6 ms·

Having done a lot of video encoding myself, I've found that H.264 offers the best quality, especially at lower bit rates. I really do hope that VP9 can offer t

• shmerl 14y ago
  No, the point is it is good enough, even if in some cases it can't be as good because it has to work around software patents. Theora indeed can't compete in comparison, but VP8 surely can.
  • afhof 14y ago
    Being good enough also depends on the context that the video will be used in. For example, I have an HTML5 video site where closer to 100% of the audience is either FF or Chrome. Both support VP8 out of the box, which means I only have to keep one copy of the video to serve to all users. If I had to target more browsers, such as Safari or IE, I would have to keep two copies of every video in order to work on all browsers (or worse, use flash as a work around). I am okay with the minor loss in quality, just for the ease of managing a lot of videos and a lot of disk space.
    • shmerl 14y ago
      Those who really lack support for WebM are mobile users who don't have dedicated hardware decoder and those who use crippled browsers like mobile Safari or mobile IE. Desktop users (at least in case of IE, not sure what's the story with Safari these days) can install needed plugins and DirectShow filters to support WebM. But the lack of dedicated hardware decoding in mobile SoCs remains a serious problem, since even when the browser supports VP8 decoding in software, it would be a degraded experience, especially power consumption wise.
  • protomyth 14y ago
    Given how cable looks compared to over the air HDTV, the coming of 4k, and satellite channels even h.264 isn't good enough. VP8 won't be and h.265 is the industries answer. I would expect trouble with the adoption of VP9 given Google's moves with Mortorola's patents.
    • shmerl 14y ago
      > I would expect trouble with the adoption of VP9 given Google's moves with Mortorola's patents. How exactly? There is no indication that Google wants to make VP9 patent encumbered, since their whole idea behind VP8 was to enable high quality open video codec for the Web and beyond. If VP9 will be their natural next step, it will be open as well. If Daala comes soon enough too - it will be another option.
      • protomyth 14y ago
        There are patents covering VP8 and I would bet VP9 also is covered.
        • shmerl 14y ago
          That's true, and Google explicitly granted their free usage, thus the codec is open in all senses of the word. I'd expect the same story with VP9. So what's your point? http://www.webmproject.org/license/bitstream/ http://www.webmproject.org/license/bitstream/ http://www.webmproject.org/license/software/ http://www.webmproject.org/license/software/ http://www.webmproject.org/license/additional/ http://www.webmproject.org/license/additional/
          • protomyth 14y ago
            Google went back on what Motorola had already pledged when they bought them. What assurance does anyone have that Google won't do the same again?
            • shmerl 14y ago
              Motorola was bought from beginning to use as a leverage tool against patent trolls like Apple and MS. What did you expect? VPx is intended to be open from beginning by Google.
              • protomyth 14y ago
• shortsightedsid 14y ago
  Video encoders have a number of tools. It really depends on what tools you have enabled. The standard itself doesn't specify how an encoder behaves. That leaves a lot of room for innovation on encoders. End of the day, the qp/bitrate ratio you get is encoder implementation dependent and not sometime that's specific to the standard. This is the part where most of the patents exist.