You are claiming the paper's authors lied about their numbers and "show absolutely no interest in correcting even the obvious errors." Have you actually contact

You are claiming the paper's authors lied about their numbers and "show absolutely no interest in correcting even the obvious errors." Have you actually contacted them to be sure you didn't make a mistake? If so, what did they say? I find it hard to believe that they would respond to an accusation of fudging their numbers by saying they don't care. I've been on IRC with them since I made that post. I have changed that part in the post though -- as even though they appear to have shown no interest, I have received information from an off-the-record source that they are actually looking into it. This is a conflict of interest that is relevant to your opinion about other video formats. We're developing xvp8 too, which we will also license. Personally, I don't care who wins, as long as the encoders are good. xvp8 has the bonus benefit that MPEG-LA doesn't demand license fees on it, so we can aim it at some markets we wouldn't otherwise be able to target. Now, yes, this does create an incentive for me to want to dislike libvpx, as they are now a competitor. You also have a history of making unfounded accusations. Is filing for a patent that covers existing open source software suddenly "not bad"? The accusation seems pretty founded to me! The only reason I retracted any of it was because people SENT DEATH THREATS to the programmer whose name was on the patent. Those are some pretty serious accusations without a whole lot of evidence or specifics to back them up. Specifics: Video tested: Deadline CIF Bitrate: 700kbps libvpx version: latest git x264 version: latest git PSNR achieved by x264 with their settings: 44.507db (roughly matches the graph). PSNR achieved by libvpx with the settings they referred to: 43.625db (definitely doesn't match the graph) There are a few possibilities here: 1) libvpx has gotten about ~0.8db worse since they did the test, since I don't have the revision number. Unlikely. 2) The settings they referred to aren't the actual settings they used. Highly likely -- but even enabling the ARNR options, as they mentioned on IRC, only brought libvpx up to about 44.0db. 3) They tweaked the settings specifically for the test. Possible, and not quite as bad as literally making up numbers, but still cheating. 4) They made up the numbers. But even if I was completely wrong on this, cherry-picking results in such an extreme way is something you do in fluff marketing pieces, not in an academic paper. The entire paper, from top to bottom, reads like marketing: it doesn't mention a single downside of any of their features.