugenia are not typical consumers (at least not typical web video consumers) - she tends to lean more towards the professional side which makes her think that certain h.264 attributes are important when most people don't care one way or the other. Like the VHS vs Betamax wars, where one was obviously superior to the professionals, but was completely abandoned by the market anyway.

Reply Parent Score: 3

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"People don't encode videos on mobile devices, and decoding WebM has less overhead than decoding H.264. Try again.


But yes, they do. 99% of SoC chipsets on mobile devices these days are capable of encode and decode. Any mobile device recording video is doing encoding. The abundance of 1st and 3rd party on-device (iMovie for iPhone, etc.) software speaks for itself as to consumer adoption.

As for WebM, repeat after me: WebM SoC/DSP acceleration is not yet widely available. Right now it is completely irrelevant to even attempt to assert that CPU usage is less than H264 when H264 devices are using SoCs/DSPs with no battery drain.

Last, we can fight about this all day but the only real thing that counts is that consumers don't care as long as their content can be recorded and viewed without problems. WebM has a long way to go.
"

Every Android device from this point onwards (Android 2.3.3 or higher) will support WebM.

The following chips will support WebM decoding hardware acceleration:

Rockchip RK29xx
TI OMAP 4 and OMAP 5
Chips&Media BODA9/ CODA9
VeriSilicon ZSP Digital Signal Processor Cores and SoC Platform
Qualcomm Adreno 3xx
ARM with Neon extensions
Nvidia Tegra 2 and 3

These are just the devices found within a few minutes web search. The latter two (at least) also have support for WebM encoding in hardware.

Just about the only new ARM SoC design announced lately that does not support WebM in hardware is the one used in the iPad 2.

Most of the Android 3 (Honeycomb) tablets announced recently use the Nvidia Tegra 2.

http://mashable.com/2010/01/27/9-upcoming-tablet-alternatives-to-th...

http://www.andro-tablets.org/

If you are wondering if that is significant:

http://www.andro-tablets.org/android-tablets-should-dominate-the-ma...

Edited 2011-03-16 09:58 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 5

Not2Sure Member since:
2009-12-07

You don't know what you're talking about in the mobile space. As usual.

You think the cameras present on nearly EVERY smartphone are storing raw video?

The Nokia N8 for example which is probably still the best quality "cameraphone" encodes HD via H.264 with AAC for the stereo audio. Video encodes at around 9mbits/sec with stereo audio encoded at 128 kbits/sec with 48kHz sampling.

Reply Parent Score: 0