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 556717
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Big picture...
by lucas_maximus on Tue 26th Mar 2013 15:50 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Big picture..."
lucas_maximus
Member since:
2009-08-18

Sorry, but there is nothing obvious about that. You cannot pick one edge comparison and make such a broad generalization.


Firstly it is pretty important seeing that Google Talk is probably using it that it uses twice as much bandwidth.

In any case Okay, how about this one?

http://www.osnews.com/thread?556675

Again, I am not saying VP8 is better than h.264. I will say that for resolutions and bitrates routinely used for web based video distribution (720p and 480p, 500-1200kpbs) it is definitely close enough in most measurable metrics that most people would not notice the difference.


Except it doesn't look at the above link.

Besides, frankly I think arguments on the technical merits of VP8 are wasted breathe (for or against). No one uses VP8 because it is technically superior - they use it because it is open and royalty free.


Well that might not be the case, we don't know yet.

The fact that it is actually comparable to h.264 when used for its target use case (web video) is just icing on the cake.


Except it isn't.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[6]: Big picture...
by galvanash on Tue 26th Mar 2013 16:47 in reply to "RE[5]: Big picture..."
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

Firstly it is pretty important seeing that Google Talk is probably using it that it uses twice as much bandwidth.


Goog Talk uses h.264...

https://developers.google.com/talk/call_signaling

So I don't think your point here has any merit at all.

In any case Okay, how about this one?

http://www.osnews.com/thread?556675


Did you read what I said...? That comparison is purely about subjective quality:

The situation could be different if H.264 didn't have such a top-notch encoder as x264 or if we were only comparing to H.264 Baseline, but this comparison is about maximum[1] quality obtainable with each format (using the best encoders available).


and the target encode is:

"Best quality" 2-pass 13600 kbps encode at 1080p50.


No one streams 1080p50 on the internet at 13600 (!!!) khps - that is better than most commercial bluerays are mastered at. All I said is within the parameters I specified it is close enough to h.264 in quality that most people wouldn't notice. I never said (and do not think) it is technically better, and it is definitely slower. But for the common use case it is targeted at it is pretty damn good.

Clue: The reason you won't find many good comparisons between webm and h.264 at commonly used resoltuions and bitrates is because the result is very boring and neither side of the argument can use them as ammo...

Edited 2013-03-26 16:50 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[7]: Big picture...
by lucas_maximus on Tue 26th Mar 2013 18:15 in reply to "RE[6]: Big picture..."
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Actually it proves then that VP8 is still a bit crap for video conferencing.

H264 is better, whatever way you shake it whether it is perceivable or not. Most of the web is already using it.

Edited 2013-03-26 18:17 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4