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 466453
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: WebM vs H.264 benchmark
by lemur2 on Wed 16th Mar 2011 22:20 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: WebM vs H.264 benchmark"
Member since:

"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