WebM (VP8) vs H.

In early 2010, Google acquired ON2 and all of its video compression technologies. The widespread speculation at the time was whether Google would open the ON2 's most advanced VP8 video code. Sure enough, in 2010 years, Google announced that VP8 will be free forever. Google also developed the WebM container format, based on the open source container format Matroska, to encapsulate VP8 encoded video and Vorbis encoded audio. Google, along with Mozilla and Opera, is then ready to promote VP8/VORBIS/WEBM (collectively known as WebM) as a common format for web video. Google Chrome was quickly updated after WebM was released to support both Theora, H. Three, and WebM formats. Mozilla and Opera have also announced that they will natively support WebM in subsequent versions of their browsers (mainly Firefox 4).

VP8 is a kind of video coding that is far better than Theora. The situation is slightly more complicated as to how VP8 and H. VP8 is not a standard. There is currently only one reference implementation developed by ON2 (reference implementation). This ambiguous reference implementation has been criticized by many developers. The main problem is that for many technical details, ON2 only a few pieces of code without any relevant explanations. This has brought great difficulties in understanding and improving VP8. On the other hand, although Google will VP8 open source, but VP8 the entire design process is On2 secretly, and shortly after the VP8, all the relevant data specifications were frozen, along with it was frozen along with the various defects of this reference implementation. So strictly speaking On2 is not an open standard, all the technical details are in the hands of Google.

This article has been mentioned many times before, and it is simply described as a specific video encoding format. In fact, it is only an industry standard, by many industry enterprises and experts jointly developed, not controlled by a single manufacturer. There are several different levels (profiles), each of which corresponds to different levels of complexity to suit different needs. The presence of multiple levels makes H + a very flexible adaptation: small to IPod Nano, to high-definition Blu-ray players, can be based on different computing power and quality requirements to choose the appropriate level. It is generally believed that VP8 and H. Baseline profile are equivalent (there are many levels for HD video preparation).

This industry standard has many different vendors to develop encoder, decoder implementation (implementation). Even if the same standard is followed, the quality of the images produced by different encoders and decoders is slightly different, making it relatively difficult to directly compare VP8 and H. The current test for VP8 and H. A is generally based on Google's VP8 reference encoder implementation and the excellent open-source H. S encoder x264 Compressed video image comparison. In the present situation, the effect of VP8 at the same rate is still slightly lost in H.

However, as with Theora, there are potential patent problems as VP8 has not been tested by the market. One of the main developers of x264 has carefully analyzed the source code of VP8 's reference implementation, and concludes that VP8 and H. s are too similar, and it is hard to believe that there is no patent infringement. Although Google announced that it will VP8 open source and permanently free, and Google has done a lot of research that VP8 should not have a patent problem, but because of the loopholes in the U.S. patent system, no one can guarantee that the future will not appear "submarine patent" cause litigation disputes. In the event of a similar situation, Google's WebM license agreement does not protect businesses and individuals using WebM.

In addition, because the WebM has just appeared, there is no ready-made VP8 hardware decoder, in the processing capacity of the weak portable device can not be used. After the release of WebM, many hardware vendors such as AMD, ARM, and Broadcom announced support for the format, but no actual product was available. Other hardware vendors, such as Intel and NVIDIA, say that if WebM is widely popular they will provide the corresponding hardware products, still hold a wait-and-see attitude.

At present, the focus of arguing about the merits of WebM and H. WebM is that although it is free, there may be potential patent problems, and since no hardware decoder can not be used on portable devices, the patent problem is clear, the technology is relatively advanced, there is a hardware decoder, and many portable devices are already widely used, But you pay.

It involves a number of patented technologies, which are held by different organizations and individuals respectively. If a manufacturer wants to use H. T, it is clear that he will not be able to negotiate with these patent holders one at a. In order to facilitate the promotion of H. A, the organizations and individuals holding the relevant patent of H. IP authorize a patent to an organization called MPEG LA, which is then uniformly charged with the license fee for the relevant patent of H.

MPEG LA will divide the patent license into two categories: H. A encoder and decoder (regardless of hardware and software) manufacturers need to buy a patent license agreement of H. H, the distributor of the encoded video (e.g. TV station, etc.) needs to purchase another H. A patent license agreement. That is to say, all production support recording video equipment, mobile phones and other manufacturers are to MPEG LA pay royalties. The cost is relatively low: less than 100,000 devices are free, and more than 100,000 per decoder is 20 cents, with a ceiling of $6.5 million per year. In addition, MPEG LA stipulates that although every five years after the patent license period it can adjust the licensing fees according to market conditions, but each price increase will not exceed 10%. Therefore, it is reliable to make the encoder and decoder in the cost of the manufacturer using H. All hardware and software vendors that support the video playback of H + + will also pay the patent fee to MPEG LA. Most companies, such as Apple, Microsoft, and Sony, have purchased a patent license agreement, so end-users don't have to worry about the cost of making and playing videos using the H + technology.

The

problem is with MPEG LA's rules on network video (like YouTube). Sites such as YouTube belong to video distributors. MPEG LA has a complete authorization fee system based on the number of subscribers for traditional video distributors like TV stations. However, MPEG LA has yet to charge a patent fee for network video distributors. MPEG LA updates its patent licensing regulations every five years. At present, MPEG LA promises not to charge royalties for the distribution of network video encoded in H. T by the end of 2015. It is unclear whether fees will be charged after 2015 years. Many people think that the ambiguous attitude of MPEG LA will be the hidden danger of future network video, and the use of open source, free WebM does not have this problem (note that it is assumed that WebM does not have a potential patent problem). Another view is that even if the WebM does not have a pandemic, its presence can force MPEG LA to continue to distribute the video of H. NET for free. "Update: Comments in Cjsas mention that MPEG LA has promised permanent free. I checked it out later. MPEG LA announced in August 2010 that for free online video distribution to end users via the Internet is permanently free. Fees for online video services such as ITunes movie rental, Netflix, hulu+, etc. are also charged. The