VP8 is >10x faster than VP9, while giving relatively close compression rate. In ffmpeg terminology, libvpx can do your coding job faster than libvpx-vp9 (which is default codec for webm format).

· tootstream · 2 · 0 · 2

@Wolf480pl maybe VP9 delivers better visual quality compared to VP8 (given a certain file size). 🤔


@thomas @alexcleac
but saying "relatively close compression ratio" doesn't make sense if you don't configure both codecs' quality settings to give similar visual quality...

@Wolf480pl @thomas By "realative close compression rate" I mean vp8 gives not much bigger files than vp9 for equal visual quality.

@alexcleac @thomas
so yeah, question stands: why would anyone use vp9

@Wolf480pl @thomas for my use case, I can save about 1% of file size, which costs me not that much. But for youtube, 1% save on transmission of very popular video can save bunches of money

@alexcleac @Wolf480pl @thomas 30-40% savings is what's advertised. I'm curious what use case you've got that behaves so much differently?

@Wolf480pl @thomas @brion Storage of series. At most I could get 5-15 MiB of win on single file over vp8. Which is not much, including the fact o how long does it take to perform encoding.

@gudenau h265 is as slow as vp9 as I tried. VP8 is a bit worse but way faster :)

@alexcleac Hmmm, I thought it was supposed to be the same speed as h264 or faster with better or greater quality.

Ehh, doesn't matter much as long as I can do 60Hz/2920x1080 real time. (Yay for GPU encoding hardware)

@gudenau unfortunately the best my hardware can do is h264... But it is generally available pretty much everywhere, and I want more compression 😂

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon for Tech Folks

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!