or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Google drops support for H.264 video in Chrome to push WebM
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Google drops support for H.264 video in Chrome to push WebM - Page 6

post #201 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by d-range View Post

Well if that were true (which is plausible), it kind of proves my point: the fact that h264 contains patentable technology, doesn't mean it is impossible for licensed, commercial implementations and 'semi-legal' open-source ones to coexist, and that the risk that h264 will somehow trick everyone into paying up to the MPEG-LA is imaginary. It's pretty obvious MPEG-LA is not out to crush the x264 project, instead they are cooperative in allowing the development of an open source codec and even taking x264 licensees, and by making the spec royalty free for noncommercial use. IANAL, but I'd assume MPEG-LA would have a pretty hard time shutting down x264 in court if they are now making money off it's use. Things don't always have to be just black or white, and that holds for both h264's licensing and vp8 being patent-free.

Good points. Except one project, TCPMP, an excellent OSS media player for devices back in the stone age (aka palm and WM), they received a cease and desist order for having the aac decoding library (and I believe later the avc library). They were not making any money off of it either.

People like Mozilla who receive 50 million dollars a year from Google probably won't slip past MPEG's radar.
post #202 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by sprockkets View Post

Are you another fucking stupid apple idiot? I swear! I already posted this, so here it is again for you, since you can't be assed to read: Google paid $106 million for On2 who developed VP8, aka webm. They also created VP3, and they had their patents on it, and decided to free them to the open domain by giving it to Xiph.

If they want to give their property away, why do you fucking care?

Don't post shit back unless you want me to punch you in the face.

And you have the nerve to call out someone else for ad hominem attack?
post #203 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by screamingfist View Post

so will this mpeg-la go after anyone implementing this technology? or do they think they will target google specifically?
google doesn't claim they 'own' webm. they are merely a 'sponser'.

Google was the owner of record when they gave the code away otherwise they could not open source the code. The problem arises if they gave away something which was not theirs to give: both Google and WebM users could be liable.
post #204 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro View Post

I didn't berate you. I said posted that Stallman doesn't know whether WebM violates any H.264 patents or not. You got all riled up over me countering your opinion of some other human being that could not possibly have perfect knowledge and consider that is berating you? It wasn't then but this is now: Get. A. Clue!

what? huh? ha.
the only thing you did that got me 'riled' was using the term 'freetard'. i see so much of that kind of stupidity here. first thing out of most apple fans mouths when someone disagrees: 'troll', then something like 'fandroids', 'freetard' whatever.
and then most have the nerve to act shocked when someone insults them after they have been spewing that kind of talk and usually come back with the old 'i see you are out of ideas' or 'your argument is so flawed', and on and on.
i really wished you would have tried to grasp what i was getting at early on with my reference to Stallman. it was merely a 'if all i have is a choice between a mr. forum nobody saying 'no webm isn't free, or, Stallman saying 'yes it is'. i am going to side with stallman since i do know his stance, something about him etc.
riled up and hatred due to fear of your intellect? oh man, that is funny...better luck next time dude. go sell crazy someplace else.
post #205 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by gctwnl View Post

If competition is like the 100m sprint, this is like a contender trying to trip another contender and everyone ends up doing 100m in 5 minutes instead of 10 seconds.

Google has not been very successful at producing new services (most initiatives failed, I read a list a few months back). Google Search and Android (which does not make them money directly and which they bought) are exceptions. Now, failing at innovation, they turn to trying to trip the competition.

What kind of people are running Google? It feels like a company that has lost its soul and is being run by bean counters instead of innovators (like Apple in the 90's)..

Its unreal. I can't believe that google is doing this. I think that the industry should sue google to prevent them from doing this? IS that possible though? I mean for the mere fact that All future android phones will not support h.264 is reason enough...This should be reason enough to have a court prevent this... I firmly believe this is stictly a power play by google. (maybe the have an axe to grind with Apple?)

LIke some poster above this may give Adobe much better leverage at staying the defacto standard of the web... What a great shame google.
post #206 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by screamingfist View Post

what? huh? ha.
the only thing you did that got me 'riled' was using the term 'freetard'. i see so much of that kind of stupidity here. first thing out of most apple fans mouths when someone disagrees: 'troll', then something like 'fandroids', 'freetard' whatever.
and then most have the nerve to act shocked when someone insults them after they have been spewing that kind of talk and usually come back with the old 'i see you are out of ideas' or 'your argument is so flawed', and on and on.
i really wished you would have tried to grasp what i was getting at early on with my reference to Stallman. it was merely a 'if all i have is a choice between a mr. forum nobody saying 'no webm isn't free, osaying 'yr, Stallman es it is'. i am going to side with stallman since i do know his stance, something about him etc.
riled up and hatred due to fear of your intellect? oh man, that is funny...better luck next time dude. go sell crazy someplace else.


So I supposedly berated you, but now you say I didn't, but that you took the term freetard personally when I never even used it in relation to you. I used it before you ever joined the thread, so any personal level insult is purely of your own construction.

Do you even remember what you have been posting the past several hours? You are so all over the place and cavalier with your accusations and subsequent no-but modifications I see no credibility left. You are posting merely like a randomly activated loose cannon.

I completely get what you are trying to say about Stallman, he is convinced Google is dealing fairly with WebM. OK, fine. But he is completely ignoring the fact that Google has been unofficially accused of infringing on H.264 patents. What Stallman thinks of Google's intentions just became immaterial with that revelation.

Go ahead and blindly believe Stallman, you have very plainly said you think that is the proper choice. And I'll very plainly say I see Stallman as being willfully negligent in his blind endorsement and is just speaking based on some extremely narrow viewpoint that ignores the rest of the patent holding world, but espouses his very extreme free philosophy.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #207 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by timgriff84 View Post

Personally I don't know if I even have been watching H.264 videos or not. The only thing I do ever notice is when my phone cant play a flash video.

I think that would be considered a good thing!
post #208 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drow_Swordsman View Post

This is stupid. I love using Chrome, and I don't want to switch. I'm going to be bummed if I have to because of this.

But, why did this article quote user comments? If they were critics that'd be one thing, but for every intelligent comment on a blog there could be just as many idiotic and uninformed comments.

I don't have a problem with it. In fact I think it was a good thing. Clearly the intelligent comments were quoted becouse with this move google has show their true colors.
post #209 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by penchanted View Post

And you have the nerve to call out someone else for ad hominem attack?

He/she asked for it by saying I was on mushrooms and showed incredible ignorance. Notice how i handled nearly the same topic for "screamingfist", I gave that person leeway since they were simply asking a question, not provoking me or anyone else.

Don't ad hominem based on wrong information - you look incredibly stupid.
post #210 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by sprockkets View Post

He/she asked for it by saying I was on mushrooms and showed incredible ignorance. Notice how i handled nearly the same topic for "screamingfist", I gave that person leeway since they were simply asking a question, not provoking me or anyone else.

Don't ad hominem based on wrong information - you look incredibly stupid.

Apparently the idea of holding the higher moral ground escapes you.
post #211 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by penchanted View Post

Apparently the idea of holding the higher moral ground escapes you.

Look, if you want to know, if 2-3 people in a row post new lows of ignorance, I get WTF?

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - AE
post #212 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolchak View Post

Where do you get this idea? I don't see MPEG LA breaking down the doors at Videolan, Handbrake, MPlayer, ffmpeg, Movist, etc.

All in violation, you should probably slip the boys at MPEG-LA a memo to enforce their patents.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolchak View Post

Wrong again. Most of us like H.264 because it's widely used, has a range of encoders and players, gives high quality at decent bitrates and has hardware acceleration not only on some portable devices like the iPhone and iPad, but also on many modern video cards.

Offhand, I'd say your user name is right on target.

Bzzt. Wrong. H.264 is widely used because its the format youtube initially adopted for HTML5 and for Blu-Ray playback. The difference in quality is negligible at best, and this has been proven by people who actually know wtf they are talking about. Hardware acceleration is coming for WebM so your point is effectively moot. Apple devices will simply have to embrace it or be dead in the water, because you better damn well believe H.264 will be gone in the coming months as well when Google decides to take it off Youtube.

The only person who has failed is you, congratulations
post #213 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by d-range View Post

First of all: writing, using and distributing a decoder or encoder for H264 is free for non-profit use, and even for commercial use there is a lower bound on the money you make off H264 video's before you have to start paying. As so many before me already mentioned, MPEG-LA has stated this will remain this way until the patents expired, which makes a lot of sense because they wouldn't benefit at all if everyone abandoned H264 because MPEG-LA acted like codec-nazi's: in the end, non-profit users are not what MPEG-LA hopes to get their revenue from to recuperate their investments in creating H264.

Second: in what way is it a bad thing that commercial entities making money off H264 encoders or decoders have to pay a trivial part of their profits to the inventors of the standard, and how is this different from *any other* piece of technology licensed to third parties? Do you think USB should be replaced because every cable vendor using the USB logo on their cable needs to pay licensing fees? Do you know how many patented and licensed technlogies are used in modern operating systems? Almost every bit of software down to the fonts and the way they are rendered has been licensed and paid for one way or another. Did you know there are companies who even *gasp* pay people to write software for them, so they can sell it or use it to support their own products?! It's what they call 'the economy' or 'creating value in exchange for money'. If you hate that idea so much, you should move to North Korea.

Did I ever say anything of the sort? I am well aware that many products use patents from all over the place, there is simply no way to get around it. Now regarding Google, they just so happen to OWN THEIR OWN CODEC, something they bought and will utilize. Why the hell would a company like Google pay someone else for something they ALREADY OWN? Doesnt make any sense does it? Especially if they plan on expanding Youtube significantly like i think they will.

Quote:
Originally Posted by d-range View Post

Third: on the topic of Mozilla: it's a shame the people in charge at Mozilla are too dickheaded to just announce they will not support H264 natively because of patent issues (that part they already have covered), but that instead they will write a plugin that hooks into the OS codecs (which already have been licensed and paid for by the OS vendor). Problem solved, everyone happy. The only reason they haven't done this *yet*, is because they are still quietly hoping that somehow the whole world will agree and ditch H264 for something else and that HTML5 will list a different codec as the one and only one for <video> tags. This simply won't happen because companies already invested billions in hardware and software supporting H264, and none of them have anything to gain throwing that out because someone else likes their stuff to be 'open' or 'free'. The sunken costs of licensing H264 are huge, almost everyone and their mother already supports H264 and paid for it. Mozilla's hard-headedness doesn't make sense and it's a purely ideological stance they are taking.

Firefox controls a big share of internet usage. It might seem like Mozilla is being an ass but they dont want to pony up the money when others are doing the same thing for free. Mozilla could easily make a plugin and support all 3, but somehow if it were that easy it would have been done already and it wouldn't be in discussion.

H.264 is far beyond just HTML5. Companies with money invested in hardware or software would lose little if any money at all. Hardware and Software wise, H.264 is nothing more than another codec to support. We would expect those companies to still support H.264 just like we would expect them to support any other format. But remember, those people are in the business for mass profit, be it hardware or software or both. Mozilla IS NOT.

And regardless of what side of the fence we sit on, Firefox and Chrome control roughly 45% of the web who will support it, and that number is not slowing at all. From a content provider, thats a pretty damn good split. That means serving content in WebM and H.264 if i want to go the HTML5 route, or Flash, the universal player. Funny enough is that Flash is going to support WebM just like H.264, so H.264 is losing its edge fast.

But i havent forgotten, Microsoft will have WebM support in IE9 and they are the roughly 45% and bleeding web browser. 90%....sounds like a pretty good damn number to know which HTML5 format to back. The only thing Apple needs to do is play ball with WebM, they dont have to give up H.264 for iTunes media if they dont want (im sure they will soon though)

Quote:
Originally Posted by d-range View Post

Last but not least: I understand that it's easy to pull out the fanboy argument on a forum dedicated to Apple, but let me remind you that Microsoft is also putting full-force support behind H264, just like Sony (with Blu-Ray), just like all those companies that were behind HD-DVD, just like Adobe (Flash has H264 built in), just like Nvidia and AMD (their cards decode H264 natively), and so on, and so forth. There's a much simpler explanation why H264 is so widely used: it's simply the best codec available, and the companies using it do not mind paying royalties to use it, because they make a lot of money using it in their products. Again, the market has already spoken on this issue, and it chose H264, in spite of the royalties involved.

And these are companies out to make a profit, Mozilla is not one of those companies (even though they do GET money from donations, do you spend it on devs or a codec?). Also, everyone of the companies you just listed sells hardware, and H.264 WAS the best out back then when they unleashed everything you just listed. WebM is now just as good, but it doesnt mean they are going to jump ship to this new platform. WebM

WebM has come a long way, from what ive read the newer builds of WebM have even lower CPU usage than that of H.264 (up to half in some cases) with hardware acceleration on Core 2 Duos and Atoms, which is great for mobile devices. Great playback, quality that looks damn near the same without being as resource intensive is win win in my book. Unfortunately there isnt much shown for the Mac side of things, where H.264 still reigned king.

[
Quote:
Originally Posted by d-range View Post

Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion, but if you ask me, your opinion on this issue is foolish. You're basically saying you want to settle for a lower quality video codec, for which no professional tooling is available at all, which is almost totally unsupported by any hardware on the market, and which is likely just as patent encumbered as H264, because you 'like the idea that it is free and open'. Meanwhile the only sensible argument against the alternative codec that you can come up with is that other people (companies making profit from products using H264) have to pay royalties for using something they didn't invent themselves.

I really wonder what other products and services you refuse to buy or use in daily life because you don't agree on the distribution of the profits between all the companies in the production chain.

I've already dispelled the lower quality part. The visual differences are minimal, at best. H.264 is only a hair better, and its definitely the winner for resource hogging. Again, the latest builds of VP8 have H.264 beat in the hardware department, running on cheaper older hardware, using much less resources to accomplish 99.5% of the same thing and is still getting better. But if you still want hardware manufacturers, AMD, Nvidia, ARM, Intel, TI, Broadcom, and Qualcomm are backing WebM with hardware, so i'd say thats quite a lot of support.

Anyways, i could care less about royalties but for a company like Google, getting rid of it now is in their best interest while its still relatively small. If they have to buy licenses for Chrome, Chrome OS, Android, and possibly Youtube if they go paid services it would hit them with reoccuring yearly costs, as well as having wasted on On2 for VP8. Even still, Google just backing one format for say Youtube means they can save millions on server costs. That alone may be worth the switch to Google if they step into the streaming movie/television business soon like Hulu and Netflix.

And to your last point, there are only 3 things. I decided not to get a new mac and got a nice Acer laptop for 399 that i put Arch Linux on, i use VLC on both my PC and Mini cause obviously Linux doesnt have much for media playback and Quicktime sucks so damn bad and it should be criminal that they charge for 7 Pro. I use GIMP to edit photos since im not going to break the bank to get Photoshop, last is OpenOffice which i use on both, cause MS Office is way overpriced and Microsoft has a lot of my money already from owning an Xbox 360 and all the crap i got for it.
post #214 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by ifail View Post

I've already dispelled the lower quality part. The visual differences are minimal, at best. H.264 is only a hair better, and its definitely the winner for resource hogging. Again, the latest builds of VP8 have H.264 beat in the hardware department, running on cheaper older hardware, using much less resources to accomplish 99.5% of the same thing and is still getting better.

I'm not going to reply to anything else you wrote in that last post, just because of this paragraph. What you are saying is downright untrue, made up, actually opposite to reality and you can impossibly back this up with facts, because it's a load of bullshit based on nothing. WebM is worse than H264 in every aspect: image quality, hardware support, how easy it is to implement efficiently in hardware and resource usage when either encoding or decoding it.

I'm sorry but you obviously have no idea what you are talking about, and are making up stuff along the way to 'prove' a point you don't have. Go Google (no pun intended) for 'x264 vp8 analysis' and read up there before you come back and make statements about VP8 performance, people who know a thousand times more on this subject than you do have already concluded how wrong your assumptions are.
post #215 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by d-range View Post

I'm not going to reply to anything else you wrote in that last post, just because of this paragraph. What you are saying is downright untrue, made up, actually opposite to reality and you can impossibly back this up with facts, because it's a load of bullshit based on nothing. WebM is worse than H264 in every aspect: image quality, hardware support, how easy it is to implement efficiently in hardware and resource usage when either encoding or decoding it.

I'm sorry but you obviously have no idea what you are talking about, and are making up stuff along the way to 'prove' a point you don't have. Go Google (no pun intended) for 'x264 vp8 analysis' and read up there before you come back and make statements about VP8 performance, people who know a thousand times more on this subject than you do have already concluded how wrong your assumptions are.

well, when i searched around i found several links to an x264 coder proclaiming how 'bad' vp8 was. which i will consider slightly biased....but i am not finding any real tests that show that vp8 sucks as much as you proclaim.

http://www.quavlive.com/video_codec_...C-Test-results

http://www.streamingmedia.com/articl...red-67266.aspx
post #216 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by screamingfist View Post

well, when i searched around i found several links to an x264 coder proclaiming how 'bad' vp8 was. which i will consider slightly biased....but i am not finding any real tests that show that vp8 sucks as much as you proclaim.

http://www.quavlive.com/video_codec_...C-Test-results

http://www.streamingmedia.com/articl...red-67266.aspx

Right, so you'll just ignore what doesn't confirm your opinion.

If you look at the riverbed images in the first link you gave, the VP8 image is significantly poorer quality that the 264 image, especially the HD version. The quality is poorer in the other images as well. So, even your own links seem to show that WebM is not near the quality of H.264.
post #217 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Right, so you'll just ignore what doesn't confirm your opinion.

If you look at the riverbed images in the first link you gave, the VP8 image is significantly poorer quality that the 264 image, especially the HD version. The quality is poorer in the other images as well. So, even your own links seem to show that WebM is not near the quality of H.264.

'significantly' how exacting. the numbers don't show that it is 'significantly' and the images are 'slightly' poorer in some cases. i can use inexact terms too ya know.

and webm is active isn't it? i bet it gets better. in any case you just stick with safari and enjoy. i will 'suffer' with other and see what plays out.
post #218 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

but it's telling they aren't willing to indemnify against damages for use of WebM, if they are supposedly so sure that it's not infringing any patents.

This is because Google isn't stupid. Notice they didn't indemnify Android either?
post #219 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by sprockkets View Post

Don't post shit back unless you want me to punch you in the face.

PM me and I'll give you my actual location. You can then attempt to punch me in the face big guy.

I love how some folks are internet tough guys. Welcome to my ignore list...damn it's getting large.
post #220 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by d-range View Post

Look, I'm not claiming to have accomplished anything for anyone here, just saying that Stallman isn't exactly the most rational or unbiased guy to ask about WebM. Even in the FOSS world lots of people have grown tired of his all or nothing attitude, there really is no middle ground for him. How serious can you take a guy that doesn't even want to use a cellphone or computer if it contains even a single part that isn't based on an open design? Last time I read something about Stallman it was about the computer with some kind of crappy Chinese MIPS CPU he was using, just because it was 'open'. The guy seem to prefer holding back innovation out of idealism, hardly the right person to judge on advanced video codecs if you ask me.

He doesn't actually believe in IP so his supporting WebM as being free of patent encumbrance is meaningless (he basically uses copyright law in a cynical way to enforce his brand of "freedom").

He also knows, like everyone else, that only Google or the poor schmuck at the end of the infringement chain is likely to get hammered. So it means nothing to him since he's no real big fan of Google either. He tolerates and perhaps fears Google.
post #221 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

This is because Google isn't stupid. Notice they didn't indemnify Android either?

They have pledged to indemify Android.
post #222 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

PM me and I'll give you my actual location. You can then attempt to punch me in the face big guy.

I love how some folks are internet tough guys. Welcome to my ignore list...damn it's getting large.

It's more like a punch to get your brain working again.

Notice how you didn't include in your reply just how wrong you were and how stupid you sounded for saying what you did...wait you aren't even the person who said it, wtf?
post #223 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by d-range View Post

I'm not going to reply to anything else you wrote in that last post, just because of this paragraph. What you are saying is downright untrue, made up, actually opposite to reality and you can impossibly back this up with facts, because it's a load of bullshit based on nothing. WebM is worse than H264 in every aspect: image quality, hardware support, how easy it is to implement efficiently in hardware and resource usage when either encoding or decoding it.

I'm sorry but you obviously have no idea what you are talking about, and are making up stuff along the way to 'prove' a point you don't have. Go Google (no pun intended) for 'x264 vp8 analysis' and read up there before you come back and make statements about VP8 performance, people who know a thousand times more on this subject than you do have already concluded how wrong your assumptions are.

http://www.streamingmedia.com/Articl...ook-68594.aspx

http://www.streamingmedia.com/articl...red-67266.aspx

http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-W...t-164124.shtml

http://filthypants.blogspot.com/2010...x264-high.html

That last link put it as straight and non-biased as it will be. WebM is right up there with x264, i believe my exact wording in my previous post was "just as good". In some areas its bests it, and in others it loses.

Why dont you read up and educate yourself instead of going by comparisons that are almost an entire year old? In the second link, he shows CPU performance, where the old VP8 is hogging resources and pretty shitty overall. He later then uses a newer build of VP8 (unknown if its the latest Aylesbury or not) and the performance stomps out H.264 by using half the resources.

Performance improvements werent tested on OS X and is showing only the PC side of things, which i mentioned in the post you dismissed. Im not immune to the facts, VP8 is still even with Aylesbury much slower on the encoding, and VP8 hasn't been browser optimized yet meaning if i loaded a 720p video on youtube RIGHT NOW, my laptop isn't going to be thanking me for it.

I assume that the new Chrome that will be pushed out once here in a couple of months will in fact have those browser optimizations, and a better build of VP8 seeing as the next release named 'Bali" is scheduled for Q1 2011, giving people the time they need to get their shit together.

As a free codec for videos, there is nothing wrong with WebM and its only going to get better and its getting backed from the hardware industry. Comparable quality with less resources? What is the problem here again?

I know AI has an extreme hatred for everything Google, but there is no delusion. WebM is not as shitty as AI makes it out to be simply because Apple isnt currently backing it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Right, so you'll just ignore what doesn't confirm your opinion.

If you look at the riverbed images in the first link you gave, the VP8 image is significantly poorer quality that the 264 image, especially the HD version. The quality is poorer in the other images as well. So, even your own links seem to show that WebM is not near the quality of H.264.

In those images, the only clear loser is the one of pizza dough and the skateboarder. All the others are near indistinguishable unless you crank up the zoom factor to inspect it.

http://filthypants.blogspot.com/2010...x264-high.html

VP8 is comparable in all test other than the clean animation.
post #224 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by screamingfist View Post

'significantly' how exacting. the numbers don't show that it is 'significantly' and the images are 'slightly' poorer in some cases. i can use inexact terms too ya know. ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by ifail View Post

... In those images, the only clear loser is the one of pizza dough and the skateboarder. All the others are near indistinguishable unless you crank up the zoom factor to inspect it. ...

You guys need to get better monitors, or your eyes checked. Particularly, in the riverbed images, as I noted, the VP8 image is noticeably blurry compared to the H.264, without zooming it at all. But, I suppose you can continue to pretend the VP8 images are just as good, except, of course, for the fact that they aren't.
post #225 of 335
post #226 of 335
Some other good points made at that site:

http://www.osnews.com/story/24245/10...ing_H_264_WebM
post #227 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

You guys need to get better monitors, or your eyes checked. Particularly, in the riverbed images, as I noted, the VP8 image is noticeably blurry compared to the H.264, without zooming it at all. But, I suppose you can continue to pretend the VP8 images are just as good, except, of course, for the fact that they aren't.

just shut up dude. the guy posted more than enough data to show how close the 2 are and you just act like it doesn't exist.
again, just stop talking. it's a waste of digital space.
post #228 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

You guys need to get better monitors, or your eyes checked. Particularly, in the riverbed images, as I noted, the VP8 image is noticeably blurry compared to the H.264, without zooming it at all. But, I suppose you can continue to pretend the VP8 images are just as good, except, of course, for the fact that they aren't.

Nope, sorry i viewed not only my laptop last night, but on my Mini hooked up to my 50" 1080p Samsung in 1080i. Differences were minuscule other than the ones that i mentioned where you can you tell its inferior.

Seriously, the only way you can tell is by zooming in or sticking your face 3 inches from the monitor.

Also, way to completely ignore my second link. It shows even when zoomed in its still comparable.
post #229 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by ifail View Post

Nope, sorry i viewed not only my laptop last night, but on my Mini hooked up to my 50" 1080p Samsung in 1080i. Differences were minuscule other than the ones that i mentioned where you can you tell its inferior.

Seriously, the only way you can tell is by zooming in or sticking your face 3 inches from the monitor.

Also, way to completely ignore my second link. It shows even when zoomed in its still comparable.

Well, it must be your eyes, then, because they aren't comparable at all. Don't worry, though, your optometrist can fix you up.
post #230 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by sprockkets View Post

... Don't post shit back unless you want me to punch you in the face.

Quote:
Originally Posted by screamingfist View Post

just shut up dude. the guy posted more than enough data to show how close the 2 are and you just act like it doesn't exist.
again, just stop talking. it's a waste of digital space.

I wonder why these Google boys have such anger issues? No love from your mothers?
post #231 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

I wonder why these Google boys have such anger issues? No love from your mothers?

i wonder why these apple boys are such retards?
post #232 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

I wonder why these Google boys have such anger issues? No love from your mothers?

Just because someone may not like certain parts of apple doesn't make them a google fanboy.

This error of logic happens so many times, DED notably.

Of course, you can also go back to my original post and see why he deserved the beating he got. Or you can ignore it and enjoy your bliss.
post #233 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by screamingfist View Post

i wonder why these apple boys are such retards?

Is it because we haven't gotten our Google implants yet?
post #234 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Well, it must be your eyes, then, because they aren't comparable at all. Don't worry, though, your optometrist can fix you up.

Sorry, but my vision is great. Im not the one sitting with the blinders on immune to the facts.

Its ok, just say you dont like it because its a Google product. Its not going to hurt my feelings one bit, i've already dispelled the notion that H.264 is leaps and bounds better with facts and visual evidence. I've also shown where it clearly is lacking and where it needs improvement. Improvement that its getting with support from many major players in the industry.

here is another one you can look at should you choose to stay in denial about H.264 being vastly superior.

http://www.streamingmedia.com/confer...0-H264-VP8.pdf

clear cut from an unbiased source.

With support coming to mobile devices, hardware devices, and 90% of the web being able to view WebM, H.264 days are numbered as the leading HTML5 codec. Seeing as how HTML5 is still in its infancy, that gives everyone time to migrate and get hardware support before HTML5 is the standard.
post #235 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by ifail View Post

Sorry, but my vision is great. Im not the one sitting with the blinders on immune to the facts.

Its ok, just say you dont like it because its a Google product. Its not going to hurt my feelings one bit, i've already dispelled the notion that H.264 is leaps and bounds better with facts and visual evidence. I've also shown where it clearly is lacking and where it needs improvement. Improvement that its getting with support from many major players in the industry.

here is another one you can look at should you choose to stay in denial about H.264 being vastly superior.

http://www.streamingmedia.com/confer...0-H264-VP8.pdf...

Sorry, but I have to disagree with your assessment of your visual acuity. In all of those shots, where they actually bothered to use the same image (and it's a bit odd that in many cases they did not), the H.264 image is clearly better.

I think your "dispelling" of notions has already been dispelled in this thread, and all you have to offer is fancy and dreams, not facts and evidence. We heard all your arguments before regarding Theora vs. H.264, and they were just as fictitious then as they are now.

So, the bottom line is that WebM is technically inferior, a mess of a "spec" (if it can even be called that), a legal minefield for anyone adopting it, and nothing more than a patently hypocritical Google ploy to sow chaos.
post #236 of 335
deleted
post #237 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Sorry, but I have to disagree with your assessment of your visual acuity. In all of those shots, where they actually bothered to use the same image (and it's a bit odd that in many cases they did not), the H.264 image is clearly better.

I think your "dispelling" of notions has already been dispelled in this thread, and all you have to offer is fancy and dreams, not facts and evidence. We heard all your arguments before regarding Theora vs. H.264, and they were just as fictitious then as they are now.

So, the bottom line is that WebM is technically inferior, a mess of a "spec" (if it can even be called that), a legal minefield for anyone adopting it, and nothing more than a patently hypocritical Google ploy to sow chaos.

you have dispelled absolutely nothing. you have provided nothing other than 'my eyes work better than your eyes' rubbish. just own up that you have nothing valid to say and are a sad little individual that just thinks it has to get the last word in no matter how wrongheaded that word is.
caio,
post #238 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

I wonder why these Google boys have such anger issues? No love from your mothers?

Googletards..

As for me, I deleted Picasa from the one machine it was loaded on and I've started using other search engines.

Time to become Google-free!
post #239 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by ifail View Post

http://www.streamingmedia.com/Articl...ook-68594.aspx

http://www.streamingmedia.com/articl...red-67266.aspx

http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-W...t-164124.shtml

http://filthypants.blogspot.com/2010...x264-high.html

That last link put it as straight and non-biased as it will be. WebM is right up there with x264, i believe my exact wording in my previous post was "just as good". In some areas its bests it, and in others it loses.

Why dont you read up and educate yourself instead of going by comparisons that are almost an entire year old? In the second link, he shows CPU performance, where the old VP8 is hogging resources and pretty shitty overall. He later then uses a newer build of VP8 (unknown if its the latest Aylesbury or not) and the performance stomps out H.264 by using half the resources.

Performance improvements werent tested on OS X and is showing only the PC side of things, which i mentioned in the post you dismissed. Im not immune to the facts, VP8 is still even with Aylesbury much slower on the encoding, and VP8 hasn't been browser optimized yet meaning if i loaded a 720p video on youtube RIGHT NOW, my laptop isn't going to be thanking me for it.

I assume that the new Chrome that will be pushed out once here in a couple of months will in fact have those browser optimizations, and a better build of VP8 seeing as the next release named 'Bali" is scheduled for Q1 2011, giving people the time they need to get their shit together.

As a free codec for videos, there is nothing wrong with WebM and its only going to get better and its getting backed from the hardware industry. Comparable quality with less resources? What is the problem here again?

I know AI has an extreme hatred for everything Google, but there is no delusion. WebM is not as shitty as AI makes it out to be simply because Apple isnt currently backing it.



In those images, the only clear loser is the one of pizza dough and the skateboarder. All the others are near indistinguishable unless you crank up the zoom factor to inspect it.

http://filthypants.blogspot.com/2010...x264-high.html

VP8 is comparable in all test other than the clean animation.

My god man, he took SCREENSHOTS!!!!!!!!!!! In the test you love! And then he resized them!!!! And then PNG'd them!!!! So he based his test not on the quality of the images, but on the quality of lossily converted lower than native resolution external pics which were subject to some unknown Photoshop size transform!!

Holy Fried Monkey Testicles Batman!!! Can an image quality test get any more broken that that? No! Broke is broke!

The site didn't say these things of course, but if you actually click on the images and compare them it is obvious they are not screenshots as they shift all over the place. And that they are PNG's but which is evident in the URL when you click on the images to look for yourself. And the image itself reports it was modified in Photoshop.

The test was was not only so worthless as to be laughable, it was disingenuous as when he said the gremlin was sharper, that was only because the artifacts surrounding him got so bad it overly sharpened the outer black outline.

You obviously have a lot to learn in how to asses source material. And maybe you need some glasses too.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #240 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by screamingfist View Post

you have dispelled absolutely nothing. you have provided nothing other than 'my eyes work better than your eyes' rubbish. just own up that you have nothing valid to say and are a sad little individual that just thinks it has to get the last word in no matter how wrongheaded that word is.
caio,

I'll lay my 20/12 MILSPEC yearly verified Aviators eyeballs against the sloppy sensors you seem to have any day.

And if you were actually trying to say the opposite of how I read what you posted, then you impeach your source yourself! Nice self-constructed no-way-out trap there Bubba!

You are really special, and I'm sure you know that. You have absolutely no concept of how ignorant you have proven yourself to be via your posts which are ALWAYS full of factual slip-ups, sloppy logic and your absolutely perfect choices for source material.

You make my task of exposing your arguments as mere sham crapola unbelievable easy. You may not want to admit that, but everyone but your sock-puppetrs knows it and has for awhile.

Please make another demonstration that can so simply be decimated.
.
Reply
.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac Software
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Google drops support for H.264 video in Chrome to push WebM