Ahh Whoops didn't notice that it filtered Dark_Shikari from that post due to the brackets, should read
From x264
Dark_Shikari:of course I'm not neutral.
-- Dark_Shikari: but I'm not biased in favor of h264... --
Dark_Shikari: I'm biased against on2.
People aren't arguing to use mp4 over ogg (at least most aren't). They are arguing to use Matroska instead. Matroska is also a patent free container that is more flexible, can hold any stream, and is apparently much nicer to work with.
It is easy to decode since it doesn't offer as many compression techniques. That is both its benefit and its downfall. It is the same thing that prevents MPEG-4/ASP from being usefull at HD resolutions
On2 claimed VP8 had a 50% edge on H.264 in 2008. This sounds amazing until you consider that since that time, x264 (which Google uses for Youtube) has had around a 30% improvement in its own compression. This 50% advantage is now down to 20% only. To get this advantage Google would still have to re-encode all videos on Youtube which will take lots of CPU time and on top of that, H.264 has a far wider penetration with decoders. Unless the VP8 encoder is going to get serious work like x264, VP8 won't take off nearly as fast as many people think.
Slashdot Mirror
Ahh Whoops didn't notice that it filtered Dark_Shikari from that post due to the brackets, should read From x264 Dark_Shikari:of course I'm not neutral. -- Dark_Shikari: but I'm not biased in favor of h264 ... --
Dark_Shikari: I'm biased against on2.
From #x264 of course I'm not neutral. but I'm not biased in favor of h264 ...
I'm biased against on2.
You would obviously not put both of those devices in the same chain then.
People aren't arguing to use mp4 over ogg (at least most aren't). They are arguing to use Matroska instead. Matroska is also a patent free container that is more flexible, can hold any stream, and is apparently much nicer to work with.
Err only? That seems like alot, Mine has been up for ~7 days and it is using 60mb only
It is easy to decode since it doesn't offer as many compression techniques. That is both its benefit and its downfall. It is the same thing that prevents MPEG-4/ASP from being usefull at HD resolutions
Even if they used "up to" they shouldn't use a number larger then the total number of people in the country that uses it the most.
On2 claimed VP8 had a 50% edge on H.264 in 2008. This sounds amazing until you consider that since that time, x264 (which Google uses for Youtube) has had around a 30% improvement in its own compression. This 50% advantage is now down to 20% only. To get this advantage Google would still have to re-encode all videos on Youtube which will take lots of CPU time and on top of that, H.264 has a far wider penetration with decoders. Unless the VP8 encoder is going to get serious work like x264, VP8 won't take off nearly as fast as many people think.