News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Putting x264 developer's technical analysis of WebM into ... by jrockway on Thursday May 20, 2010 @09:19PM (#1366061)
the reviewer / x264 developer is thinking too small

And, there is always a bit of "uh oh, my life's work is suddenly becoming irrelevant, even though it's technically better". One thing I've learned from reading HN is that good technical solutions rarely get you much. What you need is a good product.

H.264 is a great technical solution, but a horrible product. VP8 is not as good technically, but it's exactly the product the Internet needs. Sad, but that's the reality of it.

Re:Putting x264 developer's technical analysis of WebM into ... by Locke1689 on Friday May 21, 2010 @01:35AM (#1366484)
Yeah, Jason's life work is really in jeopardy. I mean, as the primary author of the best performing video encoder in existence in his 3rd year of undergraduate study, how will he regain any meaning in his life?
Re:Putting x264 developer's technical analysis of WebM into ... by jrockway on Friday May 21, 2010 @11:49AM (#1367695)
The word "bit" is crucial to the understanding of my post.
Re:Putting x264 developer's technical analysis of WebM into ... by astrange on Friday May 21, 2010 @12:58AM (#1366433)
The work in x264 isn't that irrelevant suddenly. H.264 has great market penetration and isn't going anywhere. And x264 could already be adapted into a VP8 encoder if necessary; it'd work better than libvpx, as the fundamental algorithms and psy optimizations are all better tuned.