Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 21st Apr 2011 22:24 UTC
Multimedia, AV "VP8 is an open source video compression format supported by a consortium of technology companies. This paper provides a technical overview of the format, with an emphasis on its unique features. The paper also discusses how these features benefit VP8 in achieving high compression efficiency and low decoding complexity at the same time."
Thread beginning with comment 470803
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Ouch, very technical read
by kaiwai on Fri 22nd Apr 2011 00:38 UTC in reply to "Ouch, very technical read"
Member since:

Got off of it at the 3rd page ;)

True but the nutshell was pretty much the weighing up of complexity versus other considerations. You can have an incredibly efficient compression but if it so complex that it requires an incredibly powerful CPU any of the efficiencies are off set by increased CPU utilisation. It reminds me very much back in the old days of hard disk based MP3 players and the weighing up of high bit rate music, the disk rotating for longer periods and higher battery use.

Reply Parent Score: 3

JAlexoid Member since:

I found that VP8 at playback is less power hungry than H.264. Holds true on Windows, Linux, Atom N270, Athlon X2, Pentium M and C2D. By a considerable margin.

Reply Parent Score: 7

1c3d0g Member since:

That was the idea from the beginning. Which means, if you were watching a VP8-encoded video instead of x264, you *should* be able to get longer battery life out of your notebook, which we all know is critically important for some people.

Reply Parent Score: 3

bassbeast Member since:

Only if you are dumpster diving my friend, as anything built in the last 5 years will have onboard H.264 acceleration which will drop the hardware usage to practically nothing. I don't know how it is on Linux (and considering the mess with "free as in freedom!" zealotry I wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't work) but on Windows DXVA takes care of it in both Nvidia and ATI chips, and I have seen some truly weak systems play 1080p with a crappy $20 GPU card added.

The problem with WebM is it does nothing substantially better and a whole lot worse. it IS patent encumbered (Take one look at the 2000+ H.264 patents and tell me how to make ANY codec that can avoid all 2000) and Google will NOT indemnify so you are hanging in the breeze, it sucks MORE CPU than H.264 for LESS picture quality at anything less than 1080p, which is the vast majority of web videos. Oh and Google like Oracle and Sun are the final say on what is allowed, no "free as in freedom" there.

So in the end the split being rammed home by Google over WebM VS H.264 will leave one winner, and that is Adobe Flash. Flash will play everywhere except on iDevices which will be H.264 (and Adobe is already coming up with a wrapper) and if you think Jobs will EVER let WebM play on iDevices natively I have a bridge to sell you.

Nope, sadly like Theora and Vorbis before it WebM will be a teeny tiny niche, with my prediction that Google will go strictly Flash or H.264 within 2 years. if they do as they've been claiming and switch to solely WebM, when so many can't play it natively or have the codec? Well I predict it'll be a fine time to invest in one of Youtube's competitors as there is nothing there that can't be replicated. Instead of being a day late with a worse format FOSS needs to get ahead of the curve and start patenting 3D video and ultraHD NOW, instead of trying to play a game of catch up years after the boat sailed. If "free as in freedom" was all it would take to sell you'd have Theora and Vorbis players everywhere.

Reply Parent Score: 1