What Webm actually is compared to flv, avi or other formats? Really need Explanation

[Aman Talwar]

Hey Guys

I am not a true geek. But out of curiosity, I just want to ask that is webm faster than flv, h.264 avi or other formats?
That is if I have a video, and I covert it into webm, Does it reduce size, or make it use less processor power  or smoother . Or does it make online buffering faster than flv videos or whatever. I am in touch with webm blog and they say something like"50%" better compression , what is that actually?? Reduse in size? 

What are the actual benefits of webm to normal user. How I am benefited in any way other than its royalty free codec. Explain as if I am dumb :p

[Matthew Heaney]

There are two separate issues. The first issue is the container. A
"WebM file" is a container format based on Matroska. (FLV and AVI are
different kinds of containers.) The WebM container standard supports
VP8 video and Vorbis audio. Which brings us to the second issue, the
actual compression format.

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "WebM Discussion" group.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/a/webmproject.org/d/msg/webm-discuss/-/wR8WS04zXAYJ.
> To post to this group, send email to webm-d...@webmproject.org.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> webm-discuss...@webmproject.org.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/a/webmproject.org/group/webm-discuss/?hl=en.

[Aman Talwar]

I didn't understand . So is webm video smaller than flv or what.. I mean what are the actual benefits

[Matthew Heaney]

You're comparing apples and oranges. "webm video" refers to a video
compression standard, VP8. "flv" refers to a container format.

On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Aman Talwar <aex...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I didn't understand . So is webm video smaller than flv or what.. I mean
> what are the actual benefits
>

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "WebM Discussion" group.
> To view this discussion on the web visit

> https://groups.google.com/a/webmproject.org/d/msg/webm-discuss/-/kEhO1Vuuy_AJ.

[Aman Talwar]

So what you are trying to say is if compression point is considered, Vp8 is responsible for that not webm ?

[Matthew Heaney]

I'm saying that you must compare apples to apples! If you're asking
about "file size" or some such, differences in video compression
format will dwarf any differences in container format.

On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Aman Talwar <aex...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So what you are trying to say is if compression point is considered, Vp8 is
> responsible for that not webm ?
>

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "WebM Discussion" group.
> To view this discussion on the web visit

> https://groups.google.com/a/webmproject.org/d/msg/webm-discuss/-/cEbFFP6gfz8J.

[Aman Talwar]

Ohkay.. I understand a bit now. But not completely

[Terry Hancock]

On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Aman Talwar <aex...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So is webm video smaller than flv or what.. I mean what are the actual benefits

"WebM" Is a marketing label for a particular combination of container
format and video and audio codecs:

MKV container format
VP8 video codec
Vorbis audio codec

This is meant to simplify things -- a vendor can support "webm video"
and only have to support this combination.

In general, all three are interchangeable elements. That's why some
FLV files will play on a certain player and some won't -- FLV only
tells you what the _container_ format is (if you've dealt with
archives like ZIP or TGZ file, a multimedia container format is
similar, except that it is optimized to work when you only have part
of the file -- a.k.a. it "supports streaming"). A similar situation
applies to MPEG or MP4. There are expected codecs more commonly used
with certain containers, but they aren't guaranteed.

It's entirely possible to put Theora or H.264 video into an MKV file
along with audio in AAC, Vorbis, FLAC, WAV, or other codecs. And some
players support this -- but others don't.

Having a combined standard makes things more predictable so you get
fewer surprises. So it's useful to have a combined label like "WebM".

The standards in WebM are all free/open standards which means no one
is paying royalties to use them, which in turn means fewer obstacles
for vendors to support them (even so, some vendors like Apple are
using their monopoly power to resist them because they have a vested
interest in other standards -- can't please everybody!).

As for compression rate, quality, etc -- VP8 is competitive, Vorbis is
generally better than MP3 (but there may be newer/better standards
than either), and MKV is a very full-featured/flexible container
format.

Of the three, VP8 support is usually the limiting factor, because it
is newer and there isn't as much support built into hardware and
software for it yet.

HTH,
Terry

[Aman Talwar]

Thankyou Sir..
A very well explained Answer.. cleared almost eveything :)

[ankit.bhurane]

Hi, Terry Hancock

Are you aware of comparison between Dirac (a wavelet-based open-source video codec) and VP8?

[Terry Hancock]

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 4:11 AM, ankit.bhurane <ankit....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Are you aware of comparison between Dirac (a wavelet-based open-source video
> codec) and VP8?

I have heard that Dirac is very CPU-intensive on decode, and this is
one of the main criticisms of it. Presumably this will be less of an
issue over time, both because of general increases in computing power
and because someone will undoubtedly create specialized hardware for
it. I have not looked into Dirac for at least a year, though, so my
information is not up to date.

Cheers,
Terry

[ankit.bhurane]

Hi Terry,

I won't mind the CPU intensive behavior over the kind of simplicity the Dirac has. The two being open-source codecs with different technologies, it would be interesting to know their comparisons on common platform.

--
Ankit Bhurane

[nandan amar]

just as a pasing note vp8 is better than h264 for low and medium quality or bit rate . however at higher bit rate h264 performs better than vp8/webm
in terms of quality and size.

[Basil Mohamed Gohar]

On 12/18/2012 07:24 PM, nandan amar wrote:
>
> just as a pasing note vp8 is better than h264 for low and medium
> quality or bit rate . however at higher bit rate h264 performs better
> than vp8/webm
> in terms of quality and size.
>

These are neither precise nor an accurate statements whatsoever. When
talking about performance, you need to mention specific implementations
(e.g., libvpx for VP8 and x264 for h.264), and likewise, both formats
support a wide variety of use cases. Quality/bitrate/resolution are not
sufficient to make accurate comparisons either.

[krl...@gmail.com]

I've found this good article briefly describing formats and coming to some conclusions:

http://blog.haciendomedia.com/2011/02/formatos-video-internet-flash-mpeg-4-webm/

written in Spanish ...