Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 30th Sep 2011 20:19 UTC
Multimedia, AV So, anyone remember WebM? A reader emailed me about a pilot study (in English!) performed by a collaboration between the NPO (the Dutch version of the BBC, basically) and TNO (the largest research institution in The Netherlands, often employed by our government) into the viability of using WebM and associated tools instead of H.264 and associated tools, including the perceived quality of VP8. The outcome of the pilot shouldn't surprise anyone - the toolchain needs work, WebM itself isn't there yet, but the future looks bright.
Thread beginning with comment 491672
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
For an In-depth read on VP8
by boxy on Mon 3rd Oct 2011 15:06 UTC
Member since:

This is still the most in-depth technically accurate article I've seen about VP8 so far: .

It's over a year old now, but it explains why VP8 isn't/wasn't ready for primetime. The following excerpt summarizes the most gaping flaw:

"The spec consists largely of C code copy-pasted from the VP8 source code — up to and including TODOs, 'optimizations', and even C-specific hacks, such as workarounds for the undefined behavior of signed right shift on negative numbers. In many places it is simply outright opaque. Copy-pasted C code is not a spec."

Reply Score: 1

RE: For an In-depth read on VP8
by Gusar on Mon 3rd Oct 2011 17:22 in reply to "For an In-depth read on VP8"
Gusar Member since:

Surely the spec has been cleaned up, corrected, and in general beefed up to look more like an actual spec by now, has it not? If not, ouch!
The technical stuff from that post is still correct though, as the bitstream format has been frozen since the beginning.

Reply Parent Score: 1