3 ms·

The tests performed on Xiph.org (and all other locations bringing up the same topic) are, in plain words, downright shitty. They are not using any advanced or e

The tests performed on Xiph.org (and all other locations bringing up the same topic) are, in plain words, downright shitty. They are not using any advanced or even intermediate features for the H.264 encoder in question, and I believe they are not even using x264 (which happens to be the best H.264 encoder available), but instead one of the other "underperformers" available, and indirectly (or perhaps even deliberately) spreading the misnomer that video always looks the same at N kbps bitrate, while the truth is that the result can be higly, highly different depending on the feature set used in the video stream, as well as the feature set used to analyze frame by frame. In a test like this, it's anything but fair to use the first, simplest h.264 encoder at hand, with the weakest settings possible, and then claim that "this is what h.264 looks like", when the most substantial component in video quality is not the data format itself, but the frame analyzer software and the stream programmer (read: the encoder itself). I've dealt in video ripping and encoding since the late 90s, having experience in pretty much every mpeg-1, mpeg-2, mpeg-4 asp and mpeg-4/avc encoder available, and Theora JUST DOES NOT COME CLOSE to what x264 can create for the h.264 format. In fact, it barely beats what Xvid can produce for the older mpeg-4 asp format. So far I have not come across a single, proper, honorable comparison of h.264's capabilites compared to Theora. One of these damned days I hope I myself will be bothered enough to get my thumbs out of my ass and put the definite facts out there for people to see. add.: if anyone wonders, i have ripped and encoded video (and audio) for illegal distribution in the so-called "audio/video scene" for almost 13 years now

aw3c2 16y ago
The Xiph comparisons were made with x264 when possible. It would have been silly to use something different than Baseline profile as Theora cannot compete with H264 on an advanced "HQ" level and no-one ever seriously said so. We are talking about web videos, something where Baseline is the main target.
- hackermom 16y ago
  Just for the reference: you actually don't need to use any "high profile" features of h.264 to have x264 outperform Theora. In fact, you don't even have to max out the baseline profile features.
  - aw3c2 16y ago
    I did not say that Theora looks better or exactly as good as H264. I know how good H264 is. But for many uses the differences are marginally and do not justify using a non-free codec in my opinion. If you would make your own fair comparison (article/site), it would be much appreciated.
  - ZeroGravitas 16y ago
    Just for further reference: you don't need to use any "high profile" features of H.264 for x264 to outperform most other H.264 implementations (Adobe's, Apple's etc.) when they are using all the high profile features available to them. I find it weird to use a GPL encoder that's had a lot of optimisation work done on it, to undermine an open format where the encoder hasn't had a lot of work done on it. If the format is the key rather than the implementation, then why are so many of them mediocre?
ZeroGravitas 16y ago
The Xiph.org test linked to isn't Theora vs H.264, it's Theora vs. Youtube. It's made abundantly clear in the text that this is the case, that they were responding to a claim made by a Google employee and they successfully proved that claim to silly. People seem to get really annoyed that Xiph aren't making whatever argument they wanted made, c'est la vie.

aw3c2 16y ago

The Xiph comparisons were made with x264 when possible. It would have been silly to use something different than Baseline profile as Theora cannot compete with H264 on an advanced "HQ" level and no-one ever seriously said so. We are talking about web videos, something where Baseline is the main target.

hackermom 16y ago
Just for the reference: you actually don't need to use any "high profile" features of h.264 to have x264 outperform Theora. In fact, you don't even have to max out the baseline profile features.
- aw3c2 16y ago
  I did not say that Theora looks better or exactly as good as H264. I know how good H264 is. But for many uses the differences are marginally and do not justify using a non-free codec in my opinion. If you would make your own fair comparison (article/site), it would be much appreciated.
- ZeroGravitas 16y ago
  Just for further reference: you don't need to use any "high profile" features of H.264 for x264 to outperform most other H.264 implementations (Adobe's, Apple's etc.) when they are using all the high profile features available to them. I find it weird to use a GPL encoder that's had a lot of optimisation work done on it, to undermine an open format where the encoder hasn't had a lot of work done on it. If the format is the key rather than the implementation, then why are so many of them mediocre?

ZeroGravitas 16y ago

The Xiph.org test linked to isn't Theora vs H.264, it's Theora vs. Youtube. It's made abundantly clear in the text that this is the case, that they were responding to a claim made by a Google employee and they successfully proved that claim to silly. People seem to get really annoyed that Xiph aren't making whatever argument they wanted made, c'est la vie.