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 466344
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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