On2 VP8 [Archive] - Page 2

hurry

8th April 2009, 09:52

I think Dark Shikari has his right to point things out. Unlike what On2 did to VP7, he has never stopped tirelessly developing x264 and making it better and better for us almost on a daily basis, unlike On2, he is dedicatedly developing x264 for us video encoders and not just for commercial purposes, and unlike On2, he has never made absurd claims about his x264 codec being some x% better than other codecs etc. even though the quality of x264 just talks for itself.

Also, among all other codecs, On2 chose to compare VP8 quality with x264 on their site without even making the VP8 codec available to Dark Shikari and giving him a fair chance or even informing him about their tests. This would obviously upset anyone, especially someone like Dark Shikari who tirelessly works on developing x264 with much dedication. I think Dark Shikari is not biased and does appreciate and give credit where it is due like for example in the case of Divx7.

I also agree with Dark Shikari that the claims by On2 for VP8 over x264 and other codecs should be supported by tests by neutral observers before they can publicize their claims like they have done. If they want to claim that they are the best, then they should have made the VP8 codec available for testing on their website to support their claims. So as Dark Shikari says, unverifiable claims create a very unpleasant atmosphere in the community of video codec developers.

Dark Shikari, we certainly appreciate your extraordinary development of x264 and we will always be grateful for it.

Mc Onyx

8th April 2009, 11:56

Dark Shikari, we certainly appreciate your extraordinary development of x264 and we will always be grateful for it.

Well said, right on...

chenm001

9th April 2009, 02:51

"50% better than h.264"
This means that VP8 not good as VP7.
Because, On2 VP3 better than MPEG4 as 30%, and VP4 than VP3 50%, VP5 than VP4 50%, VP6, VP7...
At the VP7, it has 4.375% bitrate than MPEG4, so a DVD(D9) can be record in 64MB USB-Flash.

Sharktooth

9th April 2009, 03:23

well those are obviously marketing claims.
however VP7 aint that bad... recent h.264 encoders are obviously a step (or more) ahead but it's a shame there isnt a free-for-personal-use VP8 encoder...

CruNcher

9th April 2009, 23:56

it's not unbelievable that VP8 is visually (HVS) wise more optimized compared to H.264 the idea of the motion region adaptive deblocking is great, though how it looks in real is another thing :) also see Real Networks last claims with NGV and it's still not here @ that time X264 was already much more optimized then any of this only VPx really delivers something interesting every time vs MPEG's technology and always without being able to use B-frames :) and also don't forget the amount of companies and Research organizations involved in MPEG vs On2's rather small in house Research :)

the Mad Duke

10th April 2009, 15:58

I think VP7 has been continually updated for On2's clients/customers according to the news they release but they stopped updating the personal use version a long time ago so it would not be possible to do any accurate comparrisons anymore.

CruNcher

11th April 2009, 02:27

yep i wonder if this http://www.on2.com/index.php?592 made it's way into the currently available VP7 Encoder i guess it did but somehow i doubt as they shutoff VP7 com development long time ago in favor of their business with Adobe and improved Vp7 in the darkness ;), i remember that sequence being from one of the users here supplied to On2 :) in the beta test.

http://s11.directupload.net/images/090411/rke4us6i.png

Also seeing this is interesting though in reality it's nothing to really jump into the air about (especially as it's theoretic assumptions) also H.264 complexity can be lowered without causing to much quality drains AVS being the best example and of course it depends on the Decoder heavily bad unoptimized decoder of course would result in this best to use Apples Decoder for that purpose, Apples stuff is allways good to test his more efficient optimized stuff against be it either Decoder/Encoder (guess it's already a industry tip).
I guess they rather test it with the most unoptimized encoder for both in that case it would be someway impressive (if it holds the same quality with that power consumption) ;) But yeah at least it lets suspect that they improved heavy especially on the loop filter seeing that it now takes some more cycles. As Dark Shikari already mentioned it looks similar to VC-1's complexity i would say it will beat VC-1 but that already could also bring it up to match with H.264 (it depends on the visual improvements) :) if they do some certain visual stuff right it could even beat it, i wouldn't say it's not possible though H.265 is in the making and gonna beat it again (in compression efficiency at least) :)

What i find rather funny is that they advertise Golden Frames being new though they already used them in VP7 according to their own documents ;) so for them actually VP7 never existed only in com tests that we provided ideas for also that chart shows they ignore the intermediate VP7 research (it wouldn't look that impressive ;)) :) the feedback from this beta though brought them a lot of ideas (especially improving the very bad inloop deblocking and they seem not only to have brought it up to H.264 but also gone one step further) also this alone is unique we have been part of their Research :) i like that i never could have had such influence @ MPEG :P which brings me to the question what is MPEG planing to improve inloop deblockings visual efficiency in H.265 ?

benwaggoner

11th April 2009, 23:13

Do those estimates pass the sniff test? I haven't profiled H.264 much myself, but bidirectional prediction itself shouldn't add much decode complexity. If anything, we've found they reduce overall decode load in VC-1.

Unless they're assuming 16 reference frames that then don't fit into cache or something...

Mr VacBob

13th April 2009, 08:21

Well, prefetch takes care of most reference problems if you do it ahead of time enough. I think their H.264 decoder isn't optimized well (it might not be using SIMD, or reference software, or fictional); dequantization is nearly free and inter/intra prediction are very efficiently SIMDed.

They could've made that graph look better for them, just double the entropy decode time for H.264 and change "optional sub pixel" to "mandatory 1/8th pixel".

Manao

14th April 2009, 18:16

For h264, loop filter is roughly 30 to 50% of the pixel processing (intra prediction / inter prediction / idct / dequant / deblocking). Entropy obviously depends on bitrate (almost linearly). Intra prediction and inter prediction don't add up (since a MB is either intra or inter, not both at the same time). Worst case scenario for bidir prediction is more than twice inter prediction. IDCT / dequant depends slightly on bitrate (low bitrate -> skips), but remains fast comparatively to entropy.

At high bitrates (1080p, ~50 mbps), CABAC can take up to 70% of the processing time. At low bitrates (1080p, ~5 mbps), it takes roughly 20% of the processing time.

Those percentages suppose some SIMD-like optimizations.

IgorC

28th July 2009, 22:03

I googled and found that there are some competition for future VP8 logo.
http://www.crowdspring.com/projects/graphic_design/logo/logo_for_new_on2_vp8_video_codec

Some of them are really nice. I like this one. Looks like Divx's 'X' inspiration. http://www.crowdspring.com/projects/graphic_design/logo/logo_for_new_on2_vp8_video_codec/gallery/un2_vp8

Seems like VP8 is mentioned to be release with all lights.

smok3

28th July 2009, 22:18

i like this one
http://www.crowdspring.com/projects/graphic_design/logo/logo_for_new_on2_vp8_video_codec/gallery/on2_vp8_logo_colour_2
for some reason.

CruNcher

1st August 2009, 20:36

My Fav
http://www.crowdspring.com/projects/graphic_design/logo/logo_for_new_on2_vp8_video_codec/gallery/on2vp8__6

the Mad Duke

2nd August 2009, 20:09

It has been selected.

http://www.crowdspring.com/projects/graphic_design/logo/logo_for_new_on2_vp8_video_codec/gallery/logo__3

It's been nearly 11 months since On2 announced VP8. Maybe we'll finally get to see it soon. Somehow I get the feeling this is going to be a codec only available to their large clientele. That's just my personal thought of course.

CruNcher

2nd August 2009, 21:10

Not the only one that is in the waiting line also Real Networks NGV is (though seeing all the law problems they had in the past year it doesn't surprise nothing moves) :)

smok3

2nd August 2009, 22:09

the Mad Duke

5th August 2009, 13:48

horrible choice if you ask me, weird, their docs for what they want are/were really good and clear...

Well Google must have liked the logo and VP8 too because they are acquiring On2 for pocket change.

the Mad Duke

5th August 2009, 14:11

Well Google must have liked the logo and VP8 too because they are acquiring On2 for pocket change.

Google's (GOOG) latest purchase -- $106.5 million for Web video software firm On2 -- is relatively small. But its effects on the Web video industry could be huge.

If the deal goes through, and Google does what we think it will -- open-source On2's tech and push it everywhere -- Google won't just control the world's top Web video site, YouTube, but the technology behind the industry, too.
Here's what we believe Google is thinking about:

* Taking control of and open-sourcing On2's newest video compression technology, VP8, which is probably a little better than the format du jour, H.264.
* This should quickly shift Web video tech into Google's favor. It won't spread out into the world's Web browsers overnight, but will eventually.
* Adobe would have to build it into Flash, Microsoft would have to build it into Silverlight.
* Google would get royalty-free tools in the hands of thousands more developers to build video software for Android, Chrome OS, the Web, etc.
* Google would control the future development of the world's top Web video technology.
* It would also hurt today's top video companies financially: The MPEG group, Adobe, Microsoft, RealNetworks, and even Apple a bit.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Google-Plans-To-Dominate-Web-siliconalley-3034319481.html?x=0&.v=1

Dark Shikari

5th August 2009, 17:53

$106.5 million? Is this a joke?

To quote another developer:

"I'd have thought their entire team was already worth less than, say, Skal."* Taking control of and open-sourcing On2's newest video compression technology, VP8, which is probably a little better than the format du jour, H.264.Doubtful, considering that from what I can tell it's just a few nice improvements over VP7, like an adaptive loop filter--which H.264 has had since the beginning. If they can beat x264 in visual quality on ordinary test clips without postprocessing, I'll eat my hat.I just love Google, so disruptive in everything they do. Brilliant strategy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_technology

I can't wait for the open source announcement of VP8, perhaps together with Xiph and the adoption of the open source VP8 as the HTML5 <video> tag codec of choice. Even Apple & Nokia can't do anything now to derail it like Theora. Of course, the technology laggard Microsoft will take forever to adopt anything that is open web standard.Why in the world would Xiph adopt a format that's patented up the wazoo?

juGGaKNot

5th August 2009, 18:20

If they can beat x264 in visual quality on ordinary test clips without postprocessing, I'll eat my hat.

Noted, ( you do have a hat no ? )

kosmonaut

5th August 2009, 20:55

Why in the world would Xiph adopt a format that's patented up the wazoo?

Do you know the status of On2's technology vis-a-vis patents? If Google could take VP8 and make it open source and free, that would be pretty cool of course. But if the situation is closer to h.264 patent-wise, then there would be inevitable licensing issues, and the On2 purchase is far less interesting, as DS says.

Gokumon

5th August 2009, 20:58

Why in the world would Xiph adopt a format that's patented up the wazoo?

According to On2's site there is no patent-pool to pay royalties to like H.264 so that would seem to imply that only they hold patents to the technology. Assuming this is what they meant, Google could simply just disclaim all patents On2 held and thus that problem would be solved.

kosmonaut

5th August 2009, 21:07

According to On2's site there is no patent-pool to pay royalties to like H.264

Yeah, but is that really believable? I honestly don't know enough to say, but I suspect Google would make a much juicier target for MPEG-LA than On2 ever would have alone.

Gokumon

5th August 2009, 21:28

Yeah, but is that really believable?

What is unbelievable about it? To license On2's technology only requires a license from them, not a payment to a patent pool like you would with H.264. It's a straight statement of fact. Secondly, I'm pretty sure such a statement, if false, would get them into lots of legal trouble if they weren't absolutely sure since that would open up not only them but their customers into trouble over patent infringement.

I honestly don't know enough to say, but I suspect Google would make a much juicier target for MPEG-LA than On2 ever would have alone.

Why? I'm pretty sure that if they were stepping on someone's toes on the patents that someone would have struck by now as On2 isn't some unknown company. They've been around for years and have made pretty high-profile and public licensing agreements with companies like Adobe, Skype, XM Radio, AOL, etc. The people who own the majority of video/audio compression related patents aren't known for just letting people get away with infringing their patents for years without doing something. Of course it is possible that some obscure company somewhere may hold a patent that they might infringe, but the big players would have made sure to vet out On2's stuff for any possible infringement and would have put an end to it shortly if they smelled anything fishy.

kosmonaut

5th August 2009, 21:41

What is unbelievable about it? To license On2's technology only requires a license from them, not a payment to a patent pool like you would with H.264. It's a straight statement of fact. Secondly, I'm pretty sure such a statement, if false, would get them into lots of legal trouble if they weren't absolutely sure since that would open up not only them but their customers into trouble over patent infringement.

As I said, I'm not claiming any special knowledge about On2. I have, however, seen commentary elsewhere mentioning possible infringement by them, and from my experience in the industry, patent disputes on video technology can be very, very messy. I'm just curious to hear what experts like Dark Shikari have to say about it, that's all.

Dark Shikari

5th August 2009, 22:23

As I said, I'm not claiming any special knowledge about On2. I have, however, seen commentary elsewhere mentioning possible infringement by them, and from my experience in the industry, patent disputes on video technology can be very, very messy. I'm just curious to hear what experts like Dark Shikari have to say about it, that's all.Making a modern video format that is better than H.264 and doesn't infringe any patents is going to be extraordinarily difficult.

At VCEG meetings, where the magic happens, almost every single idea submitted for review is patented. This isn't just for monetary reasons--it's for protection. Every company and organization involved agrees to give up their patent rights to the licensing association--this prevents patent trolls from trying to submarine them later on, since they have very clear proof of prior art along with patents on all the related technology.

This means that almost every idea ever tried--most of which are never included in the spec--is patented. This is one reason why video compression is such a patent minefield. If one actively avoids every single one of these patents, one will not be able to write anything whatsoever.

I'm curious what companies like Real and Sorenson (who blatantly rip off H.264) do; I suspect they buy MPEG-LA licenses.

Now with regard to the specific circumstances in which I will eat my hat:

1. On2 has long claimed that VP8 is much less computationally complex than H.264. I won't hold them to their exact numbers, but VP8 must decode at least as fast as the fastest H.264 decoder available when/if it comes out for real, probably either CoreAVC or DivX, on a modern processor (Penryn or Nehalem if it comes out soon). If it is slower, no hats get eaten. It is acceptable, however, if VP8 is singlethreaded only, in which case a test can be done on a single core.

2. VP8 must be able to compete with the latest x264 --preset placebo. It doesn't count if it only beats x264 on fast settings. It also must be able to compete in the environment x264 does best: 2-pass, unrestricted ABR.

3. A blind test on a number of sources at ordinary bitrates, with the above restrictions, must result in VP8 winning a majority. The sources must be ordinary and not chosen in order to maximally benefit x264 or VP8.

4. VP8 cannot use any preprocessing or postprocessing filters.

Dark Shikari

5th August 2009, 22:39

Someone linked me to this (http://www.dspdesignline.com/214303691;jsessionid=GHIJAZM2QOLEDQE1GHRSKH4ATMY32JVN?pgno=2), which is really hysterical."Small area inter-frame prediction (motion vectors for regions smaller than a 16x16 pixel macroblock), has also been improved in VP8Welcome to 1995!Lagged compression is a half way house between traditional one pass and two pass encoding where a VP8 encoder can look ahead a predetermined number of frames before compressing the current frame."Lookahead encoding? It's not as if nearly every modern encoder designed for broadcast has that...VP8 also supports the use of a single stage 2-tap sub-pixel filter instead of its normal 6-tap filter.Like H.261, MPEG-2, MPEG-4, and WMV9?the VP8 bitstream also mandates that the result will never out range. ... it means that the decoder does not need to perform expensive clamping operations"Because saturating arithmetic apparently doesn't exist in their world.

smok3

5th August 2009, 22:40

4. VP8 cannot use any preprocessing or postprocessing filters.
why is that?

edit: i don't think they have a chance with a logo that bad anyway.

Dark Shikari

5th August 2009, 22:43

why is that?One of the easiest ways to cheat in a compression test is to use a preprocessor to "improve" the original source (e.g. by sharpening it) or a postprocessor to improve the decoded output. For example, I could put gradfun2db after the decoder for WMV9 video and not after the H.264 decoder and claim that WMV9 bands less than H.264. This is, of course, absurd.

This is cheating because it isn't a compression improvement unique to that encoder or video format; it could just as easily be applied before and after any other encoder.

It's also a common way to cheat because you can jack up sharpness and contrast and make a video "look" better even with a terrible encoder.

kieranrk

5th August 2009, 22:43

I'm curious what companies like Real and Sorenson (who blatantly rip off H.264) do; I suspect they buy MPEG-LA licenses.

RealNetworks, Inc.
...
Sorenson Communications, Inc.
Sorenson Media, Inc.

Correct.

Gokumon

5th August 2009, 23:01

Gokumon

5th August 2009, 23:03

I'm curious what companies like Real and Sorenson (who blatantly rip off H.264) do; I suspect they buy MPEG-LA licenses.

If you have a license to use the technology, how can that be "ripping it off"?

Dark Shikari

5th August 2009, 23:10

If you have a license to use the technology, how can that be "ripping it off"?If you blatantly copy someone else's technology and then repackage it under your own name without giving credit, it's a ripoff. Even if you paid for it.

A recent example in the hardware world is Harman Kardon, who repackage the Oppo Blu-ray player in a new case with a new logo on it and sell it for $3000 instead of $500. They paid Oppo to do this--but it's still a ripoff nonetheless.He may well say that, but if they were infringing anything, they would have been sued into oblivion for infringement if anything was obviously violating someone's patent. Do you honestly think companies like Microsoft, Sony or Fraunhofer (just a couple of the many big players in H.264 patent pool) would really let them get away with patent infringement and just not do anything? Seriously? One would have to be incredibly naive to believe that they wouldn't have thoroughly vetted any of On2's codecs for any minute hint of infringement.You overestimate how lawsuit-happy most of the companies involved are.

kosmonaut

5th August 2009, 23:11

Do you honestly think companies like Microsoft, Sony or Fraunhofer (just a couple of the many big players in H.264 patent pool) would really let them get away with patent infringement and just not do anything? Seriously?

Actually, yes. A lawsuit, even from a big company, involves a cost/benefit analysis. They can be very expensive and their outcomes are notoriously hard to predict. Technology companies, aside from straight up patent trolls, do not sue every time they see infringement. This can be even more the case when it comes to something as inherently complex as video encoding, where taking on someone else's patent might just open you up to closer scrutiny of your own patent claims. It is why patent pools exist, after all, because the particpating players wanted to *avoid* ending up in court too often, fairly or not.

And if you think the above mentioned companies would treat On2 the same as Google from a competitive and legal standpoint, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

kieranrk

5th August 2009, 23:23

If anything somebody like Microsoft would love to sue google over something. The PR wins if the court found google "doing evil" as opposed to Microsoft in a complete role reversal would be huge.

That's not including the subsequent share price hits and fines.

iwod

6th August 2009, 05:09

I was about to say VP8 will have the potential to be on par with H.264 or X264, once google put a fraction of their manpower into tuning it. Then I saw the "ALPHA" version Macroblock Tree Ratecontrol....... umm.... I could only hope Beta or Ready version of it wont improve anymore. Otherwise i dont think VP8 stand a chance in the next 2 - 3 years.
I suppose with Google resources, working like hell tuning it will come very close in quality, but history has proven tuning codec require a long time.

106 Million, including 25 Million of Asset ( Excluding Goodwill ), discounting the saving of 5 million of license fees Google will have to pay to On2 in the next few years ahead. That is 70 Million pocket charge from Google for an important piece of technology.
Important not because of its quality, but its influence. May be we could get a much faster VP6 decoder in Flash? Especially on ARM?
And since their will be fees changes to Mpeg4 licensing next year, Google owing VP8 will properly have an positive effect in MPEG lowering their price and barrier.

RNiK

6th August 2009, 16:54

If you blatantly copy someone else's technology and then repackage it under your own name without giving credit, it's a ripoff. Even if you paid for it.

A recent example in the hardware world is Harman Kardon, who repackage the Oppo Blu-ray player in a new case with a new logo on it and sell it for $3000 instead of $500. They paid Oppo to do this--but it's still a ripoff nonetheless.You overestimate how lawsuit-happy most of the companies involved are.
Nope, it's Marketing! :devil:

http://www.conceptfusion.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/dilbert_marketing1.gif

:D

Gokumon

6th August 2009, 19:52

If you blatantly copy someone else's technology and then repackage it under your own name without giving credit, it's a ripoff. Even if you paid for it.

It would only be a ripoff if the license under which you use the technology required such attribution. Secondly, I don't see anywhere in the x264 docs that credits the H.264 patent holders whose patents it uses. So by that logic, x264 is just ripping off them too.

A recent example in the hardware world is Harman Kardon, who repackage the Oppo Blu-ray player in a new case with a new logo on it and sell it for $3000 instead of $500. They paid Oppo to do this--but it's still a ripoff nonetheless.

By this logic, pretty much any CD/DVD/Blu-Ray seller are ripoffs as the majority of such drives are bought from the manufacturer and then repackaged.

You overestimate how lawsuit-happy most of the companies involved are.

No, I don't overestimate anything. Fraunhofer and Microsoft, for example, are pretty adamant about suing people over any hint of infringement on patents. To claim otherwise is to ignore the numerous lawsuits that one can easily pull up from a Google search.

Gokumon

6th August 2009, 19:56

And if you think the above mentioned companies would treat On2 the same as Google from a competitive and legal standpoint, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Funny because I never made such a claim that they wouldn't go after Google harder. The point was that these companies are more than willing to go to court over patent infringement claims, especially Microsoft and Frauhofer, and to think that they would let On2 get away with their very public licensing deals, such as with AOL, Skype, Adobe, etc, on technology that infringes their patents is, well, patently absurd.

Dark Shikari

6th August 2009, 20:10

It would only be a ripoff if the license under which you use the technology required such attribution. Secondly, I don't see anywhere in the x264 docs that credits the H.264 patent holders whose patents it uses. So by that logic, x264 is just ripping off them too.Is the fact that it says it's an H.264/AVC encoder not enough? Seriously, enough trolling.Funny because I never made such a claim that they wouldn't go after Google harder. The point was that these companies are more than willing to go to court over patent infringement claims, especially Microsoft and Frauhofer, and to think that they would let On2 get away with their very public licensing deals, such as with AOL, Skype, Adobe, etc, on technology that infringes their patents is, well, patently absurd.Stop talking about things which you have absolutely no real technical knowledge about. It's fine to admit you are clueless.

Welcome to my ignore list, troll. I invite everyone else to do the same.

Miraelsol

7th August 2009, 12:27

Stop talking about things which you have absolutely no real technical knowledge about.
Talking about the likelihood of lawsuits over patent infringement is NOT a technical discussion, at least not primarily. So I don't see how this comment is relevant.

Dark Shikari

7th August 2009, 18:04

Talking about the likelihood of lawsuits over patent infringement is NOT a technical discussion, at least not primarily. So I don't see how this comment is relevant.But talking about whether or not you can make an H.264-level video format without infringing any patents is quite definitely a technical discussion.

CruNcher

8th August 2009, 16:03

FIt would only be a ripoff if the license under which you use the technology required such attribution. Secondly, I don't see anywhere in the x264 docs that credits the H.264 patent holders whose patents it uses. So by that logic, x264 is just ripping off them too.

You misunderstand something, for the MPEG x264 is one of the best things happening in terms of Marketing and pushing the research efforts of them into the Public no one will ever sue it for anything, it promotes their research. (Only companies that see their own reselling of MPEGs research based products in danger would probably do but for them x264 is still no real competitor yet in their business fields)
Also creating mass amount of content is one of the most important things that is part of the success of a new Digital Video Technology and H.264 is still leading here, and all of us and x264 do their part in this ;).
Google now becoming a big entity in Video Research is a very interesting development but it was also foreseeable seeing their massive approach to Internet Video (in the future Grid Video), of course the first thing they would have to do is open source VPx completely and then buildup a big Research community around this (that also should effect the main bitstream research) this would be a massive entity vs MPEG in the future :)
Though their would be big things that would need to be established, things like the Academic management of Research Proposals and Patent verification, the same things the MPEG has decades of experience with.

Though the Power of MPEGs commercial research is heavy, alone the big companies involved there have decades of Video Research knowledge (Analog,Digital) and already Researching into the Future of H.264 (H.265) and beyond (Object based Video Compression, Quantum Video Compression) and especially they have Device Manufacturing capabilities that Google would be most probably dependent of.
But we can also be sure that Google is going to push the forthcoming Research on VPx in the direction of Error prone Scalable Network Video Compression like we seeing now SVC from MPEG entering the market. VPx Research is 1-2 Generations behind that, so it will be a big effort to conquer that with alternative ideas that aren't yet patented by MPEG members ;)

slavickas

8th August 2009, 22:24

Correct.

xcept u not, coz Real and Sorenson provide and H.264 codecs and MPEG license grant you patents only for compatible products, for anything else you should negotiate with every single patent holder

mysoogal

11th August 2009, 18:33

And for test ...
[url]

Anyway VP8 seem produce exceptional metric result because I use the extreme quality profil for x264 and it's certainely the best in the area for H264 codec.

on2 has not released any encoder decoder fo VP8, how could you do test when it isn't even in the public :logfile:

by the way google buy on2 right now so every codec probably still will be closed, maybe vp8 now that google buy will use it as excuse to make it into standard, and make theora fade away. :eek: