bit-tech.net

WebM codec 'outperforms' H.264

Published on 25th August 2010 by Gareth Halfacree

VideoPort's experiments show that Google's WebM codec can beat H.264 in high bit-rate tests.

Videoconferencing specialist VideoPort has conducted some tests which should give Google's WebM video codec a shot in the arm - demonstrating, as they do, that in certain scenarios the open source codec can outperform the proprietary H.264 codec.

According to the company's tests, the WebM codec - previously known as VP8 when it was being developed by On2 Technologies before the company was bought by Google and the codec renamed and then released under an open source licence - surpassed the performance of the popular H.264 video compression codec in high bit-rate scenarios on their video conferencing platform.

The tests - which will now see the company integrate the WebM codec into its products, alongside VideoPort's own proprietary codec Cyclone which still has the edge in low-bandwidth or low-resolution scenarios - validate Google's decision to standardise on the WebM codec, and show that a future free from proprietary video compression codecs isn't completely impossible.

The news will likely come as an unwelcome surprise to Apple, which has been championing the use of H.264 video streaming through HTML 5 as an alternative to Adobe's Flash - ostensibly in order to get away from the fact that "Adobe’s Flash products are 100% proprietary."

With increasing numbers of web browsers choosing to implement WebM for in-browser video playback via the HTML 5 'video' tag - and the possibility of hardware acceleration - the future of expensive licensed codecs such as H.264 and Adobe's Flash technology looks pretty uncertain.

Are you pleased to see that WebM appears to be a worthy competitor to H.264, or does its open source nature mean that it would always be your codec of choice even if it failed to outperform its proprietary rivals? Share your thoughts over in the forums.

21 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply

kempez 25th August 2010, 10:51

The only thing I wish is that everyone would settle on a standard and that all devices would support it.

I care little if one performs a little bit better than another one, although having an open standard is much better than a closed standard.

r3loaded 25th August 2010, 10:54

The problem is that I can guarantee you that Apple will dig their heels in on this, even when the rest of the industry moves to WebM.

StoneyMahoney 25th August 2010, 11:43

I can see a lot of companies getting awfully stubborn about which codecs they support. Those paying hefty royalties to the MPEG-LA, as well as it's members themselves, will be unwilling to move from H.264 to anything else due to the investment they've already made in that particular tech. Products from new companies and open source initiatives will have no trouble supporting both with H.264 being optional depending on how (or if) it can be paid for, although Google doesn't have the best reputation right now and that may also work against WebM's adoption. Bottom line - I'd love to play with WebM and see if take off and kick the crap out of H.264, but it's a battle against a very well entrenched opponent.

Farting Bob 25th August 2010, 12:04

So no link or evidence to back up the claim that this one software company thinks WebM is better? Seems to me like they wanted some free advertising so make a claim like this.
WebM from what ive seen does not produce a better quality image than x264 (or the other good H264 encoders) at any filesize, and the broad consensus agrees with me. Its only advantage right now is that its open source.

Showerhead 25th August 2010, 12:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by StoneyMahoney
I can see a lot of companies getting awfully stubborn about which codecs they support. Those paying hefty royalties to the MPEG-LA, as well as it's members themselves, will be unwilling to move from H.264 to anything else due to the investment they've already made in that particular tech. Products from new companies and open source initiatives will have no trouble supporting both with H.264 being optional depending on how (or if) it can be paid for, although Google doesn't have the best reputation right now and that may also work against WebM's adoption. Bottom line - I'd love to play with WebM and see if take off and kick the crap out of H.264, but it's a battle against a very well entrenched opponent.

Don't see why any of the companies paying royalties would be unwilling to move it'd save them money in the long run although there is the sunken cost fallacy. The members themselves will be the ones opposing WebM they'd have a lot to use.

Spiny 25th August 2010, 12:31

@kempez
"The only thing I wish is that everyone would settle on a standard and that all devices would support it."

Well, you can bet that it'll appear on the next version of Android & that it won't on iPhone or Win Phone 7

fodder 25th August 2010, 12:43

Apple are heading back to the 80's and early 90's now. Remember when Apples and PCs had different programs and documents could not be exchanged easily, if at all?

Well, now you will need an 'apple' version of different pieces of the web. I guess they don't learn from their own history.

Cthippo 25th August 2010, 13:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by kempez
I care little if one performs a little bit better than another one, although having an open standard is much better than a closed standard.

This. Full stop.

Even if the performance is marginally less, the open source nature of the product makes it more appealing for me.

Nexxo 25th August 2010, 13:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by fodder
Apple are heading back to the 80's and early 90's now. Remember when Apples and PCs had different programs and documents could not be exchanged easily, if at all?

Well, now you will need an 'apple' version of different pieces of the web. I guess they don't learn from their own history.

Except that Apple is steadily levering itself in the majority position that Windowds-based PCs used to have. Perhaps Apple doesn't need to conform --soon others will have to conform to Apple.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cthippo
This. Full stop.

Even if the performance is marginally less, the open source nature of the product makes it more appealing for me.

The problem with most open source standards is that as soon as it becomes the de facto standard, it becomes closed. This is why Apple is making FaceTime an open standard protocol. The idea is that it will catch on, everybody will use it and then who will be in pole position to profit? Apple.

hexx 25th August 2010, 13:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by r3loaded
The problem is that I can guarantee you that Apple will dig their heels in on this, even when the rest of the industry moves to WebM.

why do you think so? what does apple have to do with it? it's just one of the patent holders and very small one, you should do some research before you post comments like this.

h.264 is open standard, used in home and professional video editing from capturing devices to playback devices. what's wrong with supporting an open standard which has been out for a long time and is widely used across different devices?

Gareth Halfacree 25th August 2010, 14:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by hexx
h.264 is open standard

What gives you the impression it's an open standard? According to Wikipedia: "vendors and commercial users of products that use H.264/AVC are expected to pay patent licensing royalties for the patented technology that their products use."

Sounds like a closed standard t'me.

tad2008 25th August 2010, 14:51

Quote from 3rd paragraph: "The tests - which will now see the company integrate the WebM codec into its products, alongside VideoPort's own proprietary codec Cyclone which still has the edge in low-bandwidth or low-resolution scenarios"

Does this mean that WebM is poor for low-bandwidth/resolution? If so why haven't VideoPort and Google worked more closely to create a single codec?

It's good to see a licence free open source codec come to the scene that is backed by larger organisation and although Google may not be perfect, their push for things to be free and open source is admirable.

I doubt Apple or Adobe will like things either way, but in this Microsoft has a chance to benefit and save money on licence fees, maybe not today or tomorrow but if the WebM codec take up is good then Businesses and Consumers gain some small benefit.

rickysio 25th August 2010, 15:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by tad2008
Quote from 3rd paragraph: "The tests - which will now see the company integrate the WebM codec into its products, alongside VideoPort's own proprietary codec Cyclone which still has the edge in low-bandwidth or low-resolution scenarios"

Does this mean that WebM is poor for low-bandwidth/resolution? If so why haven't VideoPort and Google worked more closely to create a single codec?

It's good to see a licence free open source codec come to the scene that is backed by larger organisation and although Google may not be perfect, their push for things to be free and open source is admirable.

I doubt Apple or Adobe will like things either way, but in this Microsoft has a chance to benefit and save money on licence fees, maybe not today or tomorrow but if the WebM codec take up is good then Businesses and Consumers gain some small benefit.

It doesn't mean WebM is poor - merely that Cyclone is better than both WebM and H.264.

Spuzzell 25th August 2010, 15:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nexxo
Quote:
Originally Posted by fodder
Apple are heading back to the 80's and early 90's now. Remember when Apples and PCs had different programs and documents could not be exchanged easily, if at all?

Well, now you will need an 'apple' version of different pieces of the web. I guess they don't learn from their own history.
Except that Apple is steadily levering itself in the majority position that Windowds-based PCs used to have. Perhaps Apple doesn't need to conform --soon others will have to conform to Apple.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cthippo
This. Full stop.

Even if the performance is marginally less, the open source nature of the product makes it more appealing for me.
The problem with most open source standards is that as soon as it becomes the de facto standard, it becomes closed. This is why Apple is making FaceTime an open standard protocol. The idea is that it will catch on, everybody will use it and then who will be in pole position to profit? Apple.

Wait, what? So Apple have invented video calling now? What was I doing 5 years ago then? I'll tell you, actually. I was using video calling for about a month before everyone realised it was stupid and stopped. Not many conversations are improved by a close up-angle view of the nostrils of the person you're talking to.

And that WAS properly open standard. Any phone with a front facing camera could use it. And, by the way, over the phone network, not just wifi and to a specific handset.

hexx 25th August 2010, 15:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
Quote:
Originally Posted by hexx
h.264 is open standard
What gives you the impression it's an open standard? According to Wikipedia: "vendors and commercial users of products that use H.264/AVC are expected to pay patent licensing royalties for the patented technology that their products use."

Sounds like a closed standard t'me.

MPEG-4 is open standard part of which is AVC/h264 which are open standards but not royalty free, there's a big difference between being open source and open standard - it's very confusing i agree. good info can be found here:

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=96059

when it comes to WebM - i'm still not convinced, AFAIK MPEG-LA are creating patent pool to target this initiative and from what i've read there seem to be huge chunks of code simply copied from h264 to VP8 including dev notes!! so it's quite possible that there will be some problems with it in the future.

hard to say. I for one like the idea of having one standard, but as it currently is the h264 is the only one which is a standard and is widely used.

desertstalker 25th August 2010, 15:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nexxo
Except that Apple is steadily levering itself in the majority position that Windowds-based PCs used to have. Perhaps Apple doesn't need to conform --soon others will have to conform to Apple.

Um not quite...

Quote:

Originally Posted by http://www.maclife.com/article/news/apples_market_share_pc_world_continues_surge
They found Apple's domestic shipments to be at 1.13 million, which translated into a 6.4 percent market share. They still found Apple to be the fifth-largest vendor, same as Gartner.

Looks like they still have a ways to go...

Er-El 25th August 2010, 15:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by hexx
MPEG-4 is open standard part of which is AVC/h264 which are open standards but not royalty free, there's a big difference between being open source and open standard - it's very confusing i agree. good info can be found here:

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=96059

when it comes to WebM - i'm still not convinced, AFAIK MPEG-LA are creating patent pool to target this initiative and from what i've read there seem to be huge chunks of code simply copied from h264 to VP8 including dev notes!! so it's quite possible that there will be some problems with it in the future.

hard to say. I for one like the idea of having one standard, but as it currently is the h264 is the only one which is a standard and is widely used.

It's not truly an open standard unless it's open source and under a free license, to me.

supermonkey 25th August 2010, 15:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spuzzell
Wait, what? So Apple have invented video calling now? What was I doing 5 years ago then? I'll tell you, actually. I was using video calling for about a month before everyone realised it was stupid and stopped. Not many conversations are improved by a close up-angle view of the nostrils of the person you're talking to.

He didn't say that Apple invented video calling. What he said is that they are positioning their implementation of video calling to be a de facto standard. And they are doing it in a clever way, too. Recently I've seen a lot of commercials that show the public why video calling is the new must-have feature. There was a man showing his new-born baby to the baby's grandfather, a father providing consoling words to his daughter who just got braces, and a husband reassuring his wife that her haircut really looks good. These kinds of applications appeal to people much more than meaningless data about codecs and bandwidth, and these are the people buying iPhones by the millions.

hexx 25th August 2010, 15:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Er-El

It's not truly an open standard unless it's open source and under a free license, to me.

different terms, different meanings apples and oranges

thehippoz 25th August 2010, 16:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by hexx
I for one like the idea of having one standard, but as it currently is the h264 is the only one which is a standard and is widely used.

ryall 26th August 2010, 02:54

Quote: