Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Google Gets Ready With VP9 Codec

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #21
    Originally posted by XorEaxEax View Post
    it's not as if anyone I've shown Youtube vp8 and h264 videos have been able to tell the difference, and I haven't either.
    I can in a heartbeat on a PC, you just have to listen the whistling of the fan ramp up on VP8.

    Comment


    • #22
      Originally posted by deanjo View Post
      I can in a heartbeat on a PC, you just have to listen the whistling of the fan ramp up on VP8.
      That has nothing to do with the codec itself, but rather with your hardware.

      Comment


      • #23
        Originally posted by gigaplex View Post
        MP4 container? WebM is based off Matroska.
        Yes, my point was, out of the two serious contenders (that are actually both required for HTML5 video support across the gamut of browsers), one requires using H.264 (that libx264 does an amazing job of) in MP4, which simply can not be stream encoded (due to the way it stores it's metadata). And the other is a gimped version of matroska that (unless you use Chrome on Linux, which by accident supports H.264 in matroska with the video/webm MIME type and the right codecs installed) requires video encoded by the abysmally (IME) performing libvpx.

        Originally posted by jrch2k8 View Post
        a. you are trolling
        I wish I was.

        Originally posted by jrch2k8 View Post
        b. you doing it wrong [TM]
        Please, please, tell me how - I would love to support libvpx in realtime on common (or at worst, high-end, modern) hardware.

        Originally posted by jrch2k8 View Post
        c. you are using really old software
        I am using the latest available avcodec codebase. If there are better alternatives available, I would be very glad to hear of them (though, a common interface is rather useful, until it's not).

        Originally posted by jrch2k8 View Post
        d. you hit some really nasty bug
        I really hope so! I am dead serious - if anyone has methods of producing high quality realtime output from libvpx, I'm all ears. I'll gladly credit them in my application (it's GPL anyway, though not published yet, partly thanks to codec/container nonsense).

        Originally posted by jrch2k8 View Post
        yes x264 is awesome too
        It really is.

        Comment


        • #24
          Originally posted by pdffs View Post
          Please, please, tell me how - I would love to support libvpx in realtime on common (or at worst, high-end, modern) hardware.
          You should direct these questions to the webm/vp8 discussion lists, like: https://groups.google.com/a/webmproj...um/codec-devel

          Given that this is an area where vp8 (and I assume also vp9) is supposed to shine, I'm certain you can get information on how to best yield quality output in a real-time setting, I mean this is what the whole 'hello Chrome/Firefox' WebRTC announcement showed off:

          https://hacks.mozilla.org/2013/02/he...refox-calling/
          http://blog.chromium.org/2013/02/hel...e-calling.html

          I am also assuming that we are talking about VP8 here, VP9 isn't yet finalized and serious optimization work on is unlikely to happen until it's features are finalized.

          Comment


          • #25
            Originally posted by 89c51 View Post
            i have the suspicion that the main problem with the adoption of vp8 is HW acceleration. And this shouldn't be the case with vp9 if google wants it to succeed.
            They could do OpenCL decoders that would work on a wide range of devices without rewriting.
            Could do a lot for HW acceleration.

            Comment


            • #26
              Originally posted by Kivada View Post
              Beat H.265 to market and force all Android phone makers to support it.
              1: There is nothing to beat to the market. HEVC is done and the Samsung Galaxy 4 already supports it.
              2: VP8 was never even competitive to decent AVC encoders. Maybe VP9 will catch up with AVC but no way with HEVC.
              3: On2, the company Google bought for VP8, has a long history of flat-out lying about their codecs’ quality.

              Originally posted by RahulSundaram View Post
              WebM is a container flexible enough and was designed to support multiple codecs since Google has been planning to update VP8 all along. This will happen as VP9 gets finalized. No need for WebM2.
              WebM is no container. It's just Matroska with another file extension.

              Comment


              • #27
                Google is great for people deluded into thinking they give a rat's ass about you.

                There is no way in hell VP9 supplants H.265 in any market form, period. End of story.

                Comment


                • #28
                  Originally posted by Awesomeness View Post
                  1: There is nothing to beat to the market. HEVC is done and the Samsung Galaxy 4 already supports it.
                  2: VP8 was never even competitive to decent AVC encoders. Maybe VP9 will catch up with AVC but no way with HEVC.
                  3: On2, the company Google bought for VP8, has a long history of flat-out lying about their codecs’ quality.


                  WebM is no container. It's just Matroska with another file extension.
                  Prehaps not, but it will weaken MPEG LA by significantly driving down the prices that they'll be able to charge people. That means it'll hurt their ability to develop new codecs in the future because they won't have as much money to spend on it because it won't be as profitable.

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Originally posted by Marc Driftmeyer View Post
                    There is no way in hell VP9 supplants H.265 in any market form, period. End of story.
                    I disagree: it may have no effect at the upper end, but I think it could really shine in the lower/middle sections. These are the sections where the costs of licensing h.265 could be a significant consideration, and the option of a free codec might start to look very friendly to a cash-strapped studio. I think the main thing blocking it at the moment is hardware support.

                    Whilst we can (and do) compare codecs side by side, given that we don't watch and compare videos most of the time (cinema, youtube, TV, Laserdisc...), I suspect the quality difference might not be as significant as it appears when comparing side-by-side.

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Originally posted by Marc Driftmeyer View Post
                      Google is great for people deluded into thinking they give a rat's ass about you.

                      There is no way in hell VP9 supplants H.265 in any market form, period. End of story.
                      I don't know. Perhaps you're right.
                      But if VP9 is better than VP8 then that's still great.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X