Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 25th Mar 2013 21:09 UTC
Legal Late last week, Nokia dropped what many consider to be a bomb on the WebM project: a list of patents that VP8 supposedly infringes in the form of an IETF IPR declaration. The list has made the rounds around the web, often reported as proof that VP8 infringes upon Nokia's patents. All this stuff rang a bell. Haven't we been here before? Yup, we have, with another open source codec called Opus. Qualcomm and Huawei made the same claims as Nokia did, but they turned out to be complete bogus. As it turns out, this is standard practice in the dirty business of the patent licensing industry.
Thread beginning with comment 556661
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Big picture...
by saynte on Tue 26th Mar 2013 12:26 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Big picture..."
saynte
Member since:
2007-12-10

[quote]
VP8 is not inferior in performance to h.264 except for just one factor: encoding speed. In every other respect VP8 can match or exceed h.264 performance.
[/quote]

What? Didn't you claim this months ago and couldn't provide any evidence for it?

http://www.osnews.com/thread?542644

The conclusion from most comparisons is that x264 outperforms VP8 encoders in quality/bit. So VP8 is inferior in two ways: encoding speed and quality. Maybe the quality is acceptable, but it's still inferior to what a good H.264 encoder can provide.

I'd be happy to see some direct comparison that shows otherwise, but until then maybe you can stop repeating this unfounded claim?

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[4]: Big picture...
by henderson101 on Tue 26th Mar 2013 15:12 in reply to "RE[3]: Big picture..."
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

Ouch! Nicely played!

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Big picture...
by lemur2 on Wed 27th Mar 2013 05:16 in reply to "RE[3]: Big picture..."
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

The conclusion from most comparisons is that x264 outperforms VP8 encoders in quality/bit. So VP8 is inferior in two ways: encoding speed and quality. Maybe the quality is acceptable, but it's still inferior to what a good H.264 encoder can provide.


Your recollection is utterly inaccurate. The conclusion was that, for video on the web resolution and bitrates, if you are prepared to put up with a slower encoding speed, then for a given number of bits you absolutely can make at least as good if not better encoded video with webm as you can with h.264.

You have to go to extreme high resolution/bitrate/quality profiles before there is any noticeable advantage (other than encoding time) for h.264 that webm cannot match reasonably closely. Such videos simply aren't used over the web.

Edited 2013-03-27 05:22 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: Big picture...
by saynte on Wed 27th Mar 2013 06:57 in reply to "RE[4]: Big picture..."
saynte Member since:
2007-12-10


Your recollection is utterly inaccurate. The conclusion was that, for video on the web resolution and bitrates, if you are prepared to put up with a slower encoding speed, then for a given number of bits you absolutely can make at least as good if not better encoded video with webm as you can with h.264.

You have to go to extreme high resolution/bitrate/quality profiles before there is any noticeable advantage (other than encoding time) for h.264 that webm cannot match reasonably closely. Such videos simply aren't used over the web.


Then see for example on page 27 (the same page I pointed out in the old thread) how x264 constantly out performs VP8 at ANY BITRATE. How can you still say that VP8 is better than x264? Do you have evidence?

Reply Parent Score: 3