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 466406
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: WebM vs H.264 benchmark
by lemur2 on Wed 16th Mar 2011 13:09 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: WebM vs H.264 benchmark"
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

"PS: It was you who asked for video quality benchmark results, not I.


But as I said, comparisons over how many more percents one version has gotten over the previous one in one metric simply doesn't suffice for a benchmark. And I asked for the actual output files so people could make their comparisons and opinions themselves, not just one or another metric.

I personally have no tools to shoot such a source video as I described nor do I have the necessary knowledge to know what encoder parameters I should use and thus I don't qualify as for making the benchmarks myself.
"

The YouTube HTML5 trial lets you join and un-join the trial.

http://www.youtube.com/html5

If you have Firefox 4 RC or Chrome I think you can use this trial to view the same video at the same resolution in both WebM and h264 versions. Some video clips are available at 720p resolution.

Recently I haven't been able to spot any difference. Hope this helps.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Recently I haven't been able to spot any difference. Hope this helps.


Of course you can't. The only way people can spot the difference is if you make stillframes and zoom in 56 times.

I can guarantee you: even hoity-toity "indy" videographers won't be ale to tell them apart in a proper double-blind test. It's all a bunch of bullshit, like audiophiles claiming they can hear a difference because their digital (!) cable is gold-plated.

Reply Parent Score: 6

Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

This obviously shows your lack of knowledge of the audio field. Yet another example of awful journalism on your personal blog. You totally should be fired.

Real audiophiles can hear the sound of one dropped bit in several hours of 24bit/128kHz sound. And get a refund on their whole Hi-Fi setup when doing so. All true audiophiles also have a special contract with their electricity network, to ensure that their power supply never goes more than -256 dB away from the 230V/50Hz sinusoid.

What's more, you showcase your blatant lack of knowledge and research by suggesting that audiophiles may listen to digital audio from time to time. True audiophiles only listen to records and magnetic tapes, as they can't stand the cold sound of digital hardware.

Reply Parent Score: 8

RE[7]: WebM vs H.264 benchmark
by Kochise on Wed 16th Mar 2011 19:58 in reply to "RE[6]: WebM vs H.264 benchmark"
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

If you have Firefox 4 RC or Chrome I think you can use this trial to view the same video at the same resolution in both WebM and h264 versions. Some video clips are available at 720p resolution.


We do not know what encoder settings were used, what version of the encoders were used, nor do we actually know if the videos have been encoded with the same bitrate settings.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: WebM vs H.264 benchmark
by lemur2 on Wed 16th Mar 2011 22:20 in reply to "RE[6]: WebM vs H.264 benchmark"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"If you have Firefox 4 RC or Chrome I think you can use this trial to view the same video at the same resolution in both WebM and h264 versions. Some video clips are available at 720p resolution.
We do not know what encoder settings were used, what version of the encoders were used, nor do we actually know if the videos have been encoded with the same bitrate settings. "

None of these things are going to be important to people watching web video.

They aren't even particularly important to people hosting video as long as the filesizes (and hence badwidth requirements) are about the same. There are only three important parameters: (1) can viewers see it, (2) does it look as good to viewers, and (3) how much does it cost me to host?

For WebM, compared to H264, the answers to these questions are: (1) yes if they install a recent browser and (in some cases) the OS codec, (2) yes, and (3) a lot less.

Edited 2011-03-16 22:21 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2