Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

VP8 vs. h.264

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

  • #41
    Originally posted by RobbieAB View Post
    If you impose the same limitation on a JS socket that is imposed on a Java Applet socket (as I understand it) and forbid connecting to any server other than the originating server, the security impact shouldn't be any greater than allowing access to that server in the first place.
    Unfortunately, that limits things greatly, especially in the example of an IRC server. You very rarely have an IRC server and Web server running on the same host. In many cases, they aren't even on the same domain. The same goes for game servers, database servers, and any other server setup in any reasonably and competently managed server infrastructure for real-world Web applications with a sizable user base.

    There are other ways to accomplish the security, such as how Flash does it. This is similar to what the cross-domain AJAX feature added in the newer browsers does. I believe WebSockets do this, in fact, as does the new cross-domain AJAX support.

    Still, the experts have decided that the best approach is to just deny use of plain TCP sockets and require a specialized protocol.

    Maybe in the future there will be plain TCP socket support, but I wouldn't wait. It's really not as important as you might think. Even Flash applets still usually use the "proprietary" protocol via XMLSocket rather than the plain TCP socket feature. XMLSocket is pretty similar to WebSockets in terms of socket, albeit different in protocol.

    Comment


    • #42
      WebSockets API was actually deployed in several versions of Chrome. I think Opera might have it as well. It's been an issue because they've changed the protocol making the older browser versions incompatible.

      The current version was supposed to go into Firefox 4, but got disabled after someone discovered a security flaw in the current protocol. Expect it to be enabled again and working when 4.5 comes out, hopefully by then they'll have worked through the remaining issues and it will be fairly safe to use without having to worry about them changing the format again.

      Comment


      • #43
        Originally posted by BlackStar View Post
        Use VP8 and play with HTML5/VP8 (if supported) or Flash/VP8 (if not). It's VP8 in both cases.

        This is the third time someone is trying to tell you that Flash will support VP8 out of the box.
        And what about mobiles? Those need H.264 and even have acceleration support for it (meaning longer battery life.) That means no VP8. And that means Flash + H.264 and raw H.264 is still the best answer.

        Yes, you might not like it. But it's just the way it is

        Comment


        • #44
          Originally posted by RealNC View Post
          And what about mobiles? Those need H.264 and even have acceleration support for it (meaning longer battery life.) That means no VP8. And that means Flash + H.264 and raw H.264 is still the best answer.

          Yes, you might not like it. But it's just the way it is
          To be fair, _current_ mobiles have that limitation. With Google behind Android now VP8, we may see a push for VP8 in hardware on more mobile chips going forward.

          After all, it wasn't too long ago that mobiles didn't have .h264 hardware decoding, either.

          Some day .h264 is going to be phased out even by the MPEG-LA. They do work on new codecs and improvements, you know. .h263 is actually still in frequent use, but is being successfully phased out for .h264.

          Comment


          • #45
            Originally posted by RealNC View Post
            And what about mobiles? Those need H.264 and even have acceleration support for it (meaning longer battery life.) That means no VP8. And that means Flash + H.264 and raw H.264 is still the best answer.

            Yes, you might not like it. But it's just the way it is
            Mobile hardware manufacturers have already pledged support for hardware decoding VP8. It does seem likely that Apple will intentionally sabotage that ability on the iPhone/iPad, though, so it may be a valid concern. We'll have to wait and see.

            Comment


            • #46
              Originally posted by RealNC View Post
              And what about mobiles? Those need H.264 and even have acceleration support for it (meaning longer battery life.) That means no VP8. And that means Flash + H.264 and raw H.264 is still the best answer.

              Yes, you might not like it. But it's just the way it is
              Google Android is the fastest selling mobile platform and manufacturers have already pledged to support VP8.

              1 + 1 = ?

              Comment


              • #47
                Originally posted by RealNC View Post
                I think you meant HTML5 will support VP8?


                Actually, what people watch is 720p when it's available.
                It doesn't matter if they watch it in 720p, 480p, 720p etc is about resolution, not about quality. And looking at the quality the vast majority of Youtube videos have there's really no problem for VP8 to replace h264 in that regard. Also the quality of VP8 is improving with each release, it's an ongoing process.

                I doubt VP8 will ever reach the quality of high end h264 encodes mainly due to patented technologies, but VP8/Webm isn't really there to replace h264 in Bluray's and likely not high quality on-demand video streaming either. I'd say it's mainly for sites like Youtube, Dailymotion, Veoh, Vimeo etc. Either way it must be a wet dream come true for those who wants to start their own video sites as it seriously lowers the bar of entry due to them not having to pay MPEGLA licence fees for serving videos.

                Comment


                • #48
                  Originally posted by benmoran View Post
                  Yeah, that analysis was clearly biased. His word choice for one.
                  He has invested a substantial portion of his life developing x264, so it's understandable to feel this way about a competing technology.
                  Not only is he developing competing technology, he (and the other x264 devs) are selling x264 through dual licencing (companies can purchase a licence that allows use in closed source products). And since it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the web is henceforth the most important market for video codecs, another codec gaining popularity on the web will mean less money for the x264 devs. So they are anything but objective when it comes to h264 vs VP8. And while I certainly don't begrudge them the opportunity to make money off x264 (it's best of class when it comes to encoders), I no fan of their smear tactics against VP8.

                  Comment


                  • #49
                    Originally posted by XorEaxEax View Post
                    It doesn't matter if they watch it in 720p, 480p, 720p etc is about resolution, not about quality. And looking at the quality the vast majority of Youtube videos have there's really no problem for VP8 to replace h264 in that regard. Also the quality of VP8 is improving with each release, it's an ongoing process.
                    The problem is actually with low bandwidth videos. When bandwidth isn't a problem, then you can just crank the bitrate up and be done with it. VP8, H.264, who cares. But the quality reached by H.264 with these low bitrate encodes like 720p and 1080p on YouTube cannot reached by VP8 using the same bitrate. You will have to use more bandwidth.

                    So reality is actually the reverse of what you think your point is here.

                    Comment


                    • #50
                      Originally posted by BlackStar View Post
                      Use VP8 and play with HTML5/VP8 (if supported) or Flash/VP8 (if not). It's VP8 in both cases.
                      Heh... The problem with this would be that you'd have to frame in a bit of Javascript to detect whether or not they had HTML5 available or Flash and then select the right blob for the video player (There's a few actionscript embellishments that comprise a Flash player on a web-page, typically...) Not too much of a problem, but we've seen the care unto which many "webmasters" use to make a site- I'm sure at least some'll be too lazy to do it "right".

                      This is the third time someone is trying to tell you that Flash will support VP8 out of the box.
                      Heh...

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X