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 557112
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Big picture...
by pgeorgi on Fri 29th Mar 2013 15:35 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Big picture..."
pgeorgi
Member since:
2010-02-18

Fair enough, did a bit more googling and the file sizes differences are negligible now.

However performance wise ...

https://gist.github.com/Hupotronic/4645784


That test compares "best vs best".

The main issue is that for h.264, the mandantory-to-implement variant in WebRTC would be "baseline". Higher h.264 formats are incompatible with baseline decoders (though you might not find baseline-only decoders in the field anymore, once people paid royalties).

The "higher" VP8 settings are more computationally expensive on the encoder side, but produce a bitstream that remains compatible with all VP8 decoders (there are no decoder profiles).

If universal compatibility is a goal (as should be on the web), an ideal h.264 baseline encoding should be used.

Reply Parent Score: 2