Putting x264 developer's technical analysis of WebM into perspective
1–10 of 28 posts
Re: Putting x264 developer's technical analysis of WebM into perspective
#2From the entry on opera.com:
"The x264 developer's analysis is certainly interesting, but I don't think it is the final word on "WebM vs. H.264". Not only is WebM doing well compared to the H.264 baseline profile, which is what's relevant to HTML5 video, but I think WebM will continue to improve both quality-wise and performance-wise."
From the x264 developer's article:
"Update: it seems that Google is not open to changing the spec: it is apparently “final”, complete with all its flaws."
Mhm.
Re: Putting x264 developer's technical analysis of WebM into perspective
#3I doubt that anything is really final in google's hands. just look at how fast android is changing and evolving. Google will do what it needs to do to reach their goals, even if it means that they need to break backward compatibility. This is a company with so much resources it can probably design its own reference hardware implementation of vp8 at whatever stage of its evolution, regardless of backwards compatibility - and also persuade chip makers like TI and Qualcolm to include it in their product line at a moment's notice ie within 4 months or so. In this respect, I think the "finality" is overrated - the reviewer / x264 developer is thinking too small.
Re: Putting x264 developer's technical analysis of WebM into perspective
#4From the entry on opera.com: "The x264 developer's analysis is certainly interesting, but I don't think it is the final word on "WebM vs. H.264". Not only is WebM doing well compared to the H.264 baseline profile, which is what's relevant to HTML5 video, but I think WebM will continue to improve both quality-wise and performance-wise. " From the x264 developer's article: "Update: it seems that Google is not open to c…
It is possible to make improvements without changing the spec.
Re: Putting x264 developer's technical analysis of WebM into perspective
#5From the entry on opera.com: "The x264 developer's analysis is certainly interesting, but I don't think it is the final word on "WebM vs. H.264". Not only is WebM doing well compared to the H.264 baseline profile, which is what's relevant to HTML5 video, but I think WebM will continue to improve both quality-wise and performance-wise. " From the x264 developer's article: "Update: it seems that Google is not open to c…
That update was there yesterday. I think that might be the "claims to the contrary" that this post is referring to.
Re: Putting x264 developer's technical analysis of WebM into perspective
#6From the entry on opera.com: "The x264 developer's analysis is certainly interesting, but I don't think it is the final word on "WebM vs. H.264". Not only is WebM doing well compared to the H.264 baseline profile, which is what's relevant to HTML5 video, but I think WebM will continue to improve both quality-wise and performance-wise. " From the x264 developer's article: "Update: it seems that Google is not open to c…
It is possible to make improvements without changing the spec.
Yes, within limits. And, you can of course just increase bitrate, which still doesn't really solve anything.
Re: Putting x264 developer's technical analysis of WebM into perspective
#7The technical analysis is sound -- technically, WebM is not as good as H.264. But considering it's mostly for cat videos, it doesn't really matter.
The super high quality stuff will take an extra minute or two to download, but you won't have to pay a licensing fee for it. The movie and the hardware and software that play it will be much cheaper. A compromise, yes, but not a really difficult one.
Re: Putting x264 developer's technical analysis of WebM into perspective
#8I doubt that anything is really final in google's hands. just look at how fast android is changing and evolving. Google will do what it needs to do to reach their goals, even if it means that they need to break backward compatibility. This is a company with so much resources it can probably design its own reference hardware implementation of vp8 at whatever stage of its evolution, regardless of backwards compatibilit…
the reviewer / x264 developer is thinking too small
And, there is always a bit of "uh oh, my life's work is suddenly becoming irrelevant, even though it's technically better". One thing I've learned from reading HN is that good technical solutions rarely get you much. What you need is a good product.
H.264 is a great technical solution, but a horrible product. VP8 is not as good technically, but it's exactly the product the Internet needs. Sad, but that's the reality of it.
Re: Putting x264 developer's technical analysis of WebM into perspective
#9The technical analysis is sound -- technically, WebM is not as good as H.264. But considering it's mostly for cat videos, it doesn't really matter. The super high quality stuff will take an extra minute or two to download, but you won't have to pay a licensing fee for it. The movie and the hardware and software that play it will be much cheaper. A compromise, yes, but not a really difficult one.
The super high quality stuff will take an extra minute or two to download, but you won't have to pay a licensing fee for it.
I'm not so sure about that. Yesterday's analysis seemed to predict some questionable usage of H.264 bits in the encoder.
Re: Putting x264 developer's technical analysis of WebM into perspective
#10From the entry on opera.com: "The x264 developer's analysis is certainly interesting, but I don't think it is the final word on "WebM vs. H.264". Not only is WebM doing well compared to the H.264 baseline profile, which is what's relevant to HTML5 video, but I think WebM will continue to improve both quality-wise and performance-wise. " From the x264 developer's article: "Update: it seems that Google is not open to c…
[deleted]