Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Software News › [Ars] Google reveals plan to remove H.264 support from Chrome
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[Ars] Google reveals plan to remove H.264 support from Chrome - Page 2

post #11 of 15
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathris View Post
H.264 is only royalty free for a period of time. Do you honestly want it to become the universal standard, then the moment the agreement expires having them start charging royalties?
It already Is the "universal standard", all the more reason to support it. And I don't see them backing out of the agreement 5 years down the road, it wouldn't be in their interest to do so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nathris View Post
H.264 looks terrible on Youtube (even on mobile devices), but WebM doesn't. Sure, Google has more reason to work on WebM support, but that doesn't change the fact that Google's HTML5 beta with H.264 is unwatchable.

*etc images*
How something "appears" on YouTube says nothing about the underlying codec or the encoder that was used, given the circumstances, namely being that we have no clue as to the various settings they use for their encodes (even if you extracted MetaData, it wouldn't tell you the entire process that the video goes through via Google's processing scheme).
However, we do know (and this change in Chrome is an example of that) they have all the reason in the world to make VP8 look better, albeit at the cost of using higher bitrate (larger filesizes) and/or slower settings to do so.
In other words, in no way a fair comparison.

As for the difference between quality on h.264 via HTML5 & Flash, the screenshots you showed obviously demonstrate some issue not related to the codec itself.
As in, it appears to not be the same video encode. You can go to any number of websites that use HTML5 h.264 and it look just the same as its Flash h.264 counterpart.

Fact of the matter is, H.264 destroys WebM (VP8) in any properly conducted test, in both quality @ x bitrate, SSIM & PSNR when tuned against it.
http://www.compression.ru/video/code...tml#Appendix_8

Here is a proper "Quality" test @ the same bitrate.
http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/archives/377

VP8:


H.264


H.264 Baseline:


I would be all for this change and the abolishment of H.264s use outright, if VP8 could actually match its quality or at least come very close to doing so @ the same bitrate.
Unfortunately, it's going to take more time for the encoder to get itself up to that level.
Edited by Trigunflame - 1/11/11 at 9:10pm
i7 930
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 930 [4.0@1.23v] [4.2@1.32v] ASUS P6T-Deluxe [v1] EVGA GTX 480 SC+ [850/2000@1.100v] OCZ Gold DDR3 [3x2GB] [1600@8-8-8-24-1N] 
Hard Drive
OCZ Vertex 2e (120GB) SSD 
  hide details  
Reply
i7 930
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 930 [4.0@1.23v] [4.2@1.32v] ASUS P6T-Deluxe [v1] EVGA GTX 480 SC+ [850/2000@1.100v] OCZ Gold DDR3 [3x2GB] [1600@8-8-8-24-1N] 
Hard Drive
OCZ Vertex 2e (120GB) SSD 
  hide details  
Reply
post #12 of 15
A surprising move from them; I wouldn't be surprised if H.264 was still allowed as an add-on; but ONLY as an add-on, ie it doesn't just come by default, and it's appropriately considered proprietary.

What this seems like is the equivalent of OGG being made the audio standard rather than MP3, which is something of a good measure. (MP3-audio has somewhat restricted the software capabilities of a number of programs, such as Audacity)

Quality is, of course, a huge part of it; I wouldn't know who to back yet as I haven't seen quite so many demonstrations of each.
Calvin
(12 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i5-4670 @3.40Ghz ASUS Z87-A eVGA GTX 670 8 GB 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
SSD + 2TB internal Windows 8.1 Pro 64-bit Two of them! Logitech 
  hide details  
Reply
Calvin
(12 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i5-4670 @3.40Ghz ASUS Z87-A eVGA GTX 670 8 GB 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
SSD + 2TB internal Windows 8.1 Pro 64-bit Two of them! Logitech 
  hide details  
Reply
post #13 of 15
Yea because when Google announced WebM they just said, "Thats it. Here's your new standard. Peace out."


I wouldn't mind seeing some unbiased (as in, not from the freaking x264 developer) comparisons that are less than 9 months old
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i5 4670k ASUS Maximus VI Gene Gigabyte GTX 460 1GB Kingston Hyper-X 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Samsung 830 OCZ Vertex 3 WD6401AALS WD5000AAKS 
CoolingOSMonitorMonitor
Noctua NH-D14 elementary OS Dell Ultrasharp U2312HM LG W2442PA-BF 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Microsoft Sidewinder X4 Corsair HX750W Corsair Graphite 600T Logitech G700 
Audio
ASUS Xonar DG 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i5 4670k ASUS Maximus VI Gene Gigabyte GTX 460 1GB Kingston Hyper-X 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Samsung 830 OCZ Vertex 3 WD6401AALS WD5000AAKS 
CoolingOSMonitorMonitor
Noctua NH-D14 elementary OS Dell Ultrasharp U2312HM LG W2442PA-BF 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Microsoft Sidewinder X4 Corsair HX750W Corsair Graphite 600T Logitech G700 
Audio
ASUS Xonar DG 
  hide details  
Reply
post #14 of 15
The fact remains that H.264 will continue to be used, and so far in my experience has been excellent. The license is good until 2016 so why is google pulling the plug now? Seems really pathetic in my opinion, why do they have to disable a codec in order to make theirs seems better? If it truly was a better option they would let their users make that comparison for themselves. H.264 material I've watched while streaming looks incredible and I couldn't see it getting much better. If WebM could get the same quality output at half the size it would be interesting, but right now all it seems to have going for it is that it's open and free. Plus, as others have mentioned, it's not in anyone's interest to make H.264 a pay option for end users, it would never work in this market.

EDIt: It's just like all of Google's Beta programs. They could charge for them one day, but nobody seems to give them a hard time about that. Maybe when all is controlled by Google and they 'f' us people will start to care.
Edited by murcielago585 - 1/11/11 at 10:58pm
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 2500K 4.3Ghz @ 1.3v 24/7 Asus P67 Sabertooth PNY GTX 560 Ti 1GB 8GB G.Skill Ripjaws X 1600mhz CL9 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Intel 40GB SSD + 640GB WD Black ASUS DVD-DL Windows 7 x64 Pro Dell 2209WA 22" eIPS 
PowerCase
Seasonic S12II 620W 80+ CM Storm Scout 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 2500K 4.3Ghz @ 1.3v 24/7 Asus P67 Sabertooth PNY GTX 560 Ti 1GB 8GB G.Skill Ripjaws X 1600mhz CL9 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Intel 40GB SSD + 640GB WD Black ASUS DVD-DL Windows 7 x64 Pro Dell 2209WA 22" eIPS 
PowerCase
Seasonic S12II 620W 80+ CM Storm Scout 
  hide details  
Reply
post #15 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathris View Post
H.264 is only royalty free for a period of time. Do you honestly want it to become the universal standard, then the moment the agreement expires having them start charging royalties?

H.264 looks terrible on Youtube (even on mobile devices), but WebM doesn't. Sure, Google has more reason to work on WebM support, but that doesn't change the fact that Google's HTML5 beta with H.264 is unwatchable.






WebM looks fine and runes fine, and its completely free and open source. Within a year it will probably be a better codec than H.264.
Whoever encoded that H.264 video didn't know what they were doing.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Software News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Software News › [Ars] Google reveals plan to remove H.264 support from Chrome