3 ms·
It will be interesting to see if there's a noticeable quality difference. Right now WebM is not comprable to H.264 except the baseline codec. Its openness allo
by mikeryan 16y ago
It will be interesting to see if there's a noticeable quality difference. Right now WebM is not comprable to H.264 except the baseline codec.
Its openness allows anyone to improve the format and its integrations, resulting in a better experience for you in the long-term - This line doesn't jive at all with my understanding of the VP8 codec. I thought implementations were left to devs, but the format was locked and didn't have room to be improved on? Either way the whole spec seems to be built around avoiding H.264 patent suite and "improving" on it is a minefield.
- magicalist 16y ago"Right now WebM is not comparable to H.264 except the baseline codec." It's comparable in the sense that AAC and MP3 are comparable. VP8 can look excellent, it's just that high profile h264 can look better at the same bitrate. It's also extremely likely that youtube uses h264 baseline profile anyway, since they serve to mobile devices (unless they secretly transcode and store multiple h264 versions for every video).
- vetinari 16y agoYoutube encodes and stores videos in several resolutions, for example their 720p h.264 encodes are high@3.1.
- mikeryan 16y agostore multiple h264 versions for every video Pretty much every video content provider I know does this. I work primarily on OTT Boxes (Roku, Boxee) and Connected TVs and all of those platforms support bitrate selection of video assets based on a speed tests. I'd assume most platforms doing progressive download of video over HTTP does the same.
- Scaevolus 16y agoFrom comments DarkShikari gave (http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/archives/377 http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/archives/377), it looks like the format was frozen as soon as they released it, so that talk of "improving the format" is rather dubious.