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.

 

Go Back   Doom9's Forum > Video Encoding > New and alternative video codecs

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 20th May 2011, 00:19   #441  |  Link
Disabled
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by zambelli View Post
In fact, it pays more than most since it ships quite a few decoders...
Thats wrong. H264 royalties are capped at (I guess) 5 Million $, so Microsoft pays less per license then anyone else (unless youre under 100000 shipped units and its free).
Disabled is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th May 2011, 00:44   #442  |  Link
mariush
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 590
Quote:
Originally Posted by zambelli View Post
Microsoft pays VC-1 and H.264 royalties just like everyone else. In fact, it pays more than most since it ships quite a few decoders (i.e. Windows, Xbox, Zune, Silverlight, etc.).
Of course they pay just like anyone else - well maybe not like everyone else because I'm sure they get a blanket/volume/negociated license.

But being one of the largest companies with patents in the MPEG-LA patent pools, they also get some money back from licensing "at the end of the day".

Just by looking at the list of patents in the patent pool for h264 alone, Microsoft has 4 pages of patents there:
http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/...s/avc-att1.pdf

Anyway, this is getting to be a bit off topic...

ps. Judging by the signature in the footer of your post, I think you could at least mention that you work for Microsoft or are involved with them.
mariush is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th May 2011, 03:35   #443  |  Link
IgorC
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,317
Quote:
Originally Posted by CruNcher View Post
Yeah though i find it bad news that Microsoft bought Skype
Skype always drove the VPx for low latency Videoconferencing and im not sure if Microsoft will continue that (actually it would be pretty strange if they would) on the other side with websockets nowadays skypes videoconferencing doesn't matter that much anymore.
VP8 and Skype's speech codec (SILK) are both open source. No big threat.

Also, Skype and Xiph have joined their codecs into new open source one with high quality and low delay. Opus.
It's a hybrid codec: SILK (low bitrate) + CELT (high quality MDCT encoder).
It performs very good now.
See the results of the last comparison in my signature.

Last edited by IgorC; 20th May 2011 at 03:39.
IgorC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st May 2011, 15:41   #444  |  Link
cid_xvid
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by IgorC View Post
VP8 and Skype's speech codec (SILK) are both open source. No big threat.

Also, Skype and Xiph have joined their codecs into new open source one with high quality and low delay. Opus.
It's a hybrid codec: SILK (low bitrate) + CELT (high quality MDCT encoder).
It performs very good now.
See the results of the last comparison in my signature.
Skype has been adquired by Microsoft. I am afraid of the future of Opus encoder.
cid_xvid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th May 2011, 12:02   #445  |  Link
iwod
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 757
It is interesting that Opus is THAT good while free of patents. And yet we cant say the same for Video Codec.
iwod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th May 2011, 00:29   #446  |  Link
IgorC
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,317
Quote:
Originally Posted by iwod View Post
It is interesting that Opus is THAT good while free of patents. And yet we cant say the same for Video Codec.
There is very high quality and open source H.264 encoder (x264).While there is no such encoder for AAC standard.

That is one of the reasons why Opus had chance to do well comparing to commercial AAC encoders. Those AAC encoders aren't bad but it's often to see that open source implementations perform generally better.
IgorC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th August 2011, 01:55   #447  |  Link
IgorC
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,317
VP8 Codec SDK "Cayuga" Released

http://blog.webmproject.org/

Also now VP8 is used in One-to-One Skype calls.
IgorC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th August 2011, 01:59   #448  |  Link
GoWebM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 6
"Cayuga" Released

Quote:
Today we're making available "Cayuga," the third named release of the VP8 Codec SDK (libvpx). Note that the VP8 format definition has not changed, only the SDK. You can download the Cayuga libvpx snapshot (version 0.9.7) from the WebM Project Downloads page or clone it from our Git repository.

As promised, for Cayuga we targeted more areas for encoder speed improvements. Using our previous release ("Bali") as a benchmark, we’ve seen the following VP8 encoder improvements on x86 processors.

+11.5% "Best" mode (at speed 0)
+21.5% "Good" mode (at speed 0)
+22.5% "Real-time" mode (at speed 6, a typical speed for videoconferencing applications)

We also compared the encoder performance of "Cayuga" to our first named release ("Aylesbury") release and got the following results:

+35% "Best" mode (at speed 0)
+75% "Good" mode (at speed 0)
+52% "Real-time" mode (at speed 6)

We saw the following improvements on ARM processors:

On ARM Cortex A9 with Neon extensions, real-time encoding of video telephony content is 35% faster than Bali on single core and 48% faster on multi-core.

On the NVIDIA Tegra2 platform, real time encoding is 40% faster than Bali.

For more technical readers, here are some detailed improvements we made in the libvpx Cayuga encoder:

Improved the datarate control in one-pass realtime compression.

Improved one-pass variable bitrate (VBR) visual quality by average ~7% across a large collection of videos.

Improved video conferencing user experience through error concealment, a feature that produces high visual quality frames even under conditions of substantial packet loss.

Improved the ARM v6 and v7 encoders and decoders through greater use of SIMD features and strong use of cache prefetching.

Thanks to everyone who worked on Cayuga, and welcome to our eleven new contributors:

Alok Ahuja
Alexis Ballier
Ronald Bultje
Rafael Ávila de Espíndola
Ralph Giles
Stefan Holmer
Mike Hommey
Taekhyun Kim
Aron Rosenberg
Joshua Bleecher Snyder
Thijs Vermeir
Source: VP8 Codec SDK "Cayuga" Released
GoWebM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th August 2011, 16:23   #449  |  Link
Sirber
retired developer
 
Sirber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 8,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoWebM View Post
Any Video Converter Version 3.23 (released on May 11, 2011 ), add WebM as supported input and output video format.

Then:

* Non-commercial WebM Tools (Windows): Miro Video Converter, XMedia Recode, Firefogg, MediaCoder.

* Commercial WebM Tools (No cloud soft.): Bigasoft Total Video Converter, Any Video Converter.

Do you know of others?




Sorry my english
Bencos using ffmpeg. http://www.detritus.qc.ca
__________________
Detritus Software
Sirber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th August 2011, 18:15   #450  |  Link
GoWebM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 6
Third Generation VP8 Hardware Encoder IP “Cloudberry” Released

Quote:
Starting today, “Cloudberry”, the third release of the Hantro H1 VP8 hardware encoder, is available at no cost through the WebM Project hardware page. Partners having already signed the online licensing agreement will receive an automatic update.

Moving along with our mission statement - creating the world’s best real-time video encoder - we’re again one step closer to our goal thanks to Cloudberry’s substantial quality gains. In PSNR comparisons, Cloudberry performs on average 1.27 dB better than our initial Anthill release, which we launched less than five months ago. It also beats the previous Blueberry release by 0.45 dB, with comparable increases using the SSIM quality metric.

We’ve also bridged an important milestone: Cloudberry is able to encode high-quality 720p video (video teleconference use cases) at well under 1 Mbps, as shown in the following chart.




The optimized Cloudberry control software is backwards compatible and will also benefit chips with the Blueberry hardware inside them, providing 0.08 dB average PSNR increase without any hardware changes required.

In our next release, we are focusing on further software-based quality improvements especially related to multipass encoding and optimal usage of VP8 Golden frames - both of which will benefit SoCs that use either Blueberry or Cloudberry. On the hardware side, we also have numerous improvements in mind, such as further optimizing the macroblock mode selection. This fourth release is planned to be available at the end of Q3.

The VP8 H1 encoder IP has been licensed already to nearly 40 semiconductor companies through the WebM Project, and more requests are pouring in. For licensing details about the H1, see our hardware page. Our reseller partner Verisilicon also licenses Cloudberry as a part of the multiformat Hantro H1 encoder.


For more technical readers, here is the list of new features in Cloudberry:

- RD-optimized quantization
- Improved intra/inter macroblock mode selection
- Improved inter macroblock RD functions
- Improved intra macroblock mode selection
- More macroblock level coding information returned to software (enables effective multipass optimizations)

The following curves show PSNR quality metrics for a 720p video call, comparing the H1 Cloudberry release to previous H1 releases and to the libvpx Bali software SDK release. As a point of interest, the Cloudberry encoder performs similarly to libvpx’s “-rt -cpu-used=-5” setting, which is equivalent to what a WebRTC based application can achieve on the fastest PCs.


Source: Third Generation VP8 Hardware Encoder IP “Cloudberry” Released
GoWebM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st February 2012, 01:00   #451  |  Link
CruNcher
Registered User
 
CruNcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Germany
Posts: 4,949
Duclair is out
http://blog.webmproject.org/2012/01/...-released.html
__________________
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; 1st February 2012 at 01:03.
CruNcher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd February 2012, 21:33   #452  |  Link
smok3
brontosaurusrex
 
smok3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,395
Quote:
Originally Posted by CruNcher View Post
trying to compile git, but getting this at ./configure:
http://pastebin.com/NQWuG6v6
any clues?

edit: tarball did compile, does this look right?;
Code:
Included encoders:

    vp8    - WebM Project VP8 Encoder v0.9.7-p1-62-g2aa4085
How would a best, good, fast cq based ffmpeg command line look like?
__________________
certain other member

Last edited by smok3; 2nd February 2012 at 23:01.
smok3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th February 2012, 05:27   #453  |  Link
nakTT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 393
I have tried this WebM to encode my video. Unfortunately at this stage it still lagging (in video quality - my test was at 500kbps) way behind x264. Hope it will progress fast for the better.
nakTT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th March 2012, 03:05   #454  |  Link
Nintendo Maniac 64
Registered User
 
Nintendo Maniac 64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northeast Ohio
Posts: 443
Am I crazy, or is YouTube's 480p config for WebM BETTER quality than their h.264 one? I used this video as my test case:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnc-c2SCz_0

Even crazier is that the 480p FLV is 48.7MB while the 480p WebM is 39.7MB! O_o (and apparently the WebM versions even have better audio quality as well)


Also interesting, if you don't have a hardware h.264 decoder, WebM uses less CPU. This is particularly noticable with older PCs, specifically YouTube's 720p WebM files can actually run well on a lowly 2GHz Pentium 4 (that is, assuming you're playing the file in a dedicated media player) while h.264 is a stutter-fest.

Last edited by Nintendo Maniac 64; 15th March 2012 at 03:12.
Nintendo Maniac 64 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th March 2012, 04:46   #455  |  Link
Midzuki
Unavailable
 
Midzuki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: offline
Posts: 1,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nintendo Maniac 64 View Post
Am I crazy, or is YouTube's 480p config for WebM BETTER quality than their h.264 one? I used this video as my test case:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnc-c2SCz_0

Even crazier is that the 480p FLV is 48.7MB while the 480p WebM is 39.7MB! O_o (and apparently the WebM versions even have better audio quality as well)


Also interesting, if you don't have a hardware h.264 decoder, WebM uses less CPU. This is particularly noticable with older PCs, specifically YouTube's 720p WebM files can actually run well on a lowly 2GHz Pentium 4 (that is, assuming you're playing the file in a dedicated media player) while h.264 is a stutter-fest.
That looks and sounds incredibly weird O_o

So I'd like to know if:

1) which VP8 encoder has become faster && more-efficient lately?

2) which VP8 decoder has finally become decently-fast?

Three months ago (IIRC), last time I tried a WebM file from YouTube on my Pentium-4 through Opera 11.50, the playback dropped tons of frames, and the audio sync was simply impossible.

Last edited by Midzuki; 15th March 2012 at 15:29. Reason: better wording
Midzuki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th March 2012, 04:50   #456  |  Link
Nintendo Maniac 64
Registered User
 
Nintendo Maniac 64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northeast Ohio
Posts: 443
Quote:
Originally Posted by Midzuki View Post
That looks and sounds incredibly weird O_o
What is this "that" you're referring to? Do you mean the video, the post, the WebM having better quality, or something else?

(note that I do not think I can answer your questions - I specialize in audio, and definitely not video)

Last edited by Nintendo Maniac 64; 15th March 2012 at 04:52.
Nintendo Maniac 64 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th March 2012, 10:29   #457  |  Link
dapperdan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 194
WebM Experimental Codec Branch Snapshot

Looks like Google is ready to go public with work on what will become VP9 (or VP8+, it's not clear to me how radical they intend to be):

https://gerrit.chromium.org/gerrit/#change,17840
dapperdan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th March 2012, 14:16   #458  |  Link
vivan
/人 ◕ ‿‿ ◕ 人\
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Russia
Posts: 649
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nintendo Maniac 64 View Post
Even crazier is that the 480p FLV is 48.7MB while the 480p WebM is 39.7MB! O_o
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nintendo Maniac 64 View Post
config for WebM BETTER quality than their h.264 one?
quality? I don't think so. http://www.check2pic.ru/compare/12266/

In other cases youtube gives webm higher bitrate. Like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APyr48GACzc
21.6 MB for 1080p mp4, 13.6 MB for 720p mp4... And 33.0 MB for 720p webm. Lol.
vivan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th March 2012, 15:31   #459  |  Link
Midzuki
Unavailable
 
Midzuki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: offline
Posts: 1,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nintendo Maniac 64 View Post
What is this "that" you're referring to? Do you mean the video, the post, the WebM having better quality, or something else?
All of the above, including the "something else".
Midzuki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th March 2012, 19:22   #460  |  Link
Nintendo Maniac 64
Registered User
 
Nintendo Maniac 64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northeast Ohio
Posts: 443
Quote:
Originally Posted by vivan View Post
quality? I don't think so. http://www.check2pic.ru/compare/12266/

In other cases youtube gives webm higher bitrate. Like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APyr48GACzc
21.6 MB for 1080p mp4, 13.6 MB for 720p mp4... And 33.0 MB for 720p webm. Lol.
I said at 480p. From what it looks like, the situation is reversed, with WebM having better video, audio, AND a smaller filesize. (unless I AM crazy. :P)

Note that, in particular, 480p h.264 uses 'Main' profile rather than 'High'.

EDIT: Take a look at these two images - I can't read Russian, so I can't make a comparison-thingy like you did (note that both images have 200% nearest neighbor applied to make them easier to see):
WebM
H.264

It would seem that it's not as clear-cut as it is for 720p. The HUD, sky, and building on the left looks better on h.264, but the water and track looks better on WebM. The spires in the distance are a toss-up to me.

Last edited by Nintendo Maniac 64; 15th March 2012 at 21:12.
Nintendo Maniac 64 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
vp8, webm

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:14.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.