No, I made the point I wanted to make.
Posted Feb 4, 2010 16:34 UTC (Thu) by gmaxwell
In reply to: No, I made the point I wanted to make.
Parent article: Blizzard: HTML5 video and H.264 - what history tells us and why we're standing with the web
I agree, but the container overhead is higher for Ogg, so that's another drawback for Theora. What are you trying to say?
I'm not in much of a position to speak about MP4/QT container overhead, but the container overhead of Ogg is fairly low when Ogg is used in the typical way. Ffmpeg does a rather brain-dead thing and only ever places one packet per Ogg page which enormously increases the overhead at lower bitrates, but as far as I'm aware every other tool won't do that. If you are interested in low overhead, Ogg can be as low as ~0.433% (presuming big packets, like video). Is a streamable, seekable, MP4 file in that ballpark? Better seems ... unlikely... to me, or inconsequential if it's the case.
I'm putting your comparison in perspective. You sacrifice audio quality to achieve a not-quite-on-par video quality.
If you want to argue it out, I can arrange a blind listening test on the audio. My audio will win. :) AAC-LC isn't all that hot. Really.
But I don't we need to argue that take a gander at This Theora vs the YT H.264, or for the lazy the Theora still vs the YT h.264 still.
So there you have, lower bitrate pure video than the H.264, same keyframe interval, same input, etc. How do you think it looks?
Would sir like his hat medium or rare?
Obviously we don't know anything about the YT cpu consumption, so you can still argue that. The theora encoder is pretty fast, I've seen others compare it to the fast mode in x264, even though its not deeply optimized at all. But we have no idea how fast YT's tools are. I concede the encoder cpu consumption is usually relevant, and that other H264 encoders are better, ... and I never claimed otherwise. Can you concede that, for the purpose of this test, that the quality/bitrate is basically there?
Also, I take issue with your putting open source video encoding in quotes. These are the people that are keeping Linux viable as a general-purpose desktop platform. They deserve thanks, not criticism.
It's in quotes because people are widely ignorant about the implications, it isn't intended as an insult. Open source in the context of the tools for encumbered media formats doesn't quite mean the same thing as it does for most other pieces of open source software.
Obviously I'm mostly discussing high end encoders when I made that point.
There is a fine line between embracing the encumbered world enough to capture their users and outright embracing it. When the resulting tools are widening the gap between unencumbered and encumbered formats, its doing the format owners a much bigger favour than its doing everyone else. ::shrugs::
It's also a little frustrating that some of the popular tools like ffmpeg don't offer world-class support for the things like Ogg/Theora while a few of their developers are spending a lot of time and effort slinging unadulterated FUD. Can you sense my finger wagging? Come on, at least look at the freeking priority dates, dude.
to post comments)