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.