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 467601
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Too little too late
by lemur2 on Thu 24th Mar 2011 00:45 UTC 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

RE[5]: Too little too late
by _xmv on Thu 24th Mar 2011 10:29 in reply to "RE[4]: Too little too late"
_xmv Member since:
2008-12-09


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.

you're quite naive, there's more to it than software patents ;-)

Here are non-US countries with granted patents, i'm kind of expecting you are living in one of those:

Europe: Germany, France, UK, Finland, Italy, Sweden, Belgium, Bulgaria, Liechtenstein, Austria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Spain, Hungary, Ireland, The Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Portugal, Slovenia
Asia: Japan, China, South Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, India
Americas: Canada, Mexico
Australia

Source: http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/PatentList.aspx

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[5]: Too little too late
by MissTJones on Thu 24th Mar 2011 14:39 in reply to "RE[4]: Too little too late"
MissTJones Member since:
2010-03-25

Do you have any links for that claim about performance?.

I've been attempting to gauge whether WebM/Youtube/HTML5 runs better than H.264/Youtube/Flash on my Ubuntu netbook.

Like most netbooks it doesn't have any hardware decoding support for either codec and Flash generally seems to lag behind on Linux. So while the number of people with linux netbooks might be small, this could be a good small niche for WebM to conquer first and give people a straightforward performance increase to encourage them to start testing it out.

It certainly seems to be getting better, but I'm wary of jumping to conclusions as there's lots of different elements to consider (e.g. Firefox vs. Chrome, GL acceleration on intel, full screen vs. non-fullscreen, different sizes of video, both bitrate and resolution, the quality of Adobe's software decoder vs ffmpeg), so I'd love to see some serious benchmarks if anyone has done them.

Edited 2011-03-24 14:41 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

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[5]: Too little too late
by lemur2 on Thu 24th Mar 2011 03:54 in reply to "RE[4]: Too little too late"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

So long as you are offering the h264 video for free there are no license fees


I believe that even if you let people look at your video for free, if it is a commercial video (e.g. advertising) then you must pay a license if you use h264.

Ergo, videos such as those I linked to:
http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/4.0/whatsnew/
which can be thought of as advertising, are thus cheaper to encode as WebM, since you face no risk of being sued for hosting them.

Mozilla face no such legal risk for the perfectly fine quality WebM videos they are showing to advertise Firefox 4 on their "Whats New" blog page.

All it took to avoid any risks was for Mozilla to take just a couple of extra minutes to encode the videos in WebM. That is an absolute pittance cost compared with the cost of making the videos in the first place, or the cost to Mozilla blog of getting a license for h264, or defending a lawsuit for not having such a license.

Edited 2011-03-24 04:08 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: Too little too late
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 24th Mar 2011 09:18 in reply to "RE[4]: Too little too late"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

So long as you are offering the h264 video for free there are no license fees


You wish.

Only 'non-commercial web video' is free. What, exactly, 'non-commercial' means is a mystery to everyone - which is exactly what the MPG-LA wants. At OSNews, we have ads. As such, when we upload a video using HTML5, are we non-commercial or commercial? We're not going to take the risk.

Using YouTube embeds is fine, since the burden is then on YouTube. However, with HTML5 video, WE are the video provide - not YouTube or Vimeo. As such, the rules suddenly apply to us, and the rules state that we need to pay up.

We're not going to.

Reply Parent Score: 5

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[5]: Too little too late
by lemur2 on Thu 24th Mar 2011 22:17 in reply to "RE[4]: Too little too late"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

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

Agreed. People in a commercial position should objectively weigh up how much one minute per video will cost them compared to the cost per year of buying a license from MPEG LA for their commercial use of h264, and the cost per year to whoever is going to host the video, and the cost of being on the wrong side of the best interests of the end users.

I can't in my wildest dreams image any balance sheet where h264 comes out better than WebM.

Reply Parent Score: 5