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 466346
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Nice
by molnarcs on Wed 16th Mar 2011 06:45 UTC in reply to "Nice"
molnarcs
Member since:
2005-09-10

Remember that most users are not really home users in this case. WebM does well at low resolutions - the kind of resolutions you need for your mobile devices or youtube. Of course 320x240 is too small for that, 360p or 480p would be the most common use case for WebM.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Nice
by MissTJones on Thu 17th Mar 2011 15:02 in reply to "RE: Nice"
MissTJones Member since:
2010-03-25

The MSU test on the original release of VP8 found that it did much better on HD content than it did on SD/DVD content. I think they'd just spent more time tuning for that size.

I don't know if that has changed since, you'd think Google would have some interest in the lower resolutions used on Youtube, but on the other hand maybe every extra bit of quality on HD saves them more bandwidth than an extra bit of quality for a tiny video.

Reply Parent Score: 2