3 ms·

Summary: It has a crappy spec. Not better visual quality (yet? ever?): http://mirror05.x264.nl/Dark/website/compare/vp8.png http://mirror05.x264.nl/Dark/webs

by seiji 16y ago

Summary: It has a crappy spec. Not better visual quality (yet? ever?): http://mirror05.x264.nl/Dark/website/compare/vp8.png http://mirror05.x264.nl/Dark/website/compare/vp8.png http://mirror05.x264.nl/Dark/website/compare/x264.png http://mirror05.x264.nl/Dark/website/compare/x264.png

DarkShikari 16y ago
Or as a Theora dev said, it has no spec, and Google's mistake was calling this 94-page thing they released consisting of an intro textbook crossed with copy-pasted C code a "spec".
ZeroGravitas 16y ago
Is there some way to express my displeasure at the recent trend of people offering summaries of the linked content rather than their own opinions? This is one of the better examples of the species, which is partly why I'm responding to it, but often I find the summaries actively misleading, and almost invariably adding snarky content-free remarks.
- WiseWeasel 16y ago
  You could link to a relevant blog post expressing your displeasure, I suppose.
- seiji 16y ago
  My motivation was thus: I'm not a video transcoding guy. I just wanted to know a 10,000 ft overview. My summary is what I got out of a very detailed technical article (and it took me a minute to find the comparison pictures in the article, so hopefully re-posting the highlights saved others time). Another way of looking at it: People hyper-summarizing articles are like HFT for news aggregators. It makes the aggregator more efficient by cutting to what many people only want to know thereby increasing their capacity to consume even more knowledge irrelevant to their lives.
  - bruceboughton 16y ago
    How is the comparison to HFT valid?
MikeCapone 16y ago
> http://mirror05.x264.nl/Dark/website/compare/vp8.png http://mirror05.x264.nl/Dark/website/compare/vp8.png http://mirror05.x264.nl/Dark/website/compare/x264.png http://mirror05.x264.nl/Dark/website/compare/x264.png If you open both of these in separate tabs or windows and switch from one to the other, it's pretty obvious that VP8's picture isn't as detailed as X264's. By a pretty wide subjective margin, IMO. Too bad.

by seiji 16y ago

DarkShikari 16y ago

Or as a Theora dev said, it has no spec, and Google's mistake was calling this 94-page thing they released consisting of an intro textbook crossed with copy-pasted C code a "spec".

ZeroGravitas 16y ago

Is there some way to express my displeasure at the recent trend of people offering summaries of the linked content rather than their own opinions? This is one of the better examples of the species, which is partly why I'm responding to it, but often I find the summaries actively misleading, and almost invariably adding snarky content-free remarks.

WiseWeasel 16y ago
You could link to a relevant blog post expressing your displeasure, I suppose.
seiji 16y ago
My motivation was thus: I'm not a video transcoding guy. I just wanted to know a 10,000 ft overview. My summary is what I got out of a very detailed technical article (and it took me a minute to find the comparison pictures in the article, so hopefully re-posting the highlights saved others time). Another way of looking at it: People hyper-summarizing articles are like HFT for news aggregators. It makes the aggregator more efficient by cutting to what many people only want to know thereby increasing their capacity to consume even more knowledge irrelevant to their lives.
- bruceboughton 16y ago
  How is the comparison to HFT valid?

MikeCapone 16y ago

> http://mirror05.x264.nl/Dark/website/compare/vp8.png http://mirror05.x264.nl/Dark/website/compare/vp8.png http://mirror05.x264.nl/Dark/website/compare/x264.png http://mirror05.x264.nl/Dark/website/compare/x264.png If you open both of these in separate tabs or windows and switch from one to the other, it's pretty obvious that VP8's picture isn't as detailed as X264's. By a pretty wide subjective margin, IMO. Too bad.