VP8 (Webm) Vs Flash(H264)

[zerowalker]

When i read about compares about the 2, all say that H264 is the shit if you know what i mean.

I myself Love H264 with x264, it´s Amazing!

But when i watch Youtube and compare Webm with Mp4, the Webm is better by quite a bit, haven´t done a Major test, but did compare a bit on 2 videos, and it was always better in Webm.

Can anyone tell me why that is?

Is Vp8 better at youtubes settings(bitrate limit)?
Or am i just blind?

[sneaker_ger]

It comes down to the settings (incl. bitrate), but in every fair comparison you can find x264 beats the VP8 encoder effortlessly.

[zerowalker]

Can you direct me to some comparasion (Pictures or Clips)?

Cause if x264 beats it without problems why is it worse on Youtube(though they don´t use x264, it should be pretty close right)?

[Dark Shikari]

Not all of Youtube's video modes use the same bitrate or comparable settings. If you want to do a comparison, you should do it in a controlled situation, not pull random videos off the internet.

[zerowalker]

Oh, i thought they used the same on let´s say 1080p etc, (the videos were My own videos, so i had the Raw original to compare to).
But i guess they use higher settings for some reason, though the size was the same i guess they use some pretty fast h264 settings to get by?

I have wanted to do that, but i can´t get the encoder to work when i made a build.
Can you link the latest encoder, or build it for me if you have the possibility?

Thanks

[pandy]

Google promote WebM as replacement for H.264 - they explicitly refuse to support H.264 even if H.264 is better, even if it better for customer.

[smok3]

Originally Posted by zerowalker

Oh, i thought they used the same on let´s say 1080p etc, (the videos were My own videos, so i had the Raw original to compare to).
But i guess they use higher settings for some reason, though the size was the same i guess they use some pretty fast h264 settings to get by?

I have wanted to do that, but i can´t get the encoder to work when i made a build.
Can you link the latest encoder, or build it for me if you have the possibility?

Thanks

Can you change topic to "comparing youtoobe encodes" or something more appropriate (such generalization is annoying)? Thanks

[Atak_Snajpera]

Google promote WebM as replacement for H.264 - they explicitly refuse to support H.264 even if H.264 is better, even if it better for customer.

At least we will get Opus audio codec (royality free and open source) instead of AAC. Latest listening tests show that at 64kbps opus beats Apple/Fraunhofer HE-AAC ! Also turns out that Vorbis will be dead soon

[pandy]

Originally Posted by Atak_Snajpera

At least we will get Opus audio codec (royality free and open source) instead of AAC. Latest listening tests show that at 64kbps opus beats Apple/Fraunhofer HE-AAC ! Also turns out that Vorbis will be dead soon

Yes but... - new codecs are good for PC (CPU vendors) and some mobile devices but hey are bad for industry with HW decoder implementations - even if HW is primitive and specialized semi programmable DSP still it can be less efficient and some times can't be reprogrammed at all - they introduce new codecs faster than market can adopt them - this is insane.

[SeeMoreDigital]

Well... given H.262 was adopted for std-def TV broadcasts. H.264 was adopted for high-def TV broadcasts. What's the betting H.265 will be adopted for ultra high-def TV broadcasts

[Keiyakusha]

they adopted subset of the h264 standard for high-def stuff. Dunno why. Maybe because otherwise it will be too expensive to produce hardware that can decode it and they will have hard time filling all space on blurays? If that's so, by adopting h265 they'll lose more than win, money-wise. cause it will be more cpu-hungry and they will have to sell 1BD where now they sell 2. Or if they'll adopt subset again, it will be no better
EDIT: however they may adopt subset and force everyone to buy new hardware to get the same stuff (from user's point of view)... that will be no good =)

[zerowalker]

Okay but one last thing, will VP8 be able to Beat/Compare to X264 for it´s use across the internet?
Or do you think it´s a failed project?

And about X265, i read that it´s supposed to have up to 50% less files for the same quality as X264, is this true or overestimated?

Thanks

[Atak_Snajpera]

regarding vp8
dark shikari says noooo ...

regarding future x265
in theory yes ...

[zerowalker]

so vp8 is not the "shit" if i say so?

What´s the problem with it?

I mean, it´s Open Source and all, isn´t it what we have been waiting for?

[J_Darnley]

Please understand that there is a difference between a video format (H.264 and VP8) and a video encoder (x264 and libvpx). If I remember Dark Shikari's writings about VP8 correctly, VP8 could be a decent enough competitor to H.264. The encoders are a different story. As far as I know, libvpx does not come close to x264 despite some "recent" improvements to libvpx. The xvp8 spin-off is still a work in progress.

As for the upcoming video standard widely known as H.265 or HEVC, it is widely said to be "50% better" than H.264 but there don't seem to be any encoders ready for a comparison.

[zerowalker]

Yes of course, but i don´t understand the thing with the different Encoders, i mean, from my perspective, H264 is H264 no matter what encoder, but this isn´t true right?
Even if the bitstream and all is following the standard, different Encoders do better or worse, and x264 is The Best(i think?) H264 encoder out there?

But that is the lack from libvpx (Googles vp8 encoder?) compared to X264(i understand that x264 has been massively improved by the community over the years.).

[Atak_Snajpera]

basicly vp8 standard does NOT have as advanced algorithms as h.264 specification.

vp8 is like mp3 where h264 is like aac or opus in audio compression

[vivan]

Originally Posted by zerowalker

What´s the problem with it?

It has only one advantage (that 99% people doesn't care about) and a lot of disadvantages.
- x264 is much better that any vp8 encoder
- ... and even if there was encoder as good as x264 - it still would be worse.
- zero hardware support. While any modern device supports h/w AVC decoding.
- even Flash doesn't support it, so you will have to use ugly and buggy html5 player.
So, who needs it? Only Google.

Originally Posted by zerowalker

I mean, it´s Open Source and all

Open Source? Standart? What? Both H.264 and vp8 specifications are open - so anybody can write encoder/decoder.

Originally Posted by zerowalker

we have been waiting for?

who, and what they were waiting for?

Originally Posted by Atak_Snajpera

basicly vp8 standard does have as advanced algorithms as h.264 specification.

something have changed since this?

VP8, as a spec, should be a bit better than H.264 Baseline Profile and VC-1. It’s not even close to competitive with H.264 Main or High Profile. If Google is willing to revise the spec, this can probably be improved.

[zerowalker]

Oh, i thought that the H264 Standard wasn´t royalty free?
So even if we use X264 to encode to h264, we should still have to pay the royalty fee for commercial use, or something like that?

And with the HTML5, i though it was going to be, The Thing of The Year!!, as i mean, it´s not a plugin ad it´s out of the box, like playing from the PC itself.
But that doesn´t seem to be the case, as it´s as you say, very buggy and on Opera (my favorite browser) it´s worse of all i think, so i can´t use it even if i want to.

[vivan]

For web H.264 is royalty free. And not for web - only starting from 100,000 units...

I use Opera too, but even in Chrome HTML5 player is awful.