H.264 and VP8 Compared 337
TheReal_sabret00the writes with a snippet from StreamingMedia.com: "VP8 is now free, but if the quality is substandard, who cares? Well, it turns out that the quality isn't substandard, so that's not an issue, but neither is it twice the quality of H.264 at half the bandwidth. See for yourself."
Re:Bunk test (Score:5, Informative)
Once again someone is comparing a codec to H264 using some small as hell resolution.
Welcome to 2010, if it's not encoded at 1080p nobody cares.
On a cell phone, that's not true.
Comment removed (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Bunk test (Score:2, Informative)
Welcome to the United States. We still have shitty internet access.
Re:Bunk test (Score:4, Informative)
And there are a few hundred million cell phones out there that support H.264 but not VP8, so good luck taking over that market any time soon.
VP8 will need to prove itself on the desktop where software decoders are possible before it's going to get any traction in embedded devices...
Re:For the patent FUDsters sure to follow.... (Score:5, Informative)
In most of the civilized world there's no such thing as software patents
Yeah, most of the civilized world except the US, EU, UK, Japan, South Korea, and others...
And there is no point in pretending software is not patentable in the EU - precedent has LONG been established that software solving a "technical" problem as opposed to a "business process" is patentable. Video and audio codecs are already among those issued. (a big part of that is that codecs are not necessarily "software" patents, in that they are fairly straightforward algorithms that can be implemented in "hardware"/firmware/etc as well as software).
Feel free to count the number of countries in this list, but I think it's over 25... http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/avc/Documents/avc-att1.pdf [mpegla.com]
Re:Bunk test (Score:3, Informative)
How about a 720p or 1080p test with a large group of birds flying over a body of water, reflection visible.
You seem to be lost.
Let me help you with a link: http://emoforum.org/ [emoforum.org] (disclaimer to general /. population: this was the first result from googling, don't blame me if opening it will kick you out of your job)
Re:For the patent FUDsters sure to follow.... (Score:4, Informative)
Neither of these allow software patents (despite what the European Patent Office might tell you). Germany does unfornatually but they're not the EU in the same way the UK isn't.
Re:Bunk test (Score:4, Informative)
By the time you get up to bitrate/resolutions combination that matter (ie *are* HD, rather than just HD pixel count), the difference in all codecs are much smaller.
I call shenanigans! (Score:4, Informative)
None of the comparisons are of exactly the same frame. 3 of the 6 images have different times in the corner.
I suspect the writer selected frames so H.264 won, but gave VP8 one win at the end to not seem biased.
Also his 'standard SD encoding test file that I've been using for years' would also be a source of suspicion. It is possible that his source file is already in a format that encodes better into H.264 than it does into VP8. And has already been mentioned here the resolution of the source is quite low for todays HD broadband world...
He used Sorenson Media to encode the files. In all probability they may be just better at setting some of the encoding parameters in the codec they have had longer...
And that was just a quick look. There are possibly other flaws that I haven't noticed yet.
Re:For the patent FUDsters sure to follow.... (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah, most of the civilized world except the US, EU, UK, Japan, South Korea, and others...
Wait, we have software patents in the UK? The last I heard on the matter was an official government statement saying that they were harmful to innovation and would not be introduced. Admittedly we've had a new government since then, but they've only been in power for a couple of weeks, and I'm sure I'd notice if they'd done something like this...
Re:For the patent FUDsters sure to follow.... (Score:2, Informative)
No, but you have other patents, codecs etc, which where introduced for cameras and other physical objects. For instance the only patent in this pool that is valid in Norway are Mitsubishis very general patent (NO 310850) about coding video with a delta from one picture to the next in "encoding equipments"
Re:For the patent FUDsters sure to follow.... (Score:3, Informative)
So you are in no way more protected by using the restricted H.264 license than you are by using the open VP8 license in the US. In most of the civilized world there's no such thing as software patents, so the only issue is which one of these is technically best
Have you looked at the H.264 patent list? It includes patents from most tech countries in the civilized world.
Re:For the patent FUDsters sure to follow.... (Score:3, Informative)
Um what part of the obvious here did you miss? The MPEG LA is forming a patent pool because there's tons of other companies who think they have a patent claim against VP8. There's absolutely nothing Google can do about that or grant you any form of license for or immunity against. That's how patents work, doesn't matter if Google can prove it's independently developed by On2 because it's still infringing. When even the x264 developers comment that it's very similar to H.264 you can bet that some of the 1000+ patents on H.264 apply.
GIF screenshots are useless! (Score:5, Informative)
Who in their right mind would compare codec quality by encoding screenshots in a lossy image format??? To add insult to injury, the GIF image files in the article have a .jpg extension.
This article, and the person who wrote it, are worse than useless.
Re:For the patent FUDsters sure to follow.... (Score:3, Informative)
Really? No technological or scientific development at all save for the government? Heh- I guess the following are figments of our collecitve imagination then:
The Steam Engine [wikipedia.org]
Archimedes' Screw [wikipedia.org]
Stirling Engine [wikipedia.org]
Fresnel Lens [wikipedia.org]
The humble, lowly screw [wikipedia.org]
The submarine [scienceandsociety.co.uk]
The diving suit [www.bl.uk]
These are just a mere smattering of the vast number of things that were developed with nothing along the lines of what you speak of- there's tons more where that came from. In the end, the remark that we'd have no development at all has not been proven out- and there's very, very strong evidence to the contrary all throughout our history. Patents were conceived to encourage the process in question to hopefully speed up the rate of invention to our benefit.
Patents, the way we're seeing them used and implemented do nothing of the sort and really don't do what YOU claim of them either. They're being more of a HINDRANCE on things and don't really protect R&D unless you're someone like IBM. A Patent is only worth the amount you're able to litigate it for- no more and no less.
Re:In the US we have an inflated estimate of US (Score:5, Informative)
Your analysis of my post belongs in left field. I never stated any of the straw man assertions you raised.
I never stated our current system might not fail. I never stated that the current western system is the best humanity will discover.
Frankly, I don't even understand how you could glean that from reading my post. Please read the initial post that I was responding to, then read my post and understand it was in response to that.
Afterwards, perhaps a cold martini and some reflection, and you'll understand my points (and cease making up things which I did not say or imply, so that you can refute them).