| ||||||||||
| and do I get to say THANK YOU SO MUCH for this ? for the time and effort to make it work ? really because in delivering web sites we have to mess with this multi - browser / OS / platform mess still. This is a big help in automating deliverables. S On Dec 16, 2013, at 9:53 PM, Brendan Bolles <brendan@fnordware.com> wrote: > On Dec 16, 2013, at 7:40 PM, scott.aelist wrote: > >> Well that's pretty cool. I haven't investigated these formats much. Do you find they have advantages over h264 (other than being open source?) Do you get better quality or smaller file-sizes? > > > VP8 in WebM is roughly equivalent to H.264, and VP9 should be roughly equivalent to the forthcoming H.265. Theora, based on VP3, is pretty old technology and not nearly as good, but some people still need it. > > I think H.264 does generally have a slight edge over VP8, especially when using the excellent x264 encoder. Not sure about Adobe's encoder. From what I've read, having a high-quality encoder can make as much difference as having a high-quality format. Google should probably hire the x264 people and put them to work on their VP9 encoder. > > One big advantage for me is that WebM is not QuickTime. So there is no chance of someone opening a WebM file in QuickTime and getting some sort of weird gamma issue. > > I haven't done thorough real-world comparisons though. That's what you guys are for. ;) > > > Brendan > > > +---End of message---+ > To unsubscribe send any message to <ae-list-off@media-motion.tv> |
