Welcome to Doom9's Forum, THE in-place to be for everyone interested in DVD conversion. Before you start posting please read the forum rules. By posting to this forum you agree to abide by the rules. |
27th August 2009, 11:37 | #1 | Link |
Herr
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: North Europe
Posts: 556
|
On2 brags about their encoder vs x264..
http://www.on2.com/index.php?599
Is there someone here who can do a real (not objective) comparison (with about equal encoding settings, and encoding-time mentioned)? The On2's encoder-screenshot looks just filtered out :-P EDIT: @CruNcher: Oops, I should've searched for similar threads :-P Last edited by Forteen88; 27th August 2009 at 19:29. |
27th August 2009, 11:43 | #2 | Link |
Testeur de codecs
Join Date: May 2003
Location: France
Posts: 2,484
|
IMO One2 don't use the best available H264 encoder. Anyway VP8 seem a really powerfull codec. VP8 seem on par with x264 at max quality for OPSNR ...
__________________
Le Sagittaire ... ;-) 1- Ateme AVC or x264 2- VP7 or RV10 only for anime 3- XviD, DivX or WMV9 |
27th August 2009, 11:56 | #4 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,076
|
How many revisions back is that ? Not very realistic this comparison.
But most average joe's (like my parents) dont have any clue as to the state of development of x264. Prresenting the differences like On2 does, will probably impress those less knowledgeable. Too bad that people fall for such things so easily. They should at least google on 'x264' to see if there is a new version. Last edited by G_M_C; 27th August 2009 at 13:53. |
27th August 2009, 12:38 | #6 | Link |
User of free A/V tools
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: SK
Posts: 826
|
Any encoder out there can be presented as bad as competitor's marketing wants to. It's much easier to screw encoding settings than to tune them for appropriate content.
Looking for fair comparison? Do it yourself. Wait...VP8 encoder is not freely available, is it? |
27th August 2009, 13:28 | #7 | Link | |
Herr
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: North Europe
Posts: 556
|
Quote:
Yeah, I don't know where to get the VP8-encoder. |
|
27th August 2009, 13:36 | #8 | Link |
Software Developer
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Last House on Slunk Street
Posts: 13,248
|
"For more information about On2 VP8, please contact sales@on2.com"
__________________
Go to https://standforukraine.com/ to find legitimate Ukrainian Charities 🇺🇦✊ |
27th August 2009, 13:40 | #9 | Link | |
Herr
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: North Europe
Posts: 556
|
Quote:
|
|
27th August 2009, 13:42 | #10 | Link | |
Software Developer
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Last House on Slunk Street
Posts: 13,248
|
Quote:
At the same time people that already payed big money for VP8, will favor it anyway, because they must legitimate their investment BTW: "On2 proprietary compression solutions bring unique commercial advantages." I guess that statement found on the On2 web-site applies to the developer/vendor, not to the user/customer
__________________
Go to https://standforukraine.com/ to find legitimate Ukrainian Charities 🇺🇦✊ Last edited by LoRd_MuldeR; 27th August 2009 at 13:46. |
|
27th August 2009, 18:11 | #13 | Link | |
x264 developer
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 8,666
|
Quote:
IMO, if it cannot even beat x264 significantly in terms of PSNR, VP8 is a massive disappointment; x264's psy optimizations surely put it far ahead of VP8, so if VP8 cannot even beat x264 without psy optimizations, we cannot expect it to be remotely useful in reality. It's been 6 years since H.264 was released--they had all this time to write their own specification from scratch--and they still fail this badly? Even I was expecting better than this. What a joke. Edit: It's worse than I thought; they left AQ on for the x264 test, which suggests that VP8 will probably lose by >1db PSNR in reality. Nice job being completely irrelevant, On2.
__________________
Follow x264 development progress | akupenguin quotes | x264 git status ffmpeg and x264-related consulting/coding contracts | Doom10 Last edited by Dark Shikari; 27th August 2009 at 18:37. |
|
27th August 2009, 18:28 | #14 | Link |
brontosaurusrex
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,392
|
brag in what way?
that vp8 is blurry? that they have to use vp6 to show comparision between vp8 and x? this looks like a complete anticommercial for them; Code:
mediainfo vp8x264_vga.flv General Complete name : vp8x264_vga.flv Format : Flash Video File size : 15.8 MiB Duration : 1mn 11s Overall bit rate : 1 844 Kbps Encoded date : Fri Sep 12 13:18:33 2008 Tagging application : On2 Flix SDK for Dshow_2.4.2.2 canseektoend : No Video Format : VP6 Duration : 1mn 11s Bit rate : 3 272 Kbps Width : 640 pixels Height : 480 pixels Display aspect ratio : 4:3 Frame rate : 29.970 fps Bits/(Pixel*Frame) : 0.355 Stream size : 28.0 MiB
__________________
certain other member |
27th August 2009, 18:45 | #15 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Germany
Posts: 4,926
|
that whole thing their is their old almost 1 year ago Introduction page i see no new info the Video is also as old so im not sure why to discuss it again, in the H.264 section :P
see http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=141107
__________________
all my compares are riddles so please try to decipher them yourselves :) It is about Time Join the Revolution NOW before it is to Late ! http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=168004 Last edited by CruNcher; 27th August 2009 at 18:50. |
28th August 2009, 00:44 | #16 | Link | ||||
Testeur de codecs
Join Date: May 2003
Location: France
Posts: 2,484
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Le Sagittaire ... ;-) 1- Ateme AVC or x264 2- VP7 or RV10 only for anime 3- XviD, DivX or WMV9 |
||||
28th August 2009, 00:51 | #17 | Link |
x264 developer
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 8,666
|
Then why did VP7 look so bad if On2 is supposedly good at psy optimizations? It fell victim to the "blurring is good" RD fallacy worse than any other modern encoder I have ever tested, completely destroying detail across a wide variety of sources.
|
28th August 2009, 08:43 | #18 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,076
|
What i seaid before; I think that whole page is NOT aimed at really comparing differences. It's only disigned as a marketing tool. It says more about their potential clients than it does about the encoding software itself.
From this i can deduce that their potetial customers are at least sort of gullible, since they fall for this kind of misleading marketing. Also you can deduce that they dont know how to use Google, else they would try to find out what this 'x264' they mention actually is. Not that that would help, i think they would not know how to compare encoding software for them selves for that matter. And when you take all this into account; VP8 is good for people like that, let them; Imagine the flooding of n00b-questions if they they actually did start to use x264 Anyway, in short: The comarison on that page is not intended to be fair, it's just intended to mislead potential customers in to buying that crap. |
30th August 2009, 06:19 | #19 | Link | |
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,752
|
Quote:
And that's probably not entirely wrong from a consumer expectation perspective; people notice added wrong stuff (blocking and ringing) than they notice right stuff missing (loss of detail). Blocking is particularly HVS attractive due to all those nice horizontal and vertical edges, which are about the most interesting thing to the human eye. Perhaps should have taken a lesson from Sony's ClearVID patterns and rotated our blocks 45 degrees, or from our misspent wargaming youths and used hexagons . Even semi-pro compressionists can often get into the trap of doing QA by looking for artifacts, and assuming that if there's no blocking and ringing, the encode is going to be "good enough." But that's not a good assumption with a modern codec, or an advanced decoder with postprocessing. Comparing a VP6/VP7 AVI with different postprocessing settings in the DirectShow decoder can be very revealing. Last edited by benwaggoner; 30th August 2009 at 06:21. |
|
30th August 2009, 06:24 | #20 | Link | |
x264 developer
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 8,666
|
Quote:
Blurring is horrific HVS-wise; blocking and ringing are vastly preferable. Compressionists easily spot them, but what ordinary users will spot is the complete destruction of detail throughout the video. Artifacts are far more preferable than destruction of detail, especially as the former tends to mask the latter. Blocking is only noticeable in flat areas of the frame; in high-complexity areas it actually improves perceived quality in many cases, especially at low bitrates and in high motion, where the blocks appear for too short a time to be seen, but for long enough to create perceived sharpness. The human eye loves sharpness and the appearance of detail. In particular, just like the human ear, it wants to see energy conserved. The heavy blurring of encoders like VP7 is the exact opposite of this, which is why it has such a terrible ratio of PSNR to actual visual quality. The same problem exists with wavelets; they destroy perceptual detail and sharpness. (Should I really be helping our competitors this much? )
__________________
Follow x264 development progress | akupenguin quotes | x264 git status ffmpeg and x264-related consulting/coding contracts | Doom10 Last edited by Dark Shikari; 30th August 2009 at 06:30. |
|
Tags |
on2 |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|