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?
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.
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
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.
'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
... 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I see this thread has gotten seriously out of control since I last visited it.
I wanted to share some info I found that might be relevant to the video codec topic (not sure what what you guys are discussing at this point). Really a good read IMO.
Comments
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?
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.
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.
'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. ...
... 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.
http://www.osnews.com/story/23258/MP...rtphone_Makers
http://www.osnews.com/story/24245/10...ing_H_264_WebM
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.
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.
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.
... Don't post shit back unless you want me to punch you in the face.
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?
I wonder why these Google boys have such anger issues? No love from your mothers?
i wonder why these apple boys are such retards?
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.
i wonder why these apple boys are such retards?
Is it because we haven't gotten our Google implants yet?
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.
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.
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,
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!
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.
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.
I wanted to share some info I found that might be relevant to the video codec topic (not sure what what you guys are discussing at this point). Really a good read IMO.
http://diveintohtml5.org/video.html