On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 5:41 PM, Thomas Daede <[email protected]> wrote:
> In the testing draft, while I specified methods of testing codecs, I did > not specify an absolute performance goal. We will need to set one. Opus > achieved state-of-the-art performance, which was highly beneficial to > its adoption. VP9 does not achieve this yet. Makes sense. > > Google said in May 2013 that "a draft bitstream specification is well > > underway." For whatever reason, they still haven't published it yet. > (There > > is also no independent implementation of a decoder written by a > > non-Google-employee, afaik, much less of an encoder.) > > ffmpeg's VP9 decoder was written by a couple of non-Google employees: > https://blogs.gnome.org/rbultje/ No disrespect intended to Ronald Bultje and his prolific work for free software, but he worked for Google on libvpx for more than two years as they developed VP9 ([email protected] has >580 commits between April 2011 and July 2013) and "was one of the people involved in creating" VP9 in the first place, as he wrote on that blog post. I don't think ffvp9 really counts for what you want to see in a well-specified format. -Keith
_______________________________________________ video-codec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/video-codec
