Quote:
Originally Posted by Emanem_
Thanks again! 
I do understand your points.
But how must be hard to develop a codec and test/verify that what you've done is an improvement if there is no such automated way to do it? Do you authors of x264 have at your disposition a group of experts to help you with psy measurements? |
We have our eyes and intuitions
But of course I don't claim to have "golden eyes" or any of that type of BS that audiophiles like to spout; I'm as limited as anyone else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emanem_
Anyway, about x264 and VP8, I've always used the slowest settings (think during encoding that VP8 in the Shark scene goes 1.5 FPS while x264 30+ on my Phenom II X4 965 B.E.).
|
30+ FPS isn't the slowest
. Try placebo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emanem_
But at the end of the day I've found out that VP8 is very good quality wise.
Have you ever give it a shot, you know just out of curiosity, to take a peek at the competition? Have you ever encoded a HD video with VP8 and seen it? I'm just curious...
|
Yes, I tested it as part of my analysis of VP8. It came out rather lacking, losing by about 20-30% PSNR-wise and even more visually (due to lack of psy opts). It beat x264 Baseline profile by about 8% though, PSNR-wise. Of course, in a visual comparison, even x264 Baseline beat VP8, but that's not surprising.
It's even worse if you pick a non-super-slow mode though; VP8 does incredibly badly on its "fast" modes, which is what really matters for practical use (try encoding a 1080p movie with --best!).
Of course, speed issues are problems with the encoder, not the format. The format itself is a bit better compression-wise than H.264 Baseline, but greatly inferior to Main or High. Speed-wise, it's pretty similar to Main or High, maybe a bit slower.