Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 14th Mar 2012 19:37 UTC
Internet & Networking Ever since it became clear that Google was not going to push WebM as hard as they should have, the day would come that Mozilla would be forced to abandon its ideals because the large technology companies don't care about an open, unencumbered web. No decision has been made just yet, but Mozilla is taking its first strides to adding support for the native H.264 codecs installed on users' mobile systems. See it as a thank you to Mozilla for all they've done for the web.
Thread beginning with comment 510684
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: In through the back door.
by saynte on Thu 15th Mar 2012 09:13 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: In through the back door."
saynte
Member since:
2007-12-10

You can't convince anyone that VP8 gives more quality per bit than H264 in that way. A convincing comparison would give both quantitative and qualitative points, like some of the early ones comparing PSNR and SSIM, along with screenshots of the same frame encoded.

The last known tests like this (compression.ru, as well as other sites) put H264 ahead of VP8 in most every category. You'd have to retest with the updated encoders to be sure.

Reply Parent Score: 2

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

You can't convince anyone that VP8 gives more quality per bit than H264 in that way. A convincing comparison would give both quantitative and qualitative points, like some of the early ones comparing PSNR and SSIM, along with screenshots of the same frame encoded.


Why not? You eliminate one of the variables (the quality, by selecting profiles which yield the same quality, no matter what happens to be the name of the profiles), and then you can compare the other variables, being file size and encoding speed. It turns out that WebM has slightly better quality per bit, and x264 is significantly faster, for encoding to the same quality.

The last known tests like this (compression.ru, as well as other sites) put H264 ahead of VP8 in most every category. You'd have to retest with the updated encoders to be sure.


They were done ages ago. The WebM codec has been improved very significantly in both speed and quality-per-bit in each of four releases since then.

Reply Parent Score: 2

saynte Member since:
2007-12-10


Why not? You eliminate one of the variables (the quality, by selecting profiles which yield the same quality, no matter what happens to be the name of the profiles), and then you can compare the other variables, being file size and encoding speed.


The problem with that method is that quality can be achieved in different ways: H264 has different profiles, each one can give you different quality per bit. So to determine which codec can give you the best quality per bit, just take the best profile from each. Otherwise you are comparing profiles ONLY, not codec families.

Each profile can get to the same quality, if you give it enough kbps. You can create any conclusion you want from this, just pick a terrible profile and then conclude that it needs much more kbps to achieve the same quality.

I don't consider a method that gives nearly any conclusion the experimenter wants to be good, or convincing.

Reply Parent Score: 2