4 ms·
> The only operative difference between the two codecs is that WebM is free. by moving many features of the codec into postprocessing, the video format becomes
by noibl 16y ago
> The only operative difference between the two codecs is that WebM is free.
by moving many features of the codec into postprocessing, the video format becomes scalable; a decoder can do “less work” while still playing back the file, albeit at a lower quality. -- http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/archives/292 http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/archives/292
I have naively taken that to mean that the trade-off of resolution for battery life can be handled in the decoder; that fewer encodings need to be stored on the server to target the same wide range of devices, vs. h264.
I would love to know whether this is true, and what other practical differences there are between the two codecs from the POV of content producers.
edit: VP8 ... Technically, it produces output on par with H.264 High Profile, while maintaining a low decoding complexity on par with H.264 Baseline. -- http://diveintohtml5.org/video.html#vp8 http://diveintohtml5.org/video.html#vp8
- wmf 16y agoI have naively taken that to mean that the trade-off of resolution for battery life can be handled in the decoder; that fewer encodings need to be stored on the server No. The reason YouTube encodes different versions is mostly for bandwidth, not battery life. Postprocessing doesn't do anything about bandwidth; a 1 Mbps stream is 1 Mbps.
- noibl 16y ago> The reason YouTube encodes different versions is mostly for bandwidth No. For example, to support iPhone prior to v4, they have to encode using the Baseline profile because that's all those devices support. The less complex h264 profiles are designed for CPU-limited devices, not just bandwidth savings -- indeed the most obvious way to save bandwidth is to use the CPU more.