Welcome to Doom9's Forum, THE in-place to be for everyone interested in DVD conversion. Before you start posting please read the forum rules. By posting to this forum you agree to abide by the rules. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
20th June 2013, 16:27 | #201 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 729
|
Quote:
However, VP8 as a proprietary 1-vendor made codec is different. Nokia has no obligations at all with regards to 1) giving the license at all 2) asking ridiculous sums of money 3) withholding the license from select subjects (f.e. based on if they are competition to Nokia). Basically, Nokias patent once found infringed are (can be used as) a show-stopper, Motorola's patents just mean paying a small royalty. Naturally, there is a chance that Google will buy the needed license to those patents as it did with the MPEG-LA-related companies. |
|
20th June 2013, 17:59 | #202 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 201
|
I don't believe it's been fully settled that you can't use those kind of patents to block imports. Even if it finally goes that way, that's been a long time that people have been able to throw crippling legal threats about that would be enough to sink most small players and had the big players worried enough to go running to the government for help.
There's also Microsoft vs Alcatel-lucent that's been rumbling on for years and with awards of up to 1.5 billion which was all about MPEG patents too. I believe part of the argument there is similar in that they were supposed to be signed up for MPEG-LA but thought they could do a bit better out of the deal by trolling instead. Bottom line is, lots of patents + lots of money leads to lots of problems, and MPEG-LA isn't the panacea it's often made out to be |
20th June 2013, 19:01 | #203 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 729
|
Well, with MPEG-LA, you have at least the promise of FRAND licensing by MPEG-LA players - and luckily, by other subjects too - because you enter into such an obligation when you license H.264 from them (and H.264 licensing is extremely wide-spread thanks to its ubiquity).
With VP*, the only one promising anything to you is Google. Google's license has similar grant-back term, so people who use VP8 can't sue you for using VP8. However, Google hasn't been able to catch as many as potentially threatening parties on that hook, compared to MPEG-LA. I agree that MPEG-LA doesn't give you certainty either, but there is a real difference there. |
21st June 2013, 10:24 | #204 | Link | |
Curious Beta Tester
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 240
|
Quote:
Im thankful for competition to HEVC and choice for us who want to use next gen codecs |
|
21st June 2013, 11:21 | #205 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 201
|
Quote:
... I posted a link to the list of the people who are promising you their patents for VP8 at no cost above: CIF Licensing LLC France Telecom Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Foerderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. Fujitsu Limited Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. LG Electronics Inc. Mitsubishi Electric Corporation MPEG LA, LLC NTT DOCOMO, INC.1 Panasonic Corporation Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. Siemens Corporation2 ... VP8 has been a core part of Android since 2.3, and basically everyone uses android, or builds chips for android so the list of non-vp8 users is shrinking fast. (Android is of course big in phones and tablets, but it's expanding to laptops, desktops, TVs etc.) ... The difference is subtle and complicated while it is often represented as black and white. Last edited by dapperdan; 21st June 2013 at 11:26. |
|
29th June 2013, 20:21 | #206 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 197
|
Did a quick 'spot-check' comparison of the latest 6/28 master commit. Long story short, nothing much has really changed, and I doubt much will change for months and years, as the 0.x-1% refinements take a while to add up.
This is versus an HEVC anchor clip: Kimono @ QP32. Matched bitrate and keyint as usual, and same settings as previous encodes but this time, preset was changed to Best (not sure if there's much of a difference...). VP9 bitsream Side-by-side comparison vs HEVC. Encoded at CRF10 This is only one point of data, so I can't give an all encompassing bd-rate number, but I can say that in this single instance VP9 needs ~32% more bits for the same quality. |
29th June 2013, 22:56 | #207 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 729
|
The VP9 encoder shows quite serious issues after the scenechange, so it might be rate-control messing up the results a bit. /Still not an excuse, since they want to push this format fast for example on youtube. The videos will be screwed there for years I guess /
|
30th June 2013, 13:50 | #209 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 98
|
Yes, from what I gather from reading the mailing list, they (Google) run all their VP9 encodes as two-pass, also cq-level and end-use=cq seems to be silently ignored (defaulting to end-use=vbr), I guess they'll work on cq at a later stage in development.
|
1st July 2013, 02:51 | #210 | Link | ||
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 197
|
Quote:
In any case, the sample above was with VP9's 2pass, as it'd be a lot more difficult to get matched bitrates otherwise. Quote:
Last edited by xooyoozoo; 1st July 2013 at 02:54. |
||
1st July 2013, 08:37 | #211 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 497
|
Quote:
__________________
The Next Generation Internet Video Codec project.[/url]. |
|
1st July 2013, 21:16 | #213 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,126
|
It was finalised on the 11th june: https://groups.google.com/a/webmproject.org/forum/#!topic/webm-discuss/UzoX7owhwB0, here is the github for VP9: http://git.chromium.org/gitweb/?p=webm/libvpx.git;a=summary
Last edited by hajj_3; 1st July 2013 at 21:20. |
3rd July 2013, 09:26 | #214 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 201
|
The latest WebM Project blog post:
http://blog.webmproject.org/2013/07/...v-channel.html It's not exactly long but the interesting bits are, their claims on how VP9 stacks up: "VP9 development began eighteen months ago. In the short time since, according to our internal tests, we've produced a codec that shows video quality that is slightly better than HEVC (H.265) and is 50% better than VP8 and the best implementations of H.264 high profile." and what the immediate project goals are now that the bitstream is final: "We’ll now be working on optimizing libvpx for speed and performance, and working—with help from partners and the WebM community—to ensure that VP9 is positioned to integrate with the major encoding tools and consumer platforms, including mobile and embedded" |
4th July 2013, 11:13 | #216 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 201
|
Well, they made very similar claims (VP9 1% behind HEVC) at Google IO so I'd guess most of the variables there hold true for this one as well (though they were less forthcoming about the HEVC details compared with the x264 ones, it was more of a passing remark at that time).
VP9/libvpx (obviously) vs the HEVC reference encoder. (I think they claimed they had access to other pre-release encoders but weren't allowed to publish benchmarks due to EULA restrictions) Quality measured by PSNR. Test set a broad selection of Youtube content. They published their VP9 encoder settings on the mailing list and x264 as well, but I don't think they specified anything for HEVC. Google are better than most at documenting/releasing their test setups for others to recreate so you might want to just ask them for more details on the areas that aren't fully specified. |
4th July 2013, 18:33 | #217 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 729
|
It was probably some fringe case and the "lead" if true was a result of a difference in encoder decisions - since I think you could more or less think of VP9 as a weaker subset of compression tools available under HEVC...
|
5th July 2013, 01:15 | #218 | Link | |
契約者
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,576
|
Quote:
"best implementations of H.264 high profile" = x264 VP8 quality = x264 quality VP9 quality = HEVC quality and 50% better than VP8/x264 So. I can believe that some HEVC implementation is 50% better than x264. But in reality VP8 is like half the x264 quality... Does that mean the truth behind their lies is that VP9 in fact no more than half of the HEVC quality? Last edited by Keiyakusha; 5th July 2013 at 01:20. |
|
5th July 2013, 04:00 | #219 | Link | |
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,771
|
Quote:
I'd love to see some proper double-blind subjective tests comparing VP9 and other codecs. People watch a rapid succession of frames of decoded videos, not Rate/Distortion plots ! This is a quite interesting paper that highlights how useless PSNR can be, and how different codecs can show quite different correlations between subjective and objective measurements: https://ece.uwaterloo.ca/~z70wang/pu...ons/vpqm13.pdf. If Google is only tuning their VP9 implementation for PSNR, then their implementation may offer substantially lower subjective quality than the VP9 bitstream may be capable of. |
|
6th July 2013, 02:35 | #220 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 480
|
If anyone is interested here is a Windows Cygwin compile of vpxenc/vpxdec to tinker with. I tried to get a MinGW compile to work but gave up after trying for some time.
x264.janhum.alfahosting.org/vpx05072013.7z |
Tags |
google, ngov, vp8, vp9, vpx, webm |
|
|