Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

H.264 and VP8 Compared

Posted by timothy on from the one-has-4-chars-and-a-dot dept.

TheReal_sabret00the writes with a snippet from StreamingMedia.com: "VP8 is now free, but if the quality is substandard, who cares? Well, it turns out that the quality isn't substandard, so that's not an issue, but neither is it twice the quality of H.264 at half the bandwidth. See for yourself."

35 of 337 comments (clear)

  1. For the patent FUDsters sure to follow.... by symbolset · · Score: 5, Insightful

    MPEG LA, the group that formed a patent pool for H.264, does not protect their licensees against all patent infringement - but just against patent infringement suits by their licensors, and only then in the limited case of the specific case of patents included in the pool, and only then for limited times.

    Q: Are all AVC essential patents included?

    A: No assurance is or can be made that the License includes every essential patent. The purpose of the License is to offer a convenient licensing alternative to everyone on the same terms and to include as much essential intellectual property as possible for their convenience. Participation in the License is voluntary on the part of essential patent holders, however.

    So you are in no way more protected by using the restricted H.264 license than you are by using the open VP8 license in the US. In most of the civilized world there's no such thing as software patents, so the only issue is which one of these is technically best.

    And now MPEG LA is trying to form a patent pool for VP8. Will wonders never cease? Patents are broken. Let us hope that Monday SCOTUS rules that software patents are void in RE Bilski.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
    1. Re:For the patent FUDsters sure to follow.... by Arker · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Software patents are broken; patents for physical items are maybe a little jankety, but not completely broken (yet).

      No, the whole system is broken.

      Even when the patent system worked as the founders intended, it was debateable whether there was any benefit. Pretty much every major invention came more-or-less simultaneously to several different people, one of them got the patent, everyone else got screwed. But today it's ten times worse. The only function the patent office serves in 2010 is to help large corporations perpetuate an oligopoly where only the chosen few with large patent pools can enter entire markets.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    2. Re:For the patent FUDsters sure to follow.... by symbolset · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why switch to VP8 if everyone already does H.264 in software and in hardware and VP8 also becomes subject to MPEG LA patent licensing?

      Because VP8 doesn't belong to MPEG LA. It is owned by Google, and Google has granted all of us not only a freely distributed, royalty free source code reference implementation from which we may derive our own implementations, but an eternal payment free license to use all of the Google patented technologies involved - forever. That is substantially different and advantagious in a number of ways. It extends the uses to which the platform can be put, from what the licensors allow to "whatever the heck you can think of". The difference is important. It's meaningful. It's impactful. It's valuable. In short, it's Progress. You remember Progress, don't you? It's what we had before software patents were the norm.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    3. Re:For the patent FUDsters sure to follow.... by bit01 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I hear people make this sort of claim all the time on Slashdot, and I have yet to see evidence for it.

      The onus is on you to show that this massive interference in the lives of billions of people is justified. The handwaving and wishful thinking that patent proponents usually engage in is not even remotely sufficient.

      Creating a new object or technology costs a lot of money.

      No it doesn't. Almost all technology development occurs in small increments that is adequately rewarded by first mover advantage. Like almost all business activities. The patent office just arbitrarily claims that some types of ideas can be restricted. e.g. I have the idea of starting hardware store in a growing small town. Why can't I patent that idea and stop any competition? I have never received an adequate answer from any slashdot patent proponent for that question.

      Without the enticement of being able to reap the monetary rewards from a temporary, sanctioned monopoly on the invention, where is the motivation?

      You are mentally deficient if you are going to seriously claim that a patent is the only motivation for invention. It's a common and typically dishonest claim by patent proponents. You might be able to claim that patents increase the motivation but of course patent proponents never do that because that'd show that the emperor has no clothes and also lay them open to the possibility that they might have to scientifically justify their position rather than handwave.

      that intellectual property should not be protected by law just as physical property is.

      Circular reasoning. It's property because it's property. Logic fail.

      ---

      I own it therefore I get to decide what happens to it is a meaningless tautology. Ownership by definition is the right to control. The more interesting question is who owns it?

    4. Re:For the patent FUDsters sure to follow.... by Svartalf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Keep solidly in mind- the patents in the pool in question are going to have to be tightly constrained. Almost to the point of being explicitly tied to h.264 or there's a risk of being defined as overbroad. Don't think for a moment that Google doesn't have the cash on hand to litigate that one to it's conclusion- if it's found overbroad the patent in question dies on the vine as invalid.

      This is a game with a rules of engagement similar to dancing with a dragon- one mis-step and it's over for you. I'd be backing down from that position and trying to sell up my codec over the competing one. Just because it's "close" doesn't mean it's duplicating- and with the requirements there, you're going to have someone with deep pockets very probably willing to prove "overbroad" or doesn't duplicate. You'll waste money and/or lose the patent in the fight. Saber rattling is largely all this BS is.

      --
      I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
    5. Re:For the patent FUDsters sure to follow.... by stephanruby · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Um what part of the obvious here did you miss?

      Condescending much?

      ...there's tons of other companies who think they have a patent claim against VP8.

      [Citation needed.] And no, don't give me a hearsay citation of the MPEG LA consortium itself, nor a citation of one of their numerous member companies, or employees, or one of their lawyers/PR firm on retainer. After all, when SCO's reason for living was threatened, they said all kinds of unsubstantiated lies in order to try to convince us of their claims. Why should it be any different in this case?

      There's absolutely nothing Google can do about that or grant you any form of license for or immunity against.

      Just like there is nothing the MPEG LA can do to give you immunity against a patent troll who's not a members of theirs (isn't this obvious as well?).

      In fact, if you want slightly better protection, I'd suggest you go with the open standard that's currently being offered royalty-free and in perpetuity by Google. I am no psychic, and I can not tell what the future will hold, but one thing that I can tell you for sure is that when companies try to go against open standards/open source offered in good will by a major corporation, they're not just going against a huge corporate Juggernaut, they're going against all the open source/open standards zealouts of the World at the very same time.

      And before this announcement, H.264 was fine, it had the protection of all the zealouts out there (including myself), but now that there is a better offer on the table (one that comes with no threat, no expiration, and no strings that are at least implicitly attached). You can rest assured that the H.264 has lost that protection/support, and that should a company decide to sue the H.264 Corporate users (and not the VP8 Corporate users), no one will be going out of their way to defend H.264 by compiling thousands of prior art examples (in fact, I suspect that many of us will be assisting the company that's doing the suing instead).

  2. Bunk test by LBt1st · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Once again someone is comparing a codec to H264 using some small as hell resolution.
    Welcome to 2010, if it's not encoded at 1080p nobody cares.

    1. Re:Bunk test by dotwhynot · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So why are cell phone cameras (still and video) so popular?

      They aren't. From my experience, hardly anybody actually uses phone cameras, unless they are really desperate and have no alternative camera at hand.

      I could say my experience is the complete opposite, which it is, but since both are just anecdotal it made me curious to find out if there are any data on this.

      According to Flickr usage statistics iPhone is the most used camera on Flickr. http://www.flickr.com/cameras/

      Just one datapoint, I know. But seems at the very least to disprove the hardly used by anybody theory. I would guess, but have no data, that the complete different experiences people have on this comes down to demographic differences (mobile markets and usage very different from country to country, and age group to age group, etc).

      Myself I find I'm using my mobile camera more, they have gotten quite good, and regular camera less. But I could still agree with your claim it is just because I don't have another camera with me, because that is mostly true, I usually don't go around with a camera, but I absolutely always have my mobile with me (currently a HTC HD2, so not in the iPhone group myself)

  3. Re:What a horrible test file by beelsebob · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This actually is exactly the point. VP8 is aimed *specifically* at this kind of resolution. It's why it's great for YouTube, and why it competes well with H264 main profile. Unfortunately; it has no competitor to h264 baseline profile, so will always use higher power to decode, and has no competitor to h264 high profile, so will never be able to deal with high bandwidth super quality things like blurry disks in the same way.

  4. What a crock of crap by Whuffo · · Score: 1, Insightful

    While you're doing that "see for yourself" stuff, take a close look at the data on how the files were encoded. I mean a really close look; put on your scientist hat and pay close attention. See for yourself that the test was staged to support the view that they're espousing.

    Maybe VP8 is comparable to H.264 or maybe not - but it's very hard to tell when the comparisons are so biased. I suspect that the real truth is that they're both about equivalent; either one is equally good at encoding video.

    In any event, the choice between these codecs will be made in many locations and often the consideration is going to be which is "legally solid" and which is "legally risky". With the continuing media campaign being waged to make VP8 seem to be infringing all kinds of patents, the outcome here isn't certain.

    1. Re:What a crock of crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How do you think the comparisons are staged, biased, and otherwise completely uninformative?

      Because your post was nearly as uninformative as the patent smears...

    2. Re:What a crock of crap by mr_da3m0n · · Score: 2, Insightful

      While you're doing that "see for yourself" stuff, take a close look at the data on how the files were encoded. I mean a really close look; put on your scientist hat and pay close attention. See for yourself that the test was staged to support the view that they're espousing.

      Let's pretend my scientist hat is in the wash right now and not quite dry yet. Would you care to share what makes you believe that? Because I don't call a one kilobit difference in bitrate "staging".

      Unless perhaps you mean that equal bitrate doesn't necessarily mean equal quality due to different compression algorithms? That would be true, but it would be irrelevant in this case since I'm fairly sure the purpose of the test is to see which one can deliver the best quality within a certain bandwidth limit.

      Seriously, do enlighten us instead of implying we are gobbling the data and aren't "true scientists" if we don't come to the same conclusion. Nice syllogistic fallacy.

  5. Re:What a horrible test file by dangitman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This actually is exactly the point. VP8 is aimed *specifically* at this kind of resolution. It's why it's great for YouTube,

    Why is this great for YouTube? Apart from the moronic user comments, the biggest problem YouTube has is the crappy resolution and blocky compression. Ditching that shit quickly would be the best thing for YouTube.

    --
    ... and then they built the supercollider.
  6. Re:Surely this is a moot point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I've skimmed those patents. One of them is a patent on the concept of streaming compression. I do not believe it is possible to create a codec that doesn't infringe on a few, because getting a patent is very easy, even if the idea is obvious and prior art is widely known. Throw a few hundred of those bad patents together into a pool, and the cost of systematically invalidating every single one in court would be so great that it becomes cheaper to settle.

  7. Re:Surely this is a moot point? by macemoneta · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Unless you're going up against Google, for example. They might consider it worthwhile to spend the money to invalidate a few hundred patents. In which case MPEG-LA would risk losing its revenue stream. There's risk on both sides of this battle, and I can't see either party entering into it lightly.

    --

    Can You Say Linux? I Knew That You Could.

  8. Re:Surely this is a moot point? by beelsebob · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Surely this point is moot?

    Yes, google will be working on a new codec... So will the MPEG-LA.

    The point is *now* we have Ogg Theora, VP8 and h264. Theora seems to be out of the race, given it's inferior quality to VP8 and lack of hardware decoding support, while being in no way superior to VP8.

    Now the question is, which of h264 and VP8 is better. For now, the answer seems to be h264, by a whisker.

  9. In the US we have an inflated estimate of US by symbolset · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Add India and Pakistan to China, and they're most of the civlized world. They're actually more than half of all the people in the world. None of them care about your list (Yes, I know Chinese patents are on your list - even the Chinese don't care about them - China has differring views on intellectual property that are difficult to describe here but can be summarized as: meh).

    We forget sometimes in the US that our entire country is not as old as a decent British country house, nor a Taiwan temple, nor even a Chinese family land lease. Hell, the US is not even as old as most decent books. We are not most people and we're never going to be. Our inflated estimate of our importance is the cause of much misunderstanding in the wider world. The sooner we let it go the better.

    We've got some decent insight on human interaction to share, but others may be rightfully suspicious of new ideas when they have a system that's similar that is proven to work over a span of 5,000 years. To those folk a quarter millenium is still just a "noble experiment", and frankly looking at what we're doing with it, we might not make it to a half millennium so who are we to say they're not civilized?

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
    1. Re:In the US we have an inflated estimate of US by malice · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We forget sometimes in the US that our entire country is not as old as a decent British country house, nor a Taiwan temple, nor even a Chinese family land lease. Hell, the US is not even as old as most decent books. We are not most people and we're never going to be. Our inflated estimate of our importance is the cause of much misunderstanding in the wider world. The sooner we let it go the better.

      I agree with the notion that the US should not have an overly inflated estimate of our importance... however your reasons why are beyond silly.

      "Old" doesn't make something better. Ask any of the younger generations in the countries you've cited, you'll find that they by in large eschew all of this glorious ancient tradition (if they're even aware of it), and are more interested in modern (read: Western) style living.

      Simply occupying the same bit of dirt on the planet for a length of time doesn't translate into some type of magical wisdom. Indeed, entities and institutions that have existed for too long very frequently exhibit backwardness and retardation from centuries of inbreeding.

      We've got some decent insight on human interaction to share, but others may be rightfully suspicious of new ideas when they have a system that's similar that is proven to work over a span of 5,000 years. To those folk a quarter millenium is still just a "noble experiment", and frankly looking at what we're doing with it, we might not make it to a half millennium so who are we to say they're not civilized?

      Please read up on the history of India, China, etc. and the myriad of failed systems that have existed in the countries (India, China, etc) you've cited over the past 5,000 years. Then consider restating your opinion.

      Again, I have no issue with your statement that the USA can often be caught up in its own hubris, which we should avoid. But the rest of your statements sound like something right out of the "noble savage" nonsense.

    2. Re:In the US we have an inflated estimate of US by Echnin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Please read up on the history of India, China, etc. and the myriad of failed systems that have existed in the countries (India, China, etc) you've cited over the past 5,000 years.

      Your analysis of history belongs in the early 20th century! Seriously, read a newer history book! China was developmentally ahead of the western world in many areas (statism, literature, economy) for centuries before the west figured out how to build guns and decent boats and subsequently conquer the world. The Chinese actually had the first two before us, but lacked the ambition to do the latter. Had the emperor not ordered him to stop, Zheng He could have gone to Europe and made us crap our pants with his huge fleet.

      You talk of failed systems, but do you believe that the current dominant political and economic systems are not doomed to failure as well? As history indeed shows, all systems of governance have failed and been replaced by more efficient ones, so what makes you say the current western system is the best that humanity will ever discover? Our descendants 500 years from now will look upon the present western notion of superiority as just as ridiculous as that of the ancient Chinese and Roman rulers.

      --
      Lalala
    3. Re:In the US we have an inflated estimate of US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      As history indeed shows, all systems of governance have failed...

      Yes.

      ...and been replaced by more efficient ones...

      No.

  10. Re:Surely this is a moot point? by Amanitin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Patent reform:
    make the PTO legally responsible for the validity of the patent.
    If the patent is attacked in court and ruled invalid, the PTO will cover legal fees, and return submission and upkeep costs plus interest.
    Nothing else will make them do their job right.

  11. Re:What a horrible test file by sprins · · Score: 5, Insightful

    VP8 is aimed *specifically* at this kind of resolution. It's why it's great for YouTube...

    Youtube and the like are all moving towards HD. 480p is normal already, 720p and 1080p are becoming normal really fast on the web.

  12. Re:Surely this is a moot point? by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Now the question is, which of h264 and VP8 is better. For now, the answer seems to be h264, by a whisker.

    The other question of license fees seems to have slipped your mind. Not only that, but what kind of terms and conditions you must agree too to get that license is also another very important question.

    --
    The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
  13. Re:What a horrible test file by Draek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For you. For 99% of the world's population however, Youtube's default resolution is quite acceptable.

    Guess which market Google is aiming at.

    --
    No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
  14. Re:What a horrible test file by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    ... and 640k should be enough for anybody.

  15. Re:I call shenanigans! by cbreak · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That guy didn't even use a proper h.264 encoder and proper h.264 settings. He used JPEG to store the resulting images. His "comparison" is borderline worthless. If you want to read a real comparison between the codecs, check out http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/?p=377.

  16. Re:What a horrible test file by hedwards · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I doubt that would help, most of the poor quality that you see in Youtube videos comes from the person making the videos. They don't generally use high quality equipment hence the poor quality. It doesn't matter what codec they use, even if they were to stop re-encoding it would still look blocky on most videos.

  17. Re:The life span of a cell phone platform=24 month by jo_ham · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why exactly? Apple's previous track record with content is not only getting the music industry to agree to sell content on the internet, but to (eventually) do it without DRM. Even if they weren't the very first to offer it, they made it a profitable and viable model that broke the industry's mindset that was firmly "why would people pay when they can just get it off a p2p service".

    In their history they tend to go for (if patented) at least open codecs and formats (with the exception of Sorenson in Quicktime, but it didn't last long).

  18. Re:What a horrible test file by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It's not the size of the resolution that counts, it's whether the content is worthwhile ;-)

  19. Re:What a horrible test file by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The article reads:
    In higher motion videos, though, H.264 seems superior..... In this very high motion skateboard video, H.264 also looks clearer.....

    Well then that's it then. Any codec, even the ancient MPEG2, can look good on static or slow-moving subjects. It's when there's lots of motion that MPEG2 breaks down (see Water Polo during NBC Olympic broadcast), and apparently the same is true for VP8. The newer, latest MPEG4 AVC/h.264 codec is better.

    AUDIO: The author didn't discuss this, but his encoding used Vorbis versus AAC. Vorbis will beat AAC, but numerous listening tests have shown it will not beat AAC+SBR (HE-AAC) which can produce FM quality sound as low as 28 kbit/s, and AM quality at only 12 kbit/s:

    FM - http://yp.shoutcast.com/sbin/tunein-station.pls?id=322507
    AM - http://www.radiojackie.com:11209/listen.pls

     

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  20. Re:What a horrible test file by commodore64_love · · Score: 2, Insightful

    >>>>>VP8 is aimed *specifically* at this kind of resolution. It's why it's great for YouTube...
    >>
    >>Youtube and the like are all moving towards HD.

    And cutting-off people with basic services like 1 Mbit/s cable internet, DSL, or slow 56k dialup. Forcing people to faster speeds that they either don't have, or don't want, is irresponsible of the website owner. Youtube and others should always provide the OPTION for a low VHS-quality image for people who don't feel the need to watch Lady Gaga slut-it-up in any resolution higher than 320x480. Codecs like Vorbis and MPEG4 AVC give the website that option.

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  21. Re:What a horrible test file by Albanach · · Score: 2, Insightful

    As a /. reader, you're not seriously suggesting you represent an average you tube viewer?

    To watch in HD you need a relatively modern computer, a decent internet connection and a some knowledge that HD even exists. That simply doesn't reflect the majority of internet users.

    Most of the web video content will be moving towards 720p or 1080p too, so you should really compare future codec candidates towards those.

    Unless something dramatic happens in screen resolution, you are assuming everything will be watched full screen. I don't think that's the case with youtube and most other browser based video. People watch videos on facebook while reading their wall, people watch in youtube while reading user comments. Smaller video on a computer lets you multitask, full screen means you can't continue working while you watch and listen.

  22. Re:What a horrible test file by coryking · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And for the billions of customers without a high enough downstream to stream HD...

    Yet. The codec that gets standardized on will be in use for decades to come. It will be embedded in the firmware of dvd players, cable tuners, mobile phones, car-stereos, you name it. You telling me that in a decade "billions of customers" will still be using crappy slow internet connections?

    You are going to chose your codec based on "now" instead of thinking even five years into the future? How short sighted is that?

  23. Re:Surely this is a moot point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It doesn't matter if MPEG LA is bigger player there. It only matters that Google is big enough.

    While you can intimidate companies worth less than $1M into submission with bullshit lawsuits, you can't do that to Google. You really really need to have a case there.

  24. Re:What a horrible test file by haruchai · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We've lived with multiple codecs for a long time and firmware can / should be updateable. Although I've been on broadband for 11 years, thanks to the area I live in,
    my speed is lower now that it was 5 years ago. The WebM spec for the Mux/Demux only states that the codec "should" be VP8 not "must be".
    In 5 years, I expect that, while there will still be "billions of customers" on slower connections, all the major browsers will allow dynamic installation of codecs
    or a fallback to embedding an external media player.

    VP8 is not a perfect solution but it's a very good move - and it may force the opening of H.264.

    --
    Pain is merely failure leaving the body