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 466476
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Nice
by lemur2 on Thu 17th Mar 2011 01:27 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Nice"
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

Quality is a mixed bag. Webm looks much better during low motion scenes (detail is higher), but suffers during high motion (smearing). Overall quality is about the same imo.


When people see high motion in real life, they actually perceive it as a blur. It is perhaps a mistake to demerit WebM for having this characteristic.

When h264 videos have to make compromises on quality per bit, which happens in high motion scenes, the compressed video exhibits artefacts ... little extraneous bits that aren't there in the original scene. The human eye doesn't do anything similar when people are looking at scenes real life.

Just saying.

Edited 2011-03-17 01:28 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Nice
by galvanash on Thu 17th Mar 2011 01:33 in reply to "RE[3]: Nice"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

To my eye the smearing/blurring looked worse in this particular example, and the artifacts you speak of that x264 often generates were barely visible. I have seen examples that fall in line with what you speak of and I also find webm often looks better, but in this case it didn't. I'm just trying to be as fair as possible.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Nice
by lemur2 on Thu 17th Mar 2011 02:50 in reply to "RE[4]: Nice"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

To my eye the smearing/blurring looked worse in this particular example, and the artifacts you speak of that x264 often generates were barely visible. I have seen examples that fall in line with what you speak of and I also find webm often looks better, but in this case it didn't. I'm just trying to be as fair as possible.


Fair enough. I merely point it out because, as has been said by other posters before in this very thread, sometimes it is easy to get carried away with trying to measure one result versus another without actually considering the actual implications of the metrics ... in this case, that would be the actual visible-to-viewers impact on the observed video in real time play, versus what can be seen in still frames.

Edited 2011-03-17 02:52 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2