WebM Exciting New Video Standard with VP8, Vorbis, Matroska

[Guest]

Originally Posted by CruNcher

Sorry but this Kid stuff doesn't really is the nature of Doom9 (MOD ?)
especially not in the importance of the situation we are facing, something like this doesn't really helps

Instead of tossing insults, please explain why this is "kid stuff".

[CruNcher]

http://i.imgur.com/4AFTe.png <- cant you see it yourself this is surely not how things look like in real, it's a sarcastic joke comparison even exaggerated one (using the old Batman for VP8 and the new for H.264 trying to make a point "kid stuff" sorry if it sounds too hard insulting was surely not my point here), something like this is inadequate for the situation and doesn't reflect the visual truth we are currently facing between VP8 and H.264.

[parsifal]

CruNcher, please don't be so uptight! The image was obviously humorous and of the witty kind, mind you...

[Dislikeyou]

From ON2 Website

:

[CruNcher]

Originally Posted by parsifal

CruNcher, please don't be so uptight! The image was obviously humorous and of the witty kind, mind you...

It's not that i can't lough about such things if they fit but it doesn't fit, and On2s comparison was a very special restricted broadcast use case with a old x264 which neither reflects the current truth anymore though @ that time it did under these very heavily restricted conditions (bitrate very low @ the edge of the resolution and short gop back then only 1 H.264 encoder was able to survive that visually, as it was entirely optimized for such broadcast scenarios)

[hajj_3]

We can't trust On2's own screenshots, we need to compare VP8 to Mainconcept's and Ateme's h.264. Its unfair to compare with x264 as that is clearly way better, i'd appreciate screenshot comparisons with mainconcept and ateme's h264 tho.

[weasel_]

CruNcher its just a joke ...
And still its more correct then claims on ON2 site about Vp8>h264

Originally Posted by Dislikeyou

From ON2 Website

:

hahaahah nice try google

[iwod]

I wonder if 110M paid to ON2 is enough to buy out all the patents in AVC.

So we could once and for all end the war...... where best codec win.

VP8 to me is USB - Cheap and Easy, but crap

X264 to be is Firewire, good but expensive....

[CruNcher]

That is a true visual difference @ that time of how things looked @ low bitrate i created these visual x264 results many many times moving @ the edge of bitrate for HD resolutions with restricted settings x264 (H.264) fall apart that way and yes i would have preferred a more blurry but less artifacting result under those very special conditions @ that time but with many improvements that followed x264 Edge is far lower now
But whats more interesting comparing both are resolution bitrate factors that are commonly used for Web Encoding, here it gets really interesting especially with future psy optimizations for VP8

And in those cases it doesn't really has to beat x264 @ all but majorly currently VC-1 and Apple Quicktime to have it's niche secured what Theora yet couldn't achieve is really near now

Also it seems many of you lost what VP8 also means for Linux it's a big step.

Windows = Windows Media Video (VC-1)
OSX = Apple Quicktime (H.264)
Linux = VP8 now and for the future as it's own base
Web = We still gonna see many things floating around but VP8 could take a big part of it

[Atak_Snajpera]

we need to compare VP8 to Mainconcept's and Ateme's h.264.

Ateme V2 is almost as good as x264 so VP8 will loose as well

[hajj_3]

it looks like a patent pool may be launched to go after VP8 now it seems: http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/2...free-for-long/

I'm glad that they are taking action now. I really hope that this does go to court so we can decide once and for all the whether it does violate patents and how much google needs to pay the MPEG-LA to licence those patents. Lets hope this is all over and done with within the next 3 months then websites can start adding WebM support without fear of having to pay royalties.

[PatchWorKs]

I believe that the interesting fact is that "Android-based Google TV coming to living rooms this fall" also.

And don't forget that a (cheap) HW implementation have been aleady achieved in EVD: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_Versatile_Disc

Last but not least: don't VP8 released *before* h264 ? If so, who could be the patent violator ?

[nurbs]

VP8 was first announced in september 2008 and it wasn't released until this week.

[kosmonaut]

Originally Posted by CruNcher

Yeah that Jason plays his PR game is a pitty

The last thing Dark needs is help defending himself, but this seems pretty unfair. It was inevitable that many people (myself included) were going to want to hear from him on VP8. His analysis is thorough! You can argue with his conclusions if you want, but the last thing you can call his post is superficial. Interested parties, like Steve Jobs, were going to use what he said for their own purposes, no matter what Dark posted, but at least he put all his cards on the table for anybody to read and decide for themselves.

[Dark Shikari]

Originally Posted by kosmonaut

The last thing Dark needs is help defending himself, but this seems pretty unfair. It was inevitable that many people (myself included) were going to want to hear from him on VP8. His analysis is thorough! You can argue with his conclusions if you want, but the last thing you can call his post is superficial. Interested parties, like Steve Jobs, were going to use what he said for their own purposes, no matter what Dark posted, but at least he put all his cards on the table for anybody to read and decide for themselves.

Indeed. People who are heavily invested in a particular side of any debate will always twist facts to their advantage. The proper solution is not to complain about the facts being out there, but rather to blame the people doing the twisting.

Merely getting rid of my blog post won't make Steve Jobs like VP8.

[MfA]

Originally Posted by kosmonaut

The last thing Dark needs is help defending himself, but this seems pretty unfair. It was inevitable that many people (myself included) were going to want to hear from him on VP8. His analysis is thorough! You can argue with his conclusions if you want, but the last thing you can call his post is superficial. Interested parties, like Steve Jobs, were going to use what he said for their own purposes, no matter what Dark posted, but at least he put all his cards on the table for anybody to read and decide for themselves.

His cards for the patent side were opinion completely unbiased by any facts. Without looking at actual patents and prior arts it's impossible to guess at the strength of patents or even the likelihood of something being patented.

Would a sane person think it likely that Nokia invalidated it's own intra prediction patents by early disclosure? Not likely ... but to think it impossible is naive. That kind of stuff happens all the time and it seems it happened here.

[Dark Shikari]

Originally Posted by MfA

Would a sane person think it likely that Nokia invalidated it's own intra prediction patents by early disclosure? Not likely ... but to think it impossible is naive. That kind of stuff happens all the time and it seems it happened here.

The whole point is that if we don't know anything, we have to assume the worst. It would be absolutely great if Google released a rationale for why said features don't violate patents.

But they haven't.

Sure, it's possible that there are all kinds of reasons why patents aren't being violated. But until it's demonstrated which one of these reasons is correct, we can't simply blindly assume that there isn't any violation going on.

Originally Posted by MfA

His cards for the patent side were opinion completely unbiased by any facts. Without looking at actual patents and prior arts it's impossible to guess at the strength of patents or even the likelihood of something being patented.

Since when is "VP8 is copying H.264" opinion? You can look at the bloody code if you want. And no matter what the situation, copying creates risk of patent problems. In the messy world of video coding, things are basically patented until proven otherwise, not the other way around.

[CruNcher]

You made conclusions that aren't facts your assumptions in the end might be wrong only because something is similar or shares the same principals doesn't mean it is the same and base for a patent violation, but that's what the conclusion your draw yourself together says and that currently gets used in attacking without any proof @ all in the mass media. Though MPEG seems to be pretty sure what you said has a base else they wouldn't come and higher their sword calling for a license base for VP8. Next we have to see how Google reacts to that , though they are pretty sure the conclusions you made aren't the case, they surely checked that before jumping into the wild (do you really believe they didn't calculated with these attacks ?). So either they gonna disprove you and even then MPEG might stands against it in that case we gonna see only 1 solution a court decision telling us whose right

[Dark Shikari]

Originally Posted by CruNcher

You made conclusions that aren't facts your assumptions in the end might be wrong only because something is similar or shares the same principals doesn't mean it is the same and base for a patent violation

Can you actually read what I said before writing about it?

I never said there was a patent violation.

I said there might be one. There is a risk of one. It might exist. It's possible. It may or may not be the case. How many different ways do I have to put it before people realize that it's not a foregone conclusion?

[MfA]

We do know something, we know when the MVC decoder spec. was disclosed and what was in it ... and we know the intra prediction patent does not have a priority date within the grace period after that disclosure. That should be enough for any sane person to not make blanket statement concerning the state of patent coverage for intra prediction.

As for Google there is really no advantage to them to show their competition where their patent portfolio is strongest or weakest ... they won't get into details for the same reason why Jobs/MPEG-LA won't publicly disclose any specific parts where the codec infringes. You have to keep your powder dry, the only time Google would be likely to go into details would be during NDA covered meetings.

One blind assumption is no better than the other ...