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 556913
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[14]: Big picture...
by lemur2 on Thu 28th Mar 2013 09:35 UTC in reply to "RE[13]: Big picture..."
Member since:

Wrong, I didn't say it wasn't competitive, I actually said that BOTH were acceptable in a sibling thread!

What I said was that x264 tends to produce better results on objective metrics, and supplied some data to show this for a given profile setting.

How is this worse than what you did: claiming VP8 was better with zero evidence? So it's bias in the case where I provide data, but not bias where you provide none?

No, it is bias in the case where you say you did not claim h.264 was better when you did, and you also saying that I claimed VP8 was better when I did not. I said multiple times that one could get VP8 to perform as well as h.624 ... claiming "as well as" is not claiming "better".

"The actual truth is that these two codecs by objective measurements (e.g. PSNR, SSIM) have very little difference.

Define "very little"? Some of these metrics are based a logarithmic scale

"Very little difference" would be the words of some people who have performed test, and others involved in blind testing of subjective quality.

Here is a comparison on the metric you wanted, x264 "wins" at least 85% of the time (lower is better).

Using codec: Google: VP8 0.9.0-13-g6be1d93 from WebM

Version 0.9.0 was current May 18, 2010. That would have been the original version. Since then there has been The following releases:

Thursday, October 28, 2010: VP8 Codec SDK "Aylesbury" Release

Tuesday, March 8, 2011: VP8 Codec SDK "Bali" Released

Thursday, August 4, 2011: VP8 Codec SDK "Cayuga" Released

Friday, January 27, 2012: VP8 Codec SDK "Duclair" Released

Friday, May 11, 2012: VP8 Codec SDK "Eider" Released

Each release has brought improvements over the previous version. We are now quite a way ahead of the original release, and the improvements since have been substantial.

" By subjective measurements I believe that VP8 is the (slightly) preferred codec, but most people cannot really tell the difference.

You're free to believe that.

Of course I am. I have good reason to believe it too, since the original VP8 release was thought to be better (subjectively) than h.264 in 15% of cases, and it has been substantially improved five times since then.

" How is it not bias to rant and rave when someone questions your dubious (and provably false) claim that h.264 was better by every performance measure?

I didn't claim it was better by every performance measure, I just presented evidence that showed x264 was better (for the defined experiment). I don't think there was any ranting or raving involved.

I think we are simply going to have to differ there.

Edited 2013-03-28 09:41 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[15]: Big picture...
by saynte on Thu 28th Mar 2013 12:13 in reply to "RE[14]: Big picture..."
saynte Member since:

This whole thing started because you stated:

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.

Then I showed some relevant data where x264 outperformed VP8.

I'll state why I feel x264 has a higher maximum quality/bit than VP8 (Google's encoder)

- the comparison of x264-baseline and VP8 for WebRTC uses the baseline profile, which was written about 10 years ago. They also didn't ask x264 to optimize for PSNR (what they measured), slanting the results away from x264. The test was done by a Googler (apparently) and the methodology ripped apart on the x264 mailing list

- the study done at MSU which puts x264 above VP8 on SSIM at least on the high profile setting (I think it does well/better on the others as well, would have to check).

- the study from TUB which also puts x264 above VP8 on VQM, although it is from the initial public release of VP8 (which still had some years of development within On2).

- using recent versions of both encoders, this screenshot comparison, single screenshots such for comparison, but c'est la vie.

- another comparison on various video clips measure PSNR and SSIM

- the opinion of an expert on the topic, the author behind x264 and also a vp8 encoder

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[16]: Big picture...
by lemur2 on Thu 28th Mar 2013 14:05 in reply to "RE[15]: Big picture..."
lemur2 Member since:

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.

The above statement is true.

If you encode two video to a certain filesize & resolution with "standard" or "nominal" options, then a h.264 video will in about one third of cases be better quality than VP8 (Eclair), in a third of cases it will be the other way around (VP8 quality will exceed h.264), and in about a third of cases the video quality will be essentially the same quality. H.264 does better at the higher-bitrate end of the quality spectrum.

However, you can make up the quality difference in that one third of cases where h.264 is better by opting for a higher profile when encoding VP8.

Normally the VP8 video will take longer to encode, and in the cases where you have to use a higher-than-standard profile it will take even longer to encode the VP8 video.

Nevertheless, it is possible to do it. One can match the quality. Note the operative word can.

None of this says that VP8 is the better codec, it merely says that with some extra effort it is possible to match h.264 in those cases where h.264 ordinarily produces a better outcome.

What is wrong with any of that? Don't you speak ordinary English?

Edited 2013-03-28 14:18 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1