Linked by Brooss on Wed 23rd Mar 2011 23:14 UTC
Benchmarks A new set of x264 and vpxenc encoder benchmarks have been published. The new benchmarks address many of the concerns raised in the comments about the methodology used in the previous article, such as using SSIM for quality measurement. Theora is also included in these tests.
Thread beginning with comment 467600
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Too little too late
by tuzor on Thu 24th Mar 2011 00:32 UTC in reply to "RE: Too little too late"
tuzor
Member since:
2007-08-07


There is already successor for VP8/WebM in the works, too, so we'll see.

Besides, even if H.265 actually did come out suddenly it still wouldn't have a "decent and competitive encoder" yet anyway.. Oh, sorry if I ruined your trolling attempt.

What trolling you tool.
It's hard facts, I apologise if this is too difficult for you to grasp.
WebM is inferior in most ways and it arrived too late.
H265 is a fact an in development for a long time now.

Would love some info on your part about a VP8 successor.

Reply Parent Score: -4

RE[3]: Too little too late
by lemur2 on Thu 24th Mar 2011 00:45 in reply to "RE[2]: Too little too late"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

What trolling you tool. It's hard facts, I apologise if this is too difficult for you to grasp. WebM is inferior in most ways and it arrived too late. H265 is a fact an in development for a long time now. Would love some info on your part about a VP8 successor.


There is only one factor in which x264 beats WebM and that is encoding speed. Most people would use a video encoder once in a blue moon ... so in practice this simply means that if you want your occasional video encoded in WebM at the same quality as you would have had with x64 you will have to wait a little longer for it to encode. Depending on the size of the video clip, this could mean a minute or so of your time.

Meh. Big deal.

If you encode the video clip in h264 instead and put it on a website, you could be up for thousands of dollars in license fees.

Worse: If you encode the video clip in h264 instead and put it on a website and you don't get a license, you could be up for hundreds of thousands in fines and court costs.

Edited 2011-03-24 00:52 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[4]: Too little too late
by JAlexoid on Thu 24th Mar 2011 02:51 in reply to "RE[3]: Too little too late"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

If you encode the video clip in h264 instead and put it on a website, you could be up for thousands of dollars in license fees.

Worse: If you encode the video clip in h264 instead and put it on a website and you don't get a license, you could be up for hundreds of thousands in fines and court costs.


I like WebM/VP8. It's software decoder on Linux is less resource intensive than H.264 with same quality.

But I can encode video to H.264 and give a big FFFFFUUUUUU! to MPEG-LA, because I live in a country where software patents are illegal.

Reply Parent Score: 3

v RE[4]: Too little too late
by mym6 on Thu 24th Mar 2011 03:40 in reply to "RE[3]: Too little too late"
RE[4]: Too little too late
by gerg on Thu 24th Mar 2011 15:18 in reply to "RE[3]: Too little too late"
gerg Member since:
2011-03-16

There is only one factor in which x264 beats WebM and that is encoding speed.


This is what people really need to be focusing on. WebM, based on what I've seen, is beating x264 in decoding performance and now has hardware support. The combination means better battery life. And for WebM, its a double-win over x264.

While every stream must be encoded, once, successful streams will be decoded millions of times in comparison. Which ultimately means, decoding is extremely important, second only to visual quality. Encoding time, frankly, I'm not even sure is the third most important element. For encoding, the only factor that really matters is if its fast enough. By all accounts, encoding time is fast enough which is why we are seeing WebM gaining market share and acceptance.

Realistically, WebM is already reshaping the market. Hardware and codec support is rapidly growing. In the very least, x264 now has a proven rival. The real question is, how long will the market have two significant codecs?

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[4]: Too little too late
by tomcat on Thu 24th Mar 2011 19:19 in reply to "RE[3]: Too little too late"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Meh. Big deal.


Unless, of course, people do this for a living. In which case their time is actually ... you know ... valuable.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Too little too late
by WereCatf on Thu 24th Mar 2011 00:46 in reply to "RE[2]: Too little too late"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

What trolling you tool.
It's hard facts, I apologise if this is too difficult for you to grasp.


It's not "facts": yes, H.265 (or whatever they'll call it when it's out) is in development, but it takes time to create a complete and optimized encoder. Go ahead and take a look at how long it took for x264 encoder to come where it is now. It didn't just happen overnight the next day when H.264 was released. And it won't happen with H.265 either. There will still be a transition time from old codecs to the new codec.

WebM is inferior in most ways and it arrived too late.


Considering how much support WebM has gotten from major international corporations I'd say they disagree with you.

Would love some info on your part about a VP8 successor.


Go ahead and browse the VP9 git repository.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[4]: Too little too late
by tanishaj on Thu 24th Mar 2011 02:53 in reply to "RE[3]: Too little too late"
tanishaj Member since:
2010-12-22

Actually, I am curious about VP9 as well. Is there really a public repository where it is being developed? Any links to that?

I know there is VP8 experimental:

http://goo.gl/cIf3B

Is that what you meant?

As for H264 vs WebM...I bet that anybody that considers themselves a web power user can pay this link:

http://goo.gl/fSfS4

Which of the videos on this site can they play?

http://goo.gl/JDobV

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[3]: Too little too late
by _txf_ on Thu 24th Mar 2011 00:53 in reply to "RE[2]: Too little too late"
_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

What trolling you tool.

Calling someone a tool isn't the best way to create a healthy discussion.

H265 is a fact an in development for a long time now.

The spec has been in development a long time, implementations of it have not. Only once software is released will there be any optimisation. I should point out that reference implementations tend to less optimised for code clarity etc.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Too little too late
by tanishaj on Thu 24th Mar 2011 02:22 in reply to "RE[2]: Too little too late"
tanishaj Member since:
2010-12-22


It's hard facts...
WebM is inferior in most ways and it arrived too late.


Regardless of which format you favour, "too late" seems like a stretch. WebM arrived before the H264 royalty collectors caused widespread damage. It also arrived before the HTML5 video tag has gone mainstream. I would say that is not too late.

While there is no doubt that H264 is currently the superior format, I think it is an open question if it is enough better to offset it's disadvantages. I see no reason by WebM cannot become the dominant video standard on the web.

Today, most people get their web video via Flash. The user does not care if it is H264 or WebM as long as Flash plays it. Flash supports WebM. In the future, most video will likely be served natively via HTML5.

WebM is (and will be) much better supported by desktop browsers than H264. Firefox, Chrome, and Opera all support WebM exclusively. Internet Explorer and Safari (desktop) support WebM if it is an installed video codec on the OS. Android supports WebM obviously. So, that leaves only iOS where WebM would currently be unwelcome. The fastest growing platforms all support WebM.

There are a huge number of companies implementing WebM in hardware:

http://www.webmproject.org/about/supporters/

WebM is less expensive and safer for content producers and hardware manufactures to adopt. WebM may soon have an even bigger addressable audience online than H264.

So, the question is really why H264?

Quality? WebM is the same quality as H264 baseline and getting better. IMHO, WebM is "good enough" for the mainstream Internet user. This is not enough of a reason to keep it from being used for video on the web.

Really, the only reason to use H264 is because Microsoft or Apple have made it impractical/impossible to choose and they have chosen for you. That may be a difficult line for them to hold. Microsoft is already giving ground and smartphones have short lifetimes.

If WebM takes the web, it has a real shot at other niches. This is not MP3 vs Ogg.

Too late? We will see.

Reply Parent Score: 7