Originally posted by Kivada
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Google Gets Ready With VP9 Codec
Collapse
X
-
Let me know when libvpx encode performance isn't absolutely pathetic. I was hoping to use HTML5 video for a realtime streaming application, but the MP4 container is a piece of crap and can't be stream encoded, and libvpx performance is so bad that maxing an IVB i7 results in blocky unwatchable crap with a realtime deadline. Until they fix performance, flash is sadly still the only option for on-the-fly encodes, and libx264 is still absolutely light years ahead in terms of performance and output quality per CPU cycle.
Comment
-
Originally posted by pdffs View PostLet me know when libvpx encode performance isn't absolutely pathetic. I was hoping to use HTML5 video for a realtime streaming application, but the MP4 container is a piece of crap and can't be stream encoded, and libvpx performance is so bad that maxing an IVB i7 results in blocky unwatchable crap with a realtime deadline. Until they fix performance, flash is sadly still the only option for on-the-fly encodes, and libx264 is still absolutely light years ahead in terms of performance and output quality per CPU cycle.
Comment
-
Originally posted by pdffs View PostLet me know when libvpx encode performance isn't absolutely pathetic. I was hoping to use HTML5 video for a realtime streaming application, but the MP4 container is a piece of crap and can't be stream encoded, and libvpx performance is so bad that maxing an IVB i7 results in blocky unwatchable crap with a realtime deadline. Until they fix performance, flash is sadly still the only option for on-the-fly encodes, and libx264 is still absolutely light years ahead in terms of performance and output quality per CPU cycle.
b. you doing it wrong [TM]
c. you are using really old software
d. you hit some really nasty bug
yes x264 is awesome too
Comment
-
Originally posted by deanjo View PostWhich is another NIH issue. Why the hell Google could not simply use MKV is beyond my understanding.
Comment
-
1) Yes Google want to beat h265(6?). So that VP9 is nobrainer pick for performance. (It also include less bandwith for same results)
2) Yes Google want to beat h265(6?). So that VP9 is nobrainer pick for hw support. (It also include compatibility with WebP)
3) Yes Google want to beat h265(6?). Or at least match its standard status. (Hence MPEG is deciding if VP8/9 can be standarized).
Comment
-
Originally posted by birdie View PostIt's too damn early to freeze it.
VP9 must be made better than H.265, otherwise the point of its existence is so moot Google had better not release it at all.
The latter means that it can be picked up as a standard video component of HTML5, however I fear that will be difficult as the MPEGLA has much to lose on VP9 becoming a standard across the web and while Google and MPEGLA has a deal in place there can always be patent claims made from organisations/trolls outside of MPEGLA, like the recent Nokia trolling (Microsoft puppet company).
I'm certain we will see a continous stream of patent claims made against VP9 in order to prevent it from becoming an official HTML5/ WebRTC standard, simply because the MPEGLA members risk losing lots of revenue should this happen.
Comment
-
I agree it needs to be better than h.265, even if by 1%, but it needs to beat it across all tests. Some say it doesn't really matter, as long as it's close in performance and open source. But I think it matters a lot - for its image. If all the OEM's hear from everyone is that "VP9 is worse than h.265", that's enough to shut them off from even hearing more about it and considering it, and they'd rather pay that extra 50 cents. Actually, they'll probably have to pay anyway for the next 5-10 years, even if they do support VP9. Unless they are a camera maker, they will at least have to support both for a while.
So if VP9 is not even better than h.265, they'll just say "why bother implementing this, too?!". That's bad for VP9, and why it's to critical that VP9 wins in performance. I know VP9 has been in development only for 2 years, while h.265 for 5 years, but in the end no one cares about excuses. It just needs to beat it, if they want people to demand support for it in both software and hardware. So I sure hope this is not another one of Google's half-asseries again.
I do want VP9+Opus to succeed (WebM supports Opus, too, now. Whatever container h.265 is in now, doesn't).
Comment
-
Originally posted by Krysto View PostIf all the OEM's hear from everyone is that "VP9 is worse than h.265", that's enough to shut them off from even hearing more about it and considering it, and they'd rather pay that extra 50 cents.
Originally posted by Krysto View PostActually, they'll probably have to pay anyway for the next 5-10 years, even if they do support VP9. Unless they are a camera maker, they will at least have to support both for a while.
Originally posted by Krysto View PostSo if VP9 is not even better than h.265, they'll just say "why bother implementing this, too?!". That's bad for VP9, and why it's to critical that VP9 wins in performance. I know VP9 has been in development only for 2 years, while h.265 for 5 years, but in the end no one cares about excuses.
Also from what I've read of VP8/VP9 it seems that they've also tailored the codec specifically for great real-time performance, which is what made it such a hot candidate as a WebRTC standard.
Originally posted by Krysto View PostIt just needs to beat it, if they want people to demand support for it in both software and hardware. So I sure hope this is not another one of Google's half-asseries again.
There's nothing 'technical' preventing Google or anyone else from creating a codec just as good or better than h.265, but there's a crap-load of patents preventing it. Get used to it, it's only going to get worse.
So no, given the vast amount of video patents in the MPEGLA patent pool I seriously doubt that VP9 can come out on top in a h.265 vs VP9 comparison, it would be something close to a miracle if it did, but it can certainly be good enough for web-video, 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. It's free to implement in hardware, it's free to implement in software, resulting video files are free to distribute, the quality is good enough by far for web video purposes.
Comment
Comment