4 ms·

Theora is not as good as h264... but neither is VP8 (granted, VP8 is closer to h264, but it's still inferior). I didn't know that Adobe had an option on VP7, b

Theora is not as good as h264... but neither is VP8 (granted, VP8 is closer to h264, but it's still inferior). I didn't know that Adobe had an option on VP7, but I'd be impressed if Adobe added VP8 support to Flash - I mean, the whole point of this exercise is to undermine Flash, and I'd be surprised if Adobe joined in except in the face of overwhelming customer demand. Yes - if Google officially supports VP8 in Chrome, Android and YouTube, that'll be a very strong argument (far stronger than Theora has had) for other content providers and user-agents to support it... but Apple/Nokia/MS and YouTube already support h264, so adding support for another, less efficient codec seems silly. Theora's "patent-free" status comes entirely from On2 saying "we give everybody the right to use all our IP involved in VP3". Presumably On2 had the same due-diligence issues when it was licensing VP3 to others; I don't see how On2 could give VP8 a stronger "patent-free" declaration than Theora already has, unless (as other people have suggested) Google has bankrolled an exhaustive search for applicable patents. I don't really mind whether VP8 or Theora winds up being the dominant format on the web, I'm just skeptical that VP8 is all that different when it comes to the pain-points that have prevented people from adopting Theora.

nailer 17y ago
Really? On2's main claim to fame for VP3, which they have backed up by a lot of videos on the web, is that it's specifically better than H.264. Eg: http://www.digital-digest.com/news-61385-On2-Video-Codec-VS-H264.html http://www.digital-digest.com/news-61385-On2-Video-Codec-VS-...
- nailer 17y ago
  >Really? On2's main claim to fame for VP3, Oops, that should read: On2's main claim to fame for VP8
- thristian 17y ago
  In the last Theora/H.264 thread on HN, I recall somebody saying that VP8 was better than H.264... when VP8 was new, and H.264 encoders were still largely experimental. Nowdays, things like x264 and commercial codecs shipped with QuickTime are better than VP8. There's an interesting post about the problems with VP8 posted by an x264 developer here: http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/?p=292 http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/?p=292
  - ZeroGravitas 17y ago
    Actually that author/developer usually specifically calls out Apple's Quicktime as a very poor H.264 implementation, so if he says VP8 will be nearly as good as the second best H.264 implementation then he's saying that it will be much better than Apple's. That probably applies to Adobe's encoder and in fact the vast majority of commercial H.264 encoders. Considering he's an x264 developer that article is very positive about the quality of the VP codecs. The stuff he's down on e.g. it being proprietary, licence fees, patents, big name corporate approval, mobile support, buggy encoder are all stuff people expect Google to fix quite easily (well apart from patents).

nailer 17y ago

Really? On2's main claim to fame for VP3, which they have backed up by a lot of videos on the web, is that it's specifically better than H.264. Eg: http://www.digital-digest.com/news-61385-On2-Video-Codec-VS-H264.html http://www.digital-digest.com/news-61385-On2-Video-Codec-VS-...

nailer 17y ago
>Really? On2's main claim to fame for VP3, Oops, that should read: On2's main claim to fame for VP8
thristian 17y ago
In the last Theora/H.264 thread on HN, I recall somebody saying that VP8 was better than H.264... when VP8 was new, and H.264 encoders were still largely experimental. Nowdays, things like x264 and commercial codecs shipped with QuickTime are better than VP8. There's an interesting post about the problems with VP8 posted by an x264 developer here: http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/?p=292 http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/?p=292
- ZeroGravitas 17y ago
  Actually that author/developer usually specifically calls out Apple's Quicktime as a very poor H.264 implementation, so if he says VP8 will be nearly as good as the second best H.264 implementation then he's saying that it will be much better than Apple's. That probably applies to Adobe's encoder and in fact the vast majority of commercial H.264 encoders. Considering he's an x264 developer that article is very positive about the quality of the VP codecs. The stuff he's down on e.g. it being proprietary, licence fees, patents, big name corporate approval, mobile support, buggy encoder are all stuff people expect Google to fix quite easily (well apart from patents).