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 556936
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[16]: Big picture...
by lemur2 on Thu 28th Mar 2013 14:05 UTC in reply to "RE[15]: Big picture..."
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

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

RE[17]: Big picture...
by saynte on Thu 28th Mar 2013 17:03 in reply to "RE[16]: Big picture..."
saynte Member since:
2007-12-10

I'm not sure where you're getting your 1/3 number, can you provide data for that?


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.


Ok, you pick the highest profile from each of VP8 and x264 and you find x264 gives you better quality: how do you now make up for the quality difference?

Edited 2013-03-28 17:12 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[18]: Big picture...
by lemur2 on Fri 29th Mar 2013 05:50 in reply to "RE[17]: Big picture..."
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

I'm not sure where you're getting your 1/3 number, can you provide data for that?

"
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.


Ok, you pick the highest profile from each of VP8 and x264 and you find x264 gives you better quality: how do you now make up for the quality difference?
"

Several times I said that this applied "to the quality of video as used over the web". This is more or less "default profile", as very little web video is encoded at high profiles. When you are looking at a video of a newscaster on some web news page, or looking at standard resolutions on youtube, you are simply not looking at the highest profile.

When you are constrained to use only one profile for each codec (even though profiles are not equivalent), then one can always find some cases where VP8 cannot match h.264. Then again, for another profile and another use case, the reverse can also apply ... one cannot get h.264 to match VP8 in some profiles.

So??

Reply Parent Score: 2