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 467620
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Too little too late
by JAlexoid on Thu 24th Mar 2011 02:51 UTC 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[6]: Too little too late
by JAlexoid on Thu 24th Mar 2011 22:02 in reply to "RE[5]: Too little too late"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

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


And I live in neither! Patent's in my country are very much explicitly forbidden. Click on my name to see where I live.
PS: Oh, and yeah. Since the my country is quite small and I personally know the PM, previous PM, head of the patent office and some important politicians(it's not that unusual in my country), I can pretty much be sure that software patents will never be legalised.

Though I am sure that hardware encoders and decoders are very much covered by patents. Software is 100% not.

Reply Parent Score: 2

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

RE[6]: Too little too late
by JAlexoid on Fri 25th Mar 2011 00:43 in reply to "RE[5]: Too little too late"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

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.


Nope... It's very much my machines. I checked Linux non accelerated.

Same video. Dancing android from YouTube (MAH01434) @ 720p. Same visual quality of video.
Athlon X2 EE @ 1GHz - 65%-85% (WebM) 80%-90% (H.264)
ThinkPad T42 - both basically killed the system. Both play with lag.
Atom N270 @ 1.6GHz GMA945 @ Windows XP - 22%-33%(WebM) 40%-50%(H.264)

In short WebM does look like least resource hungry on decode and Linux still sucks at graphics.

I mean, an Athlon X2 2.1GHz on Ubuntu being beaten by a lowly first gen Atom on Windows XP? Something is really wrong here...

Reply Parent Score: 3