H.264 or On2 VP6
 

Which one to use for converting to flv?

what are the differences in:
- quality/file size ratio
- accessability (flash player 6+ for H264 and flash player 8+ for VP6??)
- surfer CPU load

bump.....

i have not tested h.264 but from what i have been told by people it provides a higher CPU load than On2 VP6 .... but the quality should of h.264 should be breathtaking..

H.254 is nothing new - it's a MPEG4 standard. The "new" hype now is that the new update of Flash Player 9 (specifically Player 9 update 3) is able to stream H.254. That said, it requires the newest Flash player. On2 VP6 does not.

Also, currently H.264 can't be embedded into a SWF file which may or may not be an issue for you.
Finally, H.264 requires a license (paid to MPEG-LA), On2 VP 6 does not. Again, may or may not be an issue for you.
Quality wise they are about comparable.
H.264 encoded videos tend to require higher processing power on the user's machine.

Isn't there a vp7 out now?

h264 can be played in most flv players now, and is supported by the newest version of flash. VP6 requires a paid encoder, whereas h264 can be encoded using the free x264 codec.

vp6. but I admit I haven't spend much tim playing with h264

h264 is much better quality, but it's still about a year away from being free of flaws.

On2 VP6 is still good enough for most uses.

Use the On2 Flix encoder for the best quality conversions. They created the codec and licenses it to Flash.

H264 is better looking hands down.

Brad knows. :thumbsup H264 is the best out there atm, though vp7 Ive heard is even better, but it missed the boat by a few months to get included in the new adobe flash player release. h264 also has to have its meta data moved from the end of the video to the beginning in order to stream. However I believe if encoded using quicktime that step isnt necessary. We are currently using all h264 videos in our solo girl members areas via CaveCreek CDN.

yeah that's what i hear as well

but seems like there are 2 serious disadvantages for use on adult websites
requires more processing power on the surfer's side, which means you can lose some sales from the people with older machines


i think it requires flash player 8+ (correct me if im wrong) which also may waste some sales

h.264 does look really great, really really great. We did tests with h.264, VP6S and VP6E we found that right now the best for us was the VP6S took less processing power to view and was the best choice to handle the lowest common denominator of CPU/BW as well. It also in On2 so it did not require the MPEGLA license. We have a sample here at www.x2kmedia.com it is not the default setting but can be chosen from inside the player.

Yes, there has been for some time, but it was never incorporated into flash player. I'm sure other products use it, but I haven't followed it.

i just read that h.264 needs flash player 9 to run, is that true?
what's the current penetration of flash player 9?

Yes has to be flash 9. This is easily solved as you can setup flash player detection and add a button to the page for the end use to get updated. Only takes maybe 30 seconds to run the update.

v 9.0.115.0 and newer will work with h.264 It was released in Dec 2007.

Flash Player 10 just recently got released to beta and it makes no mention of VP7.

Hmm maybe Adobe rejected it for some reason then? Im not that up on the vp7 news. Was just going off what someone else told me second hand.

one more thing, i dont see 16:9 option in all the software for converting to flv i tested.
So i guess i have to just resize it to 1024px wide from 720 originally? Would that be ok?

(the original source is 16:9 720x576, but for the some reason after the conversion it plays it 4:3)

Have to convert to .mp4 for h264 as far as Im aware. Dont think there is an option out there yet for .flv in h.264 but I could be wrong.

yeah seems so, but what about the 16:9 aspect ratio with on2 VP6
is it supported in any software? or i have to play with the pixels width?

I never messed with on2 much. Only thing I had that supported it was Sorenson and I always had audio sync issues with that codec for some reason, so cant help you on that one Im afraid. I would think it should support 16:9 are you sure its not an issue with HDV 1440x1080 vs 1920x1080 ?

i think not
anyway, im gonna either strech the player to 1024 and make the video fit it so it will look wide, or resize it to 1024

still not sure what would be better, the tests gave close results

Well I must recommend CDN if you havent made the leap yet. Here is a sample vid we shot for CaveCreek. http://www.cavecreek.com/HD-Flash-CDN.php Just got all our solo girls switched over to it and I am EXTREMELY pleased with the results. .mp4 streaming using h264. :thumbsup

Good info in this thread. Thx.

thanks sticky, you were very helpful, i think im ready to go now :)

Good stuff if you have any sticking points let me know. Also there is a step you must take with .mp4's that if you do not do it, the file will fully download before it plays. I dont mind sharing how to do it, but hit me up directly if that is your sticking point. :winkwink:

This shit kills me. The pixel aspect ratio is NOT square in 1440x1080. The pixels have an aspect ratio of 4:3, hence to 'true' aspect ratio is 1920x1080 (i.e., 1440 * 4/3 =1920).

There are a several sites out there that still can't get this right.

This On2 vs. H.264 argument is usually a waste of time. It doesn't matter because a lot of HDV shit is shot with in adequate lighting. Since HDV is very, very sensitive to lighting issues, it's not worth discussing the marginal differences in quality of On2 and H.264. Nevertheless, it easy to do a few tests (encoding a few different videos in On2 and H.264 at the same bitrates) and compare the results.

Also, h.264 is a absolute cpu pig (especially when you compare it with VC1).

Most of our market should be able to handle the cpu load. :winkwink:

h.264 FTW