Slashdot Mirror
H.264 and VP8 Compared
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."
480x360 and some really old video, seriously? If you're going to compare then at least compare with HD resolution, and even then you should probably compare with all low, medium and high bitrates.
However, it looks like H.264 kicks VP8's butt with high motion video. Some of the VP8 pictures were quite blocky too.
How do you know that some of the differences (lacking certain block sizes, for example) are precisely to avoid certain patents?
Just because it is similar does not mean that it infringes patents. Look at inventions in the past (like the first steam engine, avoiding a patent by Watt).
"but if the quality is substandard, who cares?" -- if VP8 is simpler than h.264 and as a result reduces the power consumption of your handheld device so that it can stream 20 hours playback of video, then you'd care.
I think we need not worry about this in the long term. In the short term people are accustomed to the fact that their 9 month old phone doesn't have the latest technology - it's a phone, and they got it for cheap on contract. When their contract is up they go for the hot new stuff, which next week will include VP8 compatibility on Android phones and iPhones, which are both of the platforms that drive tech today. RIM will come around to whatever's hot because they don't want to lose share. As for the desktop, who needs it? Desks are not comfortable and they're not mobile. We move about now. We go where the work is, or we work wherever we happen to be.
Since I'm posting I might as well throw in some gems I've gleaned from the news. The ringtone hopes of phone vendors of being media content providers is pretty much dead. In the 2009 numbers online distribution has surpassed physical distribution for the first time (and we're not going back). Most audio is now bought online. One in four tracks purchased is bought through iTunes now. Amazon MP3 at about 1% is still in the top 10, but it's not going to be the wunderkind of media distribution once hoped.
If iTunes gets serious traction on video sales we're on our way to an iTunes culture. From my POV that would be unfortunate.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Patents are broken.
Software patents are broken; patents for physical items are maybe a little jankety, but not completely broken (yet).
When it comes to software patents, it comes down to the thousand monkeys with a thousand typewriters eventually pounding out the complete works of Shakespeare; it may not be in chronological order, either. The same holds true with software; enough people coding things will ultimately come up with a way of doing things that looks similar to another way for doing the same things, but there's better than even odds that they came to it a different way--thus why god knows how many viable filesystems exist, computing architectures exist (and have gone by the wayside), and so forth.
I won't go as far as to say that software patents shouldn't exist; they should, however, be required to be extremely specific, demonstrative, and as narrow in scope as possible. Patenting a concrete, complete, polished product is one thing; patenting a method, a concept, an abstract is completely another.
I don't post AC. I like my -1, Flamebaits. Trump/Sheen 2012 on the Batshit Insane ticket!
The comparison seems to use sorenson squeeze (based on MainConcept if I am not mistaken).
I don't believe it can mach x264's capabilities and speed.
Using x264 for comparison would be much fairer.
The comparison is done by Jan Ozer. He's billed as a "video codec expert" but I don't think he has the technical expertise to, for example, make use of x264. His previous H.264 versus Theora comparison wasn't very impressive either. The x264 developers described Ozer's Theora versus H.264 comparison as "one of the worst articles they had ever seen".
Because FUD like that needs countering, repeatedly:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2010-May/047795.html
We are talking about a video codec which was *specifically designed* to avoid H.264-related patents. IMO, similarity makes it less likely for the patents to be infringed, because the choices are easy to compare.
A loosely-compressed 480p video (ie. DVD) can look superior to a 1080p encode if said 1080p video is compressed to death.
Similarly, 720p videos rarely look worse than 1080p videos, and occasionally manage to look better.
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
No, patents are broken. They're intended to work for limited times, but a number of strategies for extending them have arisen that make them indefinitely persistent. They're broken. Even in the best case they prevent progress. Look at the early example of the steam engine. The late movement to change them from first invention to first to patent promises to bring innovation to a grinding halt.
Even Tesla's invention of radio was for a long time blocked by Marconi's patents and only recognized after his death. Patents not only are broken, they have always been. Patents prevent progress, and the prevention of progress is the opposite of the purpose and justification for patents.
Patents are patently bad. The US Constitution grants to Congress the power to grant patents and copyrights - but it does not require Congress to do so. We can fix this.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
The company had been around since the early 1990's. They were well aware of video patents, and monitored patent filings quite closely. Many of their features were adopted on the day that the statutory 1 year gap between publication of a method and possible patent filing expired. Much of the VP8 codec is actually prior art for the patents in the H.264 pool. On2 codecs have been used in Theora, Flash and Microsoft video products. If MPEG LA goes after them, it seems likely MPEG LA will lose more than they win - especially since all of us will be against them. Additionally, they'll be in court facing off with their patents against Google, and I hear Google has a few folks who know how to look stuff up like prior art. Heck, Google probably did this looking up before they decided to spend a hundred million dollars on buying the company just to give away its technology. It seems likely Google did look some stuff up before they decided to transcode their entire YouTube library to VP8. They're diligent like that.
And so having done the math, MPEG LA is investigating creating a patent pool to support VP8. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. It seems unlikely they'll find success in this, but they will try.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
For the other big non-desktop market, TVs/STBs - that's going to be the biggest resistance to anything non-H.264 (and I say this working in that industry...) The cable and satellite industry just spent a huge amount of money converting all of their broadcast systems and set-tops to H.264, and they don't like doing that very often. Additionally, the chips that go into all TVs and Blu-Ray players all support H.264 (and MPEG2, etc) but not much else - which means the current VOD services that run on them like Netflix, Vudu, CinemaNow, YouTube, etc are all H.264 based.
All of the major video providers on the Web - even the porn ones - are now migrating to HTML5 and seem ready to offer their content on whatever Codec you have handy. They're not choosy. They don't have a dog in this fight. They're all about getting eyeballs on their content so they can sell ads against that, or sell access to their content. They really don't care. If you have flash, they'll give you flash. If you have VP8 or H.264, they'll give you that. They can afford to transcode and store three copies, or transcode on demand. We are after all paying them to serve us up the video we desire.
So have you heard about Google TV? It seems Google is about ready to offer TV over IP. That's going to hose up the business model for most cable TV providers. It's disruptive. If Google delivers TV well I'll be moving to IP only on my Comcast cable connection (right now I have the triple play), and I imagine I'm not alone there. I've got 50Mbps down, and that's more than fine both for my web surfing and to drive all of my TVs with video. It will probably put the brakes on the one hour a year of local programming I usually watch, but I won't miss it.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
All future Android phones will support VP8, and Android will take over bigger and bigger parts of the market. I think VP8 is covered just fine.
Clever signature text goes here.
On2 would not be listed if they didn't join. If you're going to say "On2 isn't suing, so there's no case", then consider that On2 didn't sue MPEG/LA for the same reason that MPEG/LA hasn't sued Theora or VP8.
Individual users cannot be sued for patent infringement unless they make a business off it: you are allowed (in fact HAVE to. else how does an inventor see how to improve someone else's work: the reason patents are wanted?) to use a patented product for your own education. Open Source is educational: you can see the code and learn from it, and who wants the source code if all they're going to do is run the compiled binary?
You have to prove that someone is breeching patent protection. And that's almost impoassible with open source reference implementations used b individuals.
PS it costs lots of lawyer time and you're not going to get any money, so why sue?
The immediate problem with this article is that it uses the Sorenson encoder rather than the state-of-the-art x264 encoder for h.264. If x264 was used, the h.264 encodes would demonstrate higher quality and the quality conclusions would most likely be more in favor of h.264. Since x264 is both the best h.264 encoder, and FOSS, it is the ultimate benchmark for any new video codec implementations, and that should be used. The point of VP8 however is that it is now the best free video codec, replacing Theora in that category (which is still being improved and will probably remain relevant in some niche scenarios still). The quality of VP8 is likely not going to surpass h.264, even with open source tinkering, but it will still revolutionize the web through html5 video, it will achieve widespread software support in a matter of a few months, and your devices will pick up support in a year or so (the next generation hardware). VP8 is free, and good enough to be in the ballpark of h.264 even if it is not as good. And that is a huge win.
https://dalgamotor.wordpress.com/ - Elektronik beyinlere ozgurluk asisi (Turkish)
Watch the video clips for yourself. I did. You clearly did not. The shots he posted are not selectively biased.
VP8 really *is* only better in two cases (the 'talking head" hair and the "detailed wallpaper") and much worse in that watery/blurry way I hate in too many cases.
Overall, as a general codec, H.264 is superior to VP8. Not only that we see with comparable bit rates, H.264 is slightly smaller. Couple this with the x264 article about the awful "spec" and how VP8's basically a poor man's H.264 and it's clear VP8 is not worth the excitement generated from the FOSS crowd.
Here you can find some test results:
http://www.quavlive.com/video_codec_comparison
Care to estimate how much capital they've been able to create through the use of intangibles, and compare that to our ability to do so?
Our intellectual property laws allow our economy to realize the value of intangibles, to the recipient of the intangible at the time that he realizes the value, and to the producer at the same time. That puts food on people's tables, clothes on their backs, roofs over their shoulders.
There are indeed cases to be made for intangibles being _free_, particularly when the capital needed to create them is low (as in many software patents). But when the capital requirements are high, the economic incentive to create value can be almost non-existent in the absence of intellectual property laws. That's a losing proposition, both for would-be creators and for would-be recipients.
Your purported sensitivity to other cultures sounds more like an unduly simple dogma born more of regret than the very discerning and practical considerations by which good law is born.
VP8 infringes on numerous h.264 patents and the mpeg la is not going to allow this.
From what I've read, it sounds like the VP8 designers went to great lengths to make sure that VP8 was not encumbered by the MPEGLA pool of patents.
Do you have evidence that they failed in that goal?
*sigh* back to work...
They probably have all the material ready. After all, let's say you wanted to look at the claims of a couple thousand patents. You then wanted to look for prior art out there. What would you need? Well first you'd need access to a massive repository of information for all over the web going back years. You'd then need to be able to mine this information for specific pieces of data quickly and efficiently... Wait a sec, that is PRECISELY what Google does. They are the uncontested kings of data crawling and mining. They can search like nobody else, and are extremely good at pattern matching and so on.
As such it is reasonable to assume that they have done their homework, and that they could hit back hard with prior art and the like in the event of a suit. They've said as much as well. They say: "We have done a pretty thorough analysis of VP8 and On2 Technologies (VP8's developer) prior to the acquisition and since then, and we are very confident with the technology and that's why we're open sourcing."
Sounds to me like they've researched all this and said "Yep, we can win this one if it comes down to a fight."
Reminds me of the guy who patented the wheel, er.. I mean a "circular transportation facilitation device": http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1418165.stm
Seriously, the whole patent system has to be scrapped and recreated from scratch. It's terminally broken, far beyond any hope of salvation by reformation.
Devil's advocate here...
It's also possible that MPEG LA is "forming a patent pool" because they want to create the appearance of infringement - it's certainly better for them if VP8 dies from lack of support than if they have to go fight Google in court.
Remember, until someone actually pulls the trigger and files the suit, it's all talk and propoganda.
I find patents on pharmaceutical products, specifically, to be rather legitimate, though I agree with you generally about patents on incremental steps in innovation and ideas that don't have the novelty to justify a temporary monopoly.
Drug companies use that specific form of IP law to justify spending millions of dollars on research:
This is not a complicated economic and legal argument for intellectual property protection. It is a plain, pragmatic argument for results. We need new medications for the future. We will need them as much, or more, than we do today. Therefore, we must have continued innovation. We must encourage and protect that innovation...
And Aids is a disease that is always new - due to the constant evolution of the virus - and requires new solutions. Where will these come from if we hobble the patent system that drives innovation?
(source)
For those that don't know, patents on drugs are necessary for the innovator(s) for motivation, and the previous quote is just one example of the industry (pro-patent) hawking it loud and proud. It costs exorbitant amounts of money in R&D to the company to put a new drug on the market. Other companies can reverse-engineer that drug and produce non-trademarked bioequivalent substances ("generic drugs") at a fraction of the cost to the innovator.
Without patent protection, a drug manufacturer is economically disadvantaged by innovating: R&D is a large fixed cost that only the innovator pays, so why do it?
Under the patent system, you receive a significant economical advantage for a time by coming up with a "killer" product (and the privileged of society that have the economic means to consume your product at your price also benefit...), and when your protection is up, society receives the advantage of being able to make use of those innovations at approximately the marginal cost of manufacturing the product.
I believe that this is a prime example of a large industry that claims that "a patent is the only motivation for invention". I imagine that there are other industries out there that have similar claims.
Patents on software, on the other hand, are ridiculous. I don't think any software patent can simultaneously be specific enough that an isolated coder couldn't come up with the same idea and broad enough to afford more protection than copyright.
In perspective, I could probably (invariably?) sit around writing some code and, in the process, use some algorithms that violate some patents somewhere. You don't just come up with a complete chemical formulation, years of clinical trials, and regulatory approval for a patented drug.
The H.264 video on this comparison site is encoded using Baseline Profile, which is really only for low-power mobile devices, and is not representative of what H.264 is actually capable of. Switching to Main or High Profile gives us CABAC coder (10-20% improvement), bi-directional frames (20-40% improvement), adaptive 8x8 DCT (3-5% improvement). A MP or HP H.264 will blow VP8 out of the water every time. The fact that H.264 manages to look better in most cases despite being encoded using Baseline Profile (and Sorenson Squeeze, which doesn’t seem to have ever been compared to other H.264 encoders and probably is not as good as x264) is a pretty damning assessment of how good VP8 actually is—that is to say, not very.
[insert witty comment here]
No, the MPEG-LA is forming a patent pool because they want to scare people away from VP8 or at least into paying protection money to the MPEG-LA "just in case".
Try asking the MPEG-LA what specific patents they think you need to license to use VP8. They won't tell you. This is somewhere between FUD and extortion.
And BTW "the x264 developers" are one guy who doesn't know much about patents because his project ignores them. Ask yourself whether he knows more than the people at Google who approved spending $120M on On2, which will be almost entirely wasted if it turns out VP8 requires MPEG-LA licensing.