4 ms·

To get clarity of thought on the debate, go back and read http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/archives/377 http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/archives/377 Everybody seems t

by seiji 16y ago

To get clarity of thought on the debate, go back and read http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/archives/377 http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/archives/377 Everybody seems to be crying "but hardware support is coming soon!" without seeing it's difficult: "The unfortunate problem with this is that it’s a nightmare for hardware implementations, greatly increasing memory bandwidth requirements." It comes down to WebM/VP8 being inferior (in specification and implementation) to an existing widely deployed (in bits and gates) codec. Feel free to argue the fallacies of the osnews questions if your time is worth nothing.

antimatter15 16y ago
Does anyone else feel it's weird that there's only one blog that everyone happens to link to whenever something related to vp8 springs up? It's been half a year, you would think there are independently arrived analyses by now. Most people could probably agree that taking everything that John Gruber says as the truth without any other sources is a bad idea, but that's exactly the landscape of evidence presented for/against vp8. Thankfully, Dark Shikari's writeup is great, but there really needs to be more evidence.
- jarek 16y ago
  It is weird, in that I'd have expected the MPEG LA to produce or cause to be produced more FUD against VP8 by now.
- seiji 16y ago
  It's strange everybody points to the same source, but it's not unusual there is only one source. Break it down: How many codec developers do you know? How many of those people do open source implementation comparisons? How many of those write it up? How many of those write it up intelligently for public consumption?
  - jwr 16y ago
    Also, there are probably many people (myself included) who are familiar with implementation details of video codecs, but after reading Jason's articles decide that he basically said everything there was to be said.
- pohl 16y ago
  It's been half a year, you would think there are independently arrived analyses by now. I wouldn't think that. You can't swing a stick without hitting a run-of-the-mill CRUD application developer — and judging from the articles that come across the HN feed it looks like everybody and their dog has invented a programming language — but video codec developers don't grow on trees. Besides, 6 months isn't that long at the pace that field seems to move.
aw3c2 16y ago
There was no hardware support before H264 was widely used on the internet. Same for any other format in history. Mobile devices (which I guess you are hinting at) usually only support the Baseline profile which WebM does challenge. I don't see why there should not be hardware support everywhere in 1-2 years.
- pohl 16y ago
  Mobile devices (which I guess you are hinting at) usually only support the Baseline profile Is that true for smartphones? I know that the iPhone 4, iPod Touch, and iPad (at least) support "H.264 video up to 720p, 30 frames per second, Main Profile level 3.1" I don't know about Android devices.

by seiji 16y ago

antimatter15 16y ago

Does anyone else feel it's weird that there's only one blog that everyone happens to link to whenever something related to vp8 springs up? It's been half a year, you would think there are independently arrived analyses by now. Most people could probably agree that taking everything that John Gruber says as the truth without any other sources is a bad idea, but that's exactly the landscape of evidence presented for/against vp8. Thankfully, Dark Shikari's writeup is great, but there really needs to be more evidence.

jarek 16y ago
It is weird, in that I'd have expected the MPEG LA to produce or cause to be produced more FUD against VP8 by now.
seiji 16y ago
It's strange everybody points to the same source, but it's not unusual there is only one source. Break it down: How many codec developers do you know? How many of those people do open source implementation comparisons? How many of those write it up? How many of those write it up intelligently for public consumption?
- jwr 16y ago
  Also, there are probably many people (myself included) who are familiar with implementation details of video codecs, but after reading Jason's articles decide that he basically said everything there was to be said.
pohl 16y ago
It's been half a year, you would think there are independently arrived analyses by now. I wouldn't think that. You can't swing a stick without hitting a run-of-the-mill CRUD application developer — and judging from the articles that come across the HN feed it looks like everybody and their dog has invented a programming language — but video codec developers don't grow on trees. Besides, 6 months isn't that long at the pace that field seems to move.

aw3c2 16y ago

There was no hardware support before H264 was widely used on the internet. Same for any other format in history. Mobile devices (which I guess you are hinting at) usually only support the Baseline profile which WebM does challenge. I don't see why there should not be hardware support everywhere in 1-2 years.

pohl 16y ago
Mobile devices (which I guess you are hinting at) usually only support the Baseline profile Is that true for smartphones? I know that the iPhone 4, iPod Touch, and iPad (at least) support "H.264 video up to 720p, 30 frames per second, Main Profile level 3.1" I don't know about Android devices.