On2 VP8

[the Mad Duke]

Did anybody get to beta test it? I don't see a personal use version on their site. I hope they release one.
http://www.on2.com/docs/graf/splash_on2.html

[nm]

Looking at the sample clip (http://flix.on2.com/samples/vp8x264_720p.zip), it's interesting how they got x264 output to look like MPEG-4 (A)SP with all that macroblocking and somewhat annoying keyframe pumping. Would be nice to see the settings used. VP8 output on the other hand looks pretty much like x264 a year or two ago (without AQ and Psy RDO).

[Atak_Snajpera]

"...VP8 50% better than h.264" Hahahaahahah Good joke. Besides PSyRDO shows that in fact PSNR value is USELESS!!!!

[nm]

"...VP8 50% better than h.264" Hahahaahahah Good joke.
Note that they only claimed up to 50% less data / fewer CPU cycles, which could also be "25% worse most of the time" in real world scenarios ;)

[e-Pawel]

"50% better than h.264"

That's what already VP7 was claimed to be... yeah in deed, good joke ;)

[Dark Shikari]

Indeed, a good joke. VP7 was slower than H.264 and significantly worse quality than VC-1 in most of my tests (let alone H.264), so VP8 will likely be equally a joke.

[IgorC]

3 years ago On2's devs made everything possible for that VP7 could compete with x264 (revisions 2xx). They constantly were updating their codec from VP7.0.0 to VP7.0.9.
I hope On2's devs will try to do the same for vp8. Of course now VP7 has no chance to be comparable to x264. Since then there was only misc. update vp7.0.10.

I think the most important problems that VPx codecs have unstable local quality while overall quality isn't bad. VP7 has a problem with scene change. Key frames are highly quantized and rest of sequences recover details in temporal sequence. As a results there is no constant quality. Another issue is too strong deblocking filter. It's good only for very low bitrate.

To compete with x264 they must plan long time development to achieve solid and well tuned codec.

Just my opinion.

And good luck for a small company On2. They aren't MS to spread millions for VC-1 and they must face big standard.

[Sagittaire]

Indeed, a good joke. VP7 was slower than H.264 and significantly worse quality than VC-1 in most of my tests (let alone H.264), so VP8 will likely be equally a joke.

I don't think. VP7 was excellent codec.

[Dark Shikari]

I don't think. VP7 was excellent codec.By excellent you mean it decoded slower than ffmpeg's H.264 decoding did... using a 2004 build of ffmpeg? :rolleyes:

[Sagittaire]

By excellent you mean it decoded slower than ffmpeg's H.264 decoding did... using a 2004 build of ffmpeg? :rolleyes:

Well I make test at this period (you too?) and VP7 was by far faster to decode if you compare with H264 (coreAVC not available).

I would add that you routinely denigrates the work of others. It is a bad habit. VP8 is perhaps really better than H264. Who's know? Certainely not you at this time.

[bond]

http://www.on2.com/index.php?599

loop filter is know. what are those "golden frames"? the same as the multiple reference frames feature in avc?

[Dark Shikari]

Well I make test at this period (you too?) and VP7 was by far faster to decode if you compare with H264 (coreAVC not available).I did a test a while ago and the VP7 from On2's site was 5% slower than ffdshow (original, not tryouts) H.264 at the same time. I used default decoding settings. The quality varied depending on source, but mostly it appeared as if the video was extremely oversmoothed and then drastically oversharpened.I would add that you routinely denigrates the work of others. It is a bad habit.When people outright lie to promote crappy software, I have every right to call them on their BS. Its not "denigrating the work of others" if their work is awful. And its generally safe to assume that, given the history of random companies coming out with proprietary formats that are all claimed to be X% better than H.264, that these are crap unless proven otherwise. And by "proven otherwise" I mean "a fair test done by somebody with no vested interest in the proprietary format."

If I had a dollar for every company promoting their format as "far better than H.264" that then turns out to be a joke, I'd be rich. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and On2 has provided neither.

It doesn't help my expectations that, in their entire history as a company, On2 has never come out with a format significantly better than those existing on the market (at least as far as I know). Right now, they seem to be rather desperate given that their only popular product, VP6, has been rendered obsolete by Adobe.

Also, I find it rather insulting that you imply I always denigrate the work of others. If you look at my responses to things like CoreAVC, the DivX encoder and decoder, and other such products, I am fully receptive to them. What I do not receive well are products that make wildly false claims in order to promote themselves. Say "this format will be good," not "this format will be 25% better than H.264." The former makes sense, the latter is complete marketing nonsense and I reserve every right to mock it ruthlessly until sufficient proof is given.

[Sagittaire]

I did a test a while ago and the VP7 from On2's site was 5% slower than ffdshow (original, not tryouts) H.264 at the same time. I used default decoding settings.

VP7 use Post-Process by default like DivX. If you want make serious comparison use decoder without PP like for MPEG4 ASP. In my memory VP7 without PP use the same CPU ressource than MPEG4 ASP. Say that H264 is faster than VP7 is like say that H264 is faster than MPEG4 ASP.



If I had a dollar for every company promoting their format as "far better than H.264" that then turns out to be a joke, I'd be rich. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and On2 has provided neither, especially given the fact that their PSNR values in their test for x264 are over 4db lower than those achieved by residents of #x264 on Freenode at the same bitrate.

One2 is a serious compagny. At the VP7 begin One2 annonce comparable result to H264 (metric) with really faster decoding and it was true at this time. I make the test. You too?

[Dark Shikari]

VP7 use Post-Process by default like DivX. If tou want make serious comparison use decoder without PP like for MPEG4 ASP. In my memory VP7 without PP use the same CPU ressource than MPEG4 ASP.If you're supposed to watch the video with a particular filter, it makes sense to compare with it. If they didn't want it on by default, they wouldn't have put it on by default. Or do you want me to add skiploopfilter to the H.264 decoding options? There are plenty of formats that you're not supposed to watch without a filter; comparing with settings that you would never actually use for viewing is a completely useless test.One2 is a serious compagny. At the VP7 begin One2 annonce comparable result to H264 (metric) with really faster decoding and it was true at this time. I make the test. You too?And yet last time I looked the version of VP7 on On2's site is still 5 years old. Is a company truly "serious" if they abandon the product they release and never release any update, even a publicly available decoder? Perhaps they might have had some truth to their marketing 5 years ago, when H.264 was brand new and the implementations awful, but it has been 5 years and VP7 now sucks, regardless of its original status.TrueMotion VP7 is the world's best video compressor. It provides the best quality of any codec on the market today at datarates from dial-up to high-definition. It encodes quicker, decodes in fewer cycles, and is less complex than the standards-based codecs used by our competitors.How can you not laugh at such absurdity?

[Sagittaire]

If you're supposed to watch the video with a particular filter, it makes sense to compare with it. If they didn't want it on by default, they wouldn't have put it on by default. Or do you want me to add skiploopfilter to the H.264 decoding options? There are plenty of formats that you're not supposed to watch without a filter; comparing with settings that you would never actually use for viewing is a completely useless test.


loopfilter is an official part of H264 decoding and not post-process for VP7 or MPEG4 ASP. It's just an option. With heavy Post-Process you can obtain a better speed for H264 than for MPEG4 ASP. The conclusion will be that H264 is faster than MPEG4 ASP? Seriousely ... lol.



And yet last time I looked the version of VP7 on On2's site is still 5 years old. Is a company truly "serious" if they abandon the product they release and never release any update, even a publicly available decoder? Perhaps they might have had some truth to their marketing 5 years ago, when H.264 was brand new and the implementations awful, but it has been 5 years and VP7 now sucks, regardless of its original status.How can you not laugh at such absurdity?

Well you have make test with VP8 ... ? Yes or not ? Don't speak if you don't know. It's trolling.

[Dark Shikari]

Well you have make test with VP8 ... ? Yes or not ? Don't speak if you don't know. It's trolling.Again, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Since I cannot test with VP8, I will declare their extraordinary claims to be bunk until I am given sufficient proof otherwise.

If I say "there is a giant 5 mile high monster in the Australian desert," you would tell me I'm nuts. Am I allowed to then say that you're trolling, since you don't know, and therefore shouldn't speak on the topic? :rolleyes:loopfilter is a official part of H264 decoding and not post-process for VP7How do you know? The VP7 spec is not public. Perhaps I should quote you on this issue?Don't speak if you don't know. It's trolling.

[bond]

please all be nice :)

[Sagittaire]

Again, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Since I cannot test with VP8, I will declare their extraordinary claims to be bunk until I am given sufficient proof otherwise. If I say "there is a giant 5 mile high monster in the Australian desert," you would tell me I'm nuts. Am I allowed to then say that you're trolling, since you don't know, and therefore shouldn't speak on the topic?


Well you can make little test with foreman PSNR graph and see if H264 result are correct.


The VP7 spec is not public. Perhaps I should quote you on this issue?


From One2tech the codec developper. IMO it's a good source, isn't it? PP is an option for VP7 like for MPEG4 ASP or VC1.

[Dark Shikari]

Well you can make little test with foreman PSNR graph and see if H264 result are correct.I may try this later, but its also important to note that x264 is nowhere near the king at PSNR; last I saw Mainconcept could still beat it considerably at times. Yet in practice, Mainconcept often looks awful compared to x264, in some cases even being beaten out by Xvid. Partially because of this, I no longer consider PSNR graphs to be much proof of anything.

On2 has a particularly hard challenge because, as a promoter of purely proprietary formats, they have to both make a good format and make a good implementation--they are on their own. Even if they can overcome the odds and make a format that is significantly superior to H.264, if they are as obsessed with PSNR as they make themselves out to be, they surely have no chance of competing with x264.

[Tagert]

Big claims indeed :D
Wonder when they will be able to back it up by releasing their awesome codec :p

[Manao]

Bond : golden frames are indeed like references in h264, but limited to 2 references max : the previous reference, and another one, that can be updated whenever they want. It seems it can be updated piecewise too, which makes it a bit more flexible than 2 references with h264. As for the usefulness of that, I don't know. It must help in some contrive cases, but beyond that... In any case, it will help less than bframes & bpyramids would, but they can't use those because they are afraid of patents (though bframes should be patentless by now, I think).

Their description of their loop filter and its adaptivity to motion doesn't impress me. h264 loop-filter also adapts to motion (though the way it adapts to motion seems different from VP8's).

Their visual results for h264 seems a bit strange, since I seem to see a good old IDCT mismatch drift during the GOP, which can't happen with AVC. As stated by nm, it more looks like ASP than AVC.

As for the PSNR curves, they must always be taken with a (huge) grain of salt, wherever they come from. Since they don't say which encoder and which settings are used, however, the curve most probably are correct. They just don't mean anything and can be ignored.

Dark Shikari : sagittaire is right, when it came out, VP7 was lighter than existing AVC decoders, and more than hold its ground quality-wise. Our encoder, at that time, only managed to consistently beat it when we included High profile.

[CruNcher]

Yeah about the PSNR results they dont say alot tough for H.264 basicly with inloop deblocking it means higher PSNR and most times looks awfull tough with VP8 it doesn't have to be the same because they use a complete different deblocking aproach which seems really interesting :), though 50% is a heavy claim thats like they wanted to say: "hey look we drove ahead of MPEG before they even get started with H.265" :D

[IgorC]

Wonder if they will go to VFW?

[Sharktooth]

i wonder if they will release a free-for-personal-use encoder.
then speculation will end...

[LoRd_MuldeR]

i wonder if they will release a free-for-personal-use encoder.
then speculation will end...

Plus a free-for-personal-use decoder library, of course :)

[CruNcher]

Maybe this also implies they gonna Open Source VP7 now :)

[slavickas]

Maybe this also implies they gonna Open Source VP7 now :)

well they promised to release VP4 as open source and it never happened ( big IINM ;) )

[Inventive Software]

VP4's decodable in ffmpeg, yes no? :) As is VP5, yes no?

[smok3]

i think they missed all the trains, at least i can't see what could happen, even if they would develop the world-best-codec.

[LoRd_MuldeR]

VP4's decodable in ffmpeg, yes no? :) As is VP5, yes no?

Most likely this is thanks to the reverse engineering capabilities of the ffmpeg developers, not thanks to On2...

[Sharktooth]

i wonder if on2tech is still around.
his last forum "activity" was October 2007.

[HKisd]

Some new info about On2 VP8 available.

http://www.dspdesignline.com/howto/214303691 (http://www.dspdesignline.com/howto/214303691)

[IgorC]

Some new info about On2 VP8 available.

http://www.dspdesignline.com/howto/214303691 (http://www.dspdesignline.com/howto/214303691)
Old news. The same hype about magic adaptive inloop filter and golden frames etc.

I think it isn't correct thing to wait really new technology from On2.
VP6 was H.263++(-like) codec. As inverse engineering shows VP6 uses reference frames, deblock as well as H.263++ or H.26L

VP7 is mostly H.264-like codec.

Right now there is some work around H.265.
http://yufeng1684.bokee.com/6776683.html
http://iphome.hhi.de/suehring/tml/download/KTA/

on2 may just buy licenses for some compression tools from big boys.

There is some information that VP8 may be released in the end of April (after more than 6 months of waporwaring (farting) and paper release and rumors from 2007)

[Dark Shikari]

VP7 is mostly H.264-like codec. Doubtful, considering it doesn't even have B-frames, last I recall... and given that in many cases it came out worse than (http://i44.tinypic.com/if6h6q.png) MPEG-2 (http://i41.tinypic.com/10qiey0.png), I don't think we can expect much from them.

[*.mp4 guy]

The first one is better. You can't measure quality solely based on the amount of background noise present (I say noise, as the mpeg2 is a sea of artifacts). All this picture demonstrates is that vp7 could benefit from aq, which is incredibly ironic considering how long x264 needed aq before it got it, and considering that people who said x264 was killing details were often shouted down, until aq is released, then its the reverse bias to a similarly absurd extent.

[Dark Shikari]

The first one is better. You can't measure quality solely based on the amount of background noise present (I say noise, as the mpeg2 is a sea of artifacts). All this picture demonstrates is that vp7 could benefit from aqIf you look at all the other images from other encoders--including other H.264 encoders--even those without AQ, the correct conclusion seems to be that VP7's deblocking filter is far too strong. Mainconcept, for example, doesn't have near the blurring problem that VP7 does despite not having AQ.

AQ helps solve the problem, but it's not a scapegoat.

And yes, you can measure quality based on the amount of background noise. It's the job of an encoder to make the result look like the source to the human eye, and if background noise is what is necessary to do that, then so be it.

[IgorC]

@DS

Both screenshots you post look badly. VP7 is way smooth but MPEG2 is a soap of macroblocks. And please, can you post original.png too?;)
I marked the few areas of you screenshot where MPEG-2 had simply unacceptable quality.http://img11.imageshack.us/my.php?image=mpeg2marked.png

One encoded video isn't representative of whole codec efficiency.
Maybe VP7 is worse than MPEG-2 in 2% but is better in other 98%.

Here is other example (2 pass mode, 1500 kbit/s)
Source: lossless
ftp://ftp.tnt.uni-hannover.de/pub/svc/testsequences/SOCCER_704x576_30_orig_02_yuv.zip

MPEG-2 (HC encoder, best quality)
http://img19.imageshack.us/my.php?image=hc1500.png
VP7 (vp7.0.10.0, best quality)
http://img19.imageshack.us/my.php?image=vp71500.png
Original
http://img19.imageshack.us/my.php?image=originalu.png

Encoded videos:
http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?u2onmmztgui

Actually VP7 is good as x264 was in 2005 (mostly first middle of the year). Then on2 has stopped to improve VP7.

[*.mp4 guy]

I'm not sure what the fuss is about, marketing departments always exagerate beyond all semblence of reality, and its always nice to have more competition, and more options, though I am quite certain i will be sticking with x264 for the forseable future.

I think you have missed my point, or are avoiding it. vp7 is clearly better here, look at the text, look at the pillars, look at the wing, look at the main character, and the foreground effects. vp7 does look like its filter is too strong, but you are aware that it is adjustable on playback, right?

I'm not saying that x264 isn't most likely better then vp8, or that vp7 is still competetive with x264 (though it must be said that x264 is not representative of the state of avc as a standard). However your posts in this thread show clear bias. Vp7 was as good as they claimed it was when it was released, or rather it was close enough, and much more capable of living up to the marketing then most codecs.

I don't used vp(insert number), but I have tested most of them, 3 is about on par with mpeg2, 4 and 5 don't apear much different then 3 to me, 6 was better then asp, but had poor rate control, 7 was competetive with the best available codecs upon release, but was extremely slow to encode with good settings, and was eventually eclipsed by avc, in particular ateme and then x264. I expect vp8 to be a good codec, of similar quality to x264, and if it is released for personal use, it will be interesting to test.

Surprisingly, I agree almost completely with Sagittaire.

[Dark Shikari]

@DS

Both screenshots you post look badly. VP7 is way smooth but MPEG2 is a soap of macroblocks. And please, can you post original.png too?;)
I marked the few areas of you screenshot where MPEG-2 had simply unacceptable quality.http://img11.imageshack.us/my.php?image=mpeg2marked.png

One encoded video isn't representative of whole codec efficiency.
Maybe VP7 is worse than MPEG-2 in 2% but is better in other 98%.

Here is other example (2 pass mode, 1500 kbit/s)
Source: lossless
ftp://ftp.tnt.uni-hannover.de/pub/svc/testsequences/SOCCER_704x576_30_orig_02_yuv.zip

MPEG-2 (HC encoder, best quality)
http://img19.imageshack.us/my.php?image=hc1500.png
VP7 (vp7.0.10.0, best quality)
http://img19.imageshack.us/my.php?image=vp71500.png
Original
http://img19.imageshack.us/my.php?image=originalu.png

Encoded videos:
http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?u2onmmztgui

Actually VP7 is good as x264 was in 2005 (mostly first middle of the year). Then on2 has stopped to improve VP7.Here's the full comparison with ~12 encoders (http://www.mediafire.com/?2lzcdngzayd). mapping.txt stores the mapping of numbers to encoders.

If after looking through this you can still say with a straight face that VP7 is competitive with AVC--let alone ASP!--you're clearly just shilling for On2; there's no other reasonable explanation.

I myself thought VP7 wasn't too bad until I ran this test. The results shocked me as well. Maybe it's just this video, but it's rather biased to go and write off all situations where an encoder fails as a "pathological case" and only accept those that it does well on.

IMO VP3 is roughly competitive with MPEG-2, VP6 with ASP, and VP7 is roughly competitive with VC-1 on average (but obviously, in some cases, it can be much worse). VP6 doesn't seem to have the kind of pathological cases VP7 has.

[IgorC]

Here's the full comparison with ~12 encoders (http://www.mediafire.com/?2lzcdngzayd). mapping.txt stores the mapping of numbers to encoders.
???
Who asked you to post them?


If after looking through this you can still say with a straight face that VP7 is competitive with AVC--let alone ASP!--you're clearly just shilling for On2; there's no other reasonable explanation.
Don't put in my mouth the words I don't say. I didn't say that VP7 has the quality of todays H.264 encoders.
I do say: VP7 is H.264 like codecs. (speaking of generation, not quality). Actually VP7 is good as x264 was in 2005 (mostly first middle of the year). Then on2 has stopped to improve VP7.




I myself thought VP7 wasn't too bad until I ran this test. The results shocked me as well. Maybe it's just this video, but it's rather biased to go and write off all situations where an encoder fails as a "pathological case" and only accept those that it does well on.
Do you have another video on you hdd that isn't your PC game video horror.
What part of the statement you didnt understand?
One encoded video isn't representative of whole codec efficiency.

You get on people nerves easily.
Manao, Sagi, me and mp4 guy had told you:
VP7 was comparable to x264 in 2005 and it's way better than MPEG2, ASP.

[IgorC]

@DS

If you are saying that VP7 is worse than MPEG-2.
Prove it!!!
Here is the original lossless sample. ftp://ftp.tnt.uni-hannover.de/pub/svc/testsequences/SOCCER_704x576_30_orig_02_yuv.zip
Encode it at sane bitrates like 1500 kbit/s.

[Dark Shikari]

@DS

If you are saying that VP7 is worse than MPEG-2. No, I said in that particular case it came out worse, demonstrating that VP7's quality is rather schizophrenic.

As I said, I think the format is probably comparable to VC-1 on a good day.

But since people are incapable of reading my posts and are blinded so much by their hated of x264 that they cannot parse simple logical statements, I'm not going to continue explaining anything in this thread. Enjoy your fantasy that VP7 is competitive with even non-x264 H.264 encoders; I hope On2 is at least paying you to take such an absurd position.

[IgorC]

No, I said in that particular case it
But since people are incapable of reading my posts
You're not exception at all. 4 people was telling about "past glory of VP7" but you didn't understand the message was:" on2 can prepare good codec in future just as it was in 2005".



and are blinded so much by their hated of x264 that they cannot parse simple logical statements
???
I'm x264's f.... fan.


I hope On2 is at least paying you to take such an absurd position.
You wayyyyyyyyy crazy

You may think anything you want. That I was paid by on2, Ateme, Elecard ..because I was a beta tester of their codecs or gui .. I didn't receive any f.. cent from them ...so my speech is free
So stfu!!!

[IgorC]

Enjoy your fantasy that VP7 is competitive with even non-x264 H.264 encoders
And you can enjoy your fantasy about that you have statistically average eyes of whole world.
Many people have told you here: You never admit that you can wrong.

[IgorC]

I hope On2 is at least paying you to take such an absurd position.
:p
Yes, they paid to me, to Ateme developer, Sagi, *.mp4 guy and many other peoples.

Go to sleep, boy.

[Sagittaire]

No, I said in that particular case it came out worse, demonstrating that VP7's quality is rather schizophrenic.

As I said, I think the format is probably comparable to VC-1 on a good day.

But since people are incapable of reading my posts and are blinded so much by their hated of x264 that they cannot parse simple logical statements, I'm not going to continue explaining anything in this thread. Enjoy your fantasy that VP7 is competitive with even non-x264 H.264 encoders; I hope On2 is at least paying you to take such an absurd position.

Well Choose short and really particular test sequences never produce general conclusion. In my memory One2Tech provide really particular test sequences where VP7 produce by far better quality than all the other codec at high quantisation level. VP7 produce in general case by far better quality than MPEG4 ASP ...

[Sagittaire]

And for test ...
http://www.on2.com/index.php?609

In fact when I make test with foreman I find in practice more than 1 dB for x264 in this test without Psy tools.
Internal test from dev are always bad when they test other codec (Dark Shikari is not exception) ... I don't know why ... lol

D:\Mes dossiers\Codec\x264>x264 --fps 30 --crf 27 --threads 1 --bframes 3 --b-adapt 2 --b-pyramid --
ref 5 --mixed-refs --direct auto --deblock -1:-1 --psy-rd 0.0:0.0 --aq-mode 0 --aq-strength 0.0 --pr
ogress --8x8dct --subme 9 --me "tesa" --partitions "all" --trellis 2 --qcomp 0.75 --keyint 120 -o x2
64HP-896.mp4 352x288.yuv
x264 [info]: file name gives 352x288
x264 [info]: using cpu capabilities: MMX2 SSE2Fast SSSE3 Cache64
x264 [info]: profile High, level 1.3
mp4 [info]: initial delay 2000 (scale 30000)
x264 [info]: slice I:3 Avg QP:25.33 size: 12448 PSNR Mean Y:39.03 U:42.39 V:44.35 Avg:40.03 Gl
obal:39.85
x264 [info]: slice P:139 Avg QP:28.22 size: 2033 PSNR Mean Y:37.04 U:41.29 V:42.86 Avg:38.14 Gl
obal:37.97
x264 [info]: slice B:158 Avg QP:30.31 size: 573 PSNR Mean Y:36.08 U:40.94 V:42.63 Avg:37.28 Gl
obal:37.11
x264 [info]: consecutive B-frames: 15.2% 31.6% 30.3% 22.9%
x264 [info]: mb I I16..4: 14.2% 34.1% 51.7%
x264 [info]: mb P I16..4: 2.7% 2.9% 1.4% P16..4: 39.9% 16.2% 7.9% 1.3% 0.6% skip:27.0%
x264 [info]: mb B I16..4: 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% B16..8: 39.1% 3.0% 2.1% direct: 1.9% skip:53.5% L
0:35.8% L1:47.2% BI:17.0%
x264 [info]: 8x8 transform intra:40.2% inter:57.2%
x264 [info]: direct mvs spatial:98.7% temporal:1.3%
x264 [info]: ref P L0 77.0% 9.3% 6.6% 3.1% 4.0%
x264 [info]: ref B L0 74.1% 11.9% 10.3% 3.7%
x264 [info]: ref B L1 92.0% 8.0%
x264 [info]: SSIM Mean Y:0.9431324
x264 [info]: PSNR Mean Y:36.553 U:41.119 V:42.753 Avg:37.703 Global:37.509 kb/s:328.38

encoded 300 frames, 11.79 fps, 328.90 kb/s


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.

[*.mp4 guy]

It apears that Dark Shikari's opinion of vp7 is due to testing with its default settings (besides setting quality to best), and vp7's defaults are incredibly bad. In my experience, you always need to completely disable its post processing, and set sharpness to 0 to get good quality output from it.

Dark Shikari provided a lossless segment from the sample those screenshots are from, and vp7 without its incredibly bad post filter, and with sharpness set to 0 looks as good as just about everything but x264.

screenshot (http://www.imagebam.com/image/3f825c29960106) ( I know its not the same frame, but you get the idea).

[Sagittaire]

It apears that Dark Shikari's opinion of vp7 is due to testing with its default settings (besides setting quality to best), and vp7's defaults are incredibly bad. In my experience, you always need to completely disable its post processing, and set sharpness to 0 to get good quality output from it.


Yes ... anyway this sequence is here to prove the AQ utility. VP7 can't really fight here.

[avih]

:p
Yes, they paid to me, to Ateme developer, Sagi, *.mp4 guy and many other peoples.

Go to sleep, boy.
Hey, take it easy there please. No need to patronize or turn the discussion into a fight. Please be polite and on topic. That was a warning, Thanks.

[hurry]

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]

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

Well said, right on...

[chenm001]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[the Mad Duke]

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]

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]

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.

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

[the Mad Duke]

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]

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]

$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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

[Gokumon]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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:

[nm]

on2 has not released any encoder decoder fo VP8, how could you do test when it isn't even in the public :logfile:
He tested x264 and compared the results to the graph provided by On2.

[Sagittaire]

He tested x264 and compared the results to the graph provided by On2.

And in the past One2 provided always valid test for all the VPx codec ... VP8 will be certainely really powerfull codec.

[Max of S2D]

Theora gives me a better quality than On2's codecs :v

[Sagittaire]

Theora gives me a better quality than On2's codecs :v

Theora is based on very old one2 codec: VP3. VP7 is by far better than theora.

[CruNcher]

Correct the main basic Technology state is still VP3 but it's a very improved Encoder sure can't be called Next Generation i would say it could reach VP6 in the efficiency of the Encoder :)
also Sagittaire you should redo your comparison vs VP8 again with --no-psy

[Sagittaire]

also Sagittaire you should redo your comparison vs VP8 again with --no-psy

I obtain OPSNR result with insane optimized OPSNR setting for x264 and even in this case VP8 is in par with x264. Really impressive result for VP8.

[nakTT]

I obtain OPSNR result with insane optimized OPSNR setting for x264 and even in this case VP8 is in par with x264. Really impressive result for VP8.
Any trial version that we can download and have a try? I just like to run a test to confirm this with my own eyes.

[IgorC]

I obtain OPSNR result with insane optimized OPSNR setting for x264 and even in this case VP8 is in par with x264. Really impressive result for VP8.
It's not surprise. At first time on2 was always good.
The problem of on2 is that they always stoped to improve their existed codecs after few months from release date.

Good example is VP6/7. They were good but now (don't need to say where they belong).

The situation can be different now with acquisition.

[mysoogal]

It's not surprise. At first time on2 was always good.
The problem of on2 is that they always stoped to improve their existed codecs after few months from release date.

Good example is VP6/7. They were good but now (don't need to say where they belong).

The situation can be different now with acquisition.

" The situation can be different now with acquisition. "

and you can take that to the bank ! i hope google opens vp8, hope youtube somehow starts using VP8, can we say monopoly :devil: google are smart with money they keep buying new technologies, shame they don't really invent their own :confused:

[iwod]

The problem is there are no VP8 hardware decoder. So i cant see how VP8 will take off?
H.264 already has widespread Hardware support.

[IgorC]

The new SDK VP8 is released
http://on2.com/index.php?id=439&news_id=689

[iwod]

The new SDK VP8 is released
http://on2.com/index.php?id=439&news_id=689

What's new? Sounds like a PR to me...

[nakTT]

Perhaps we should have a duel between the latest x264 and the latest VP8.

[the Mad Duke]

Google now Owns On2's codecs.

[Dark Shikari]

Google now Owns On2's codecs.I thought the merger was still up in the air? Last I recall On2's shareholders were complaining that $100m was too low.

[the Mad Duke]

We tried fighting off the merger but On2 kept extending the voting deadline until they finally got the votes they needed at todays meeting. I expect you'll see an official press release very soon.

[the Mad Duke]

On2 shareholders approve Google merger. (Not all of us did)

http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=901822

[RNiK]

We tried fighting off the merger ...
Can I ask you "why"?

[Astrophizz]

From the article: some people got a bad deal with the On2 shares -> Google shares transition.

[iwod]

Cant wait to see what google do with VP8.....

[iwod]

A Stupid Question, is it technically possible to encode VP8 with an Modified H.264 encoder if VP8 is 90%+ similar to H.264

[Dark Shikari]

A Stupid Question, is it technically possible to encode VP8 with an Modified H.264 encoder if VP8 is 90%+ similar to H.264It's not 90%+ similar to H.264. In terms of open standards, it probably has more in common with MPEG-4 SP or VP3 than H.264. But given that nothing since VP6 has been reverse-engineered, it's a bit hard to say (VP7 still had the stupid "golden frame" thing though).

[LigH]

On2 VP8 is said to be free of third-party patents. If that is true, and VP8 will be released as OpenSource, then it will possibly become a serious competitor of the "free of charge for web video until 2015" standard H.264 currently used in MPEG4-AVC and Flash Video 10, but also of the still developed free codec Ogg Theora, which is based on On2 VP3.2 and already the top candidate for HTML 5 video.

Let's sit back and watch the battle for the biggest piece'o'cake.

Or rather ... get a grip on the slicing knife too. ;)

[IgorC]

I will jump and throw my point of view too.

Untill now pre-H.265 was able to achieve ~20% of improvement over H.264. It will be reasonably to have doubts if VP8 will achieve at least 5-10% over H.264.
Even if VP8 will be slightly better than H.264 how much time it will take to VP8 to have comparable hard+soft support as it has H.264 now. Remember it takes quite long time for H.264 to become enough popular.
What has happened to VP6? It was superior to ASP. It's forgotten forever.

I think H.264 was adopted in right time and it's late for VP8-like codec.
Too many advantages: blu-ray, HDTV, mobile devices, etc. It's becoming universal like MP3.
And Google just protects itself.

It's not about doom9's ideals but all people's entire love to play videos everywhere.

[Keiyakusha]

I will jump and throw my point of view too.

Untill now pre-H.265 was able to achieve ~20% of improvement over H.264. It will be reasonably to have doubts if VP8 will achieve at least 5-10% over H.264.
Even if VP8 will be slightly better than H.264 how much time it will take to VP8 to have comparable hard+soft support as it has H.264 now. Remember it takes quite long time for H.264 to become enough popular.
What has happened to VP6? It was superior to ASP. It's forgotten forever.

I think H.264 was adopted in right time and it's late for VP8-like codec.
Too many advantages: blu-ray, HDTV, mobile devices, etc. It's becoming universal like MP3.
And Google just protects itself.

It's not about doom9's ideals but all people's entire love to play videos everywhere.

Hmm, I thought the whole point in (possible) opensourcing VP8 is to have nice format for web, out of the box support in browsers and of course it should be free. This is good since it should be superior in quality compared to theora. Thats it. Who cares about hardware support and stuff?

Vp6 was forgotten because h264 came to its place in web, or better to say in flash player. If vp8 will be opensource and used by google, it will be with us for a long time. EDIT: it even doesn't need to be better than h264.

[IgorC]

Who cares about hardware support and stuff?

In theory nobody does. In practice? What has happened to Vorbis? It was open source+high quality. The history is repeating. Everybody promised soon dead to other not-free or closed schemes of audio compression.

Open source and high quality aren't enough. Without wide compatibility (include hardware support) VP8 won't go any far.

[Keiyakusha]

In theory nobody does. In practice? What has happened to Vorbis? It was open source+high quality. The history is repeating. Everybody promised soon dead to other not-free or closed schemes of audio compression.

Open source and high quality aren't enough. Without wide compatibility (include hardware support) VP8 won't go any far.

Well, I'll try to expand my point:
I'm not followed the story with vorbis. Maybe it claimed to replace something, or claimed wide hardware support and turned out it was fail, but VP8 is another story. Now that Google owns all its patents, all that we should expect from it is to became open standard for web video. Also if VP8 will be opened, popularity of vorbis also may be boosted (it will be good idea to use open audio).
I agree that VP8 won't go far, it will be just a format for web. For that it doesn't even need to be better than h264 in terms of compression...
If it won't be open... yes, it will be even more dead than vorbis

Open source and high quality are enough. Why? Because for web we anyway don't have anything better.

[Astrophizz]

The h.264 spec is open, just not free. I'm not sure what you mean by open source (as in editable?) but the theora bitstream is locked and pretty much can't be changed. If you mean the encoder, well there's an open source, high quality h.264 encoder... For VP8 to get any support, the bitstream would also have to be frozen (with the possibility of future expansion).

[Keiyakusha]

I mean something that can be used by anyone without paying anything and with quality better than theora.
EDIT: I didn't actually mean unfrozen bitstream. And free opensource encoders by google - why not?

[Astrophizz]

Yeah I can see it. I'd expect they'd have their own version and then an open source (a la Chrome/Chromium, etc).

[the Mad Duke]

Looks like Sorenson may be jumping on the VP8 bandwagon.

http://newteevee.com/2010/05/10/is-sorenson-media-betting-on-vp8/

[CruNcher]

What a surprise ;) hehe not really anything is better Technology wise then what Sorenson presented over the last years :P

[MfA]

The h.264 spec is open, just not free. I'm not sure what you mean by open source (as in editable?) but the theora bitstream is locked and pretty much can't be changed. If you mean the encoder, well there's an open source, high quality h.264 encoder... For VP8 to get any support, the bitstream would also have to be frozen (with the possibility of future expansion).
H.264 is frozen for patent reasons, the patent licenses are only valid for compliant use. Theora and presumably VP8 decoder specs will be frozen for practical reasons in most uses, but if you want to you can still use a variant.

[Dark Shikari]

H.264 is frozen for patent reasons, the patent licenses are only valid for compliant use.Wrong. Many, many companies have variants on H.264 that they sell (e.g. SVQ3, RV30, RV40, etc). The patent licenses are nondiscriminatory and they're required to sell you one if you ask for it, even if you're not using it for H.264.

[MfA]

Well you have the advantage over me by having up to date information about the existing licenses, while I have to go with web leaks ... so tell me is this no longer part of the MPEG-LA AVC pool license?

Scope of License Grant. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, all licenses granted under this Agreement are limited to a field of use to comply with the AVC Standard. No other licenses for any other purpose or use are granted herein nor are any licenses granted to any portion or segment of any product or thing except those portions or segments of such product or thing that comply with the AVC Standard.

Or if it's still in there where can I find information about the separate RAND license you allude to?

[the Mad Duke]

and thus it begins.

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/vp8-video-from-anystream-avalon-and-agility-2g,1305194.shtml

add Zencoder to that list.

http://newteevee.com/2010/05/18/zencoder-excited-about-open-source-vp8/

[Dark Shikari]

On Wednesday, I will be coming out with the first in-depth analysis of the VP8 standard, along with the On2 encoder and decoder. This will cover every major part of the spec, along with the features of the encoder, its performance, quality, and patent risks.

Watch my blog.

[the Mad Duke]

Awesome. Looking forward to that.

[IgorC]

Google conference will be available online as well http://www.youtube.com/GoogleDevelopers
This goes beyond just videocodec VP8. Google pushes TV platform. Serious deal for global communication systems.

[weasel_]

http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/?p=377

Dark Shikari GJ :)

I dont see single point where vp8 is better then h264...
I cant see it`s better then baseline ... comapre to main profile vp8 looks a lot closer to Mpeg 4 ASP(xvid etc)

[weasel_]

I agree that VP8 won't go far, it will be just a format for web. For that it doesn't even need to be better than h264 in terms of compression...
.
Hmm , evereybody is on dailup, HD is baned from web, or what else is reason why picture quality isn`t important for web ?

[Keiyakusha]

Hmm , evereybody is on dailup, HD is baned from web, or what else is reason why picture quality isn`t important for web ?
Where did I said that picture quality is not important for web? I said VP8 doesn't have to be better than h264. This is two different things.

[weasel_]

U have right ;)
and still vp8 doesn`t have to be worse then xvid and h264 baisline profile
Google claim something else : 50% batter then h264, broadcast QUALITY 720@ 1200... both is joke ...

[LigH]

The demo video on the On2 VP8 website (http://www.on2.com/index.php?599) tries its best to make H.264 look worse than VP8. But it also shows clearly that the "slightly more convenient look" could only be achieved by massive post processing. As long as there is no full-featured and detailed configurable encoder, there is no objective comparison with fair encoder option balance...

And comparing against "x264" instead of "H.264" is indeed a bold challenge! Other AVC encoders (like MainConcept) would have been more harmless competitors.

[MfA]

Nothing inherently wrong with post-processing filters, wanting to keep everything in loop is a bad habit ... what is good for the eye is not necessary good for the encoder. Of course for it to be really relevant the codec should have sideband information to indicate the postprocessing should be done.