H.264 or On2 VP6 - GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum

X

BucksMania

Confirmed User

Join Date: Oct 2005

Posts: 3758
Share

Post
#1

H.264 or On2 VP6

06-05-2008, 08:42 AM

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
Tags: None
BucksMania

Confirmed User

Join Date: Oct 2005

Posts: 3758
Share

Post
#2

06-05-2008, 10:21 AM

bump.....
Comment
Turf

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jul 2001

Posts: 1865
Share

Post
#3

06-05-2008, 10:27 AM

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..

Daddy Strokes - mature men stroking their meat
Mature Gay Movies - mature men fucking everyone!
Pleasing Daddy - young girls fucking mature men

Looking for submitter accounts for older men niche content (both gay and straight) so hit me up if you run a tube and offer submitter accounts for paysites.
Comment
Kroy

Confirmed User

Join Date: Sep 2005

Posts: 413
Share

Post
#4

06-05-2008, 11:29 AM

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.

Kroy
The Invisible Hand
Say Hello

"The stone age didn't end because they ran out of stones..." - S. Yamani
Comment
Makingcoin

Confirmed User

Join Date: Aug 2002

Posts: 8919
Share

Post
#5

06-05-2008, 12:24 PM

Isn't there a vp7 out now?

www.MAKINGCOIN.com
icq. 166-662-831
"Start making large coin!"

Daddy I Get Paid To Be A Whore - Coming Soon
Comment
k0nr4d

Confirmed User

Join Date: Aug 2006

Posts: 9231
Share

Post
#6

06-05-2008, 12:32 PM

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.

Mechanical Bunny Media
Mechbunny Tube Script | Mechbunny Webcam Aggregator Script | Custom Web Development
Comment
gornyhuy

Chafed.

Join Date: May 2002

Posts: 18041
Share

Post
#7

06-05-2008, 12:34 PM

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

icq:159548293
Comment
Pornwolf

Drunk and Unruly

Join Date: Jan 2002

Posts: 22712
Share

Post
#8

06-05-2008, 01:32 PM

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.

I've trusted my sites to them for over a decade...

Webair, bitches.
Comment
Brad Gosse

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jan 2002

Posts: 2616
Share

Post
#9

06-05-2008, 01:44 PM

H264 is better looking hands down.

Free Clipart
Comment
stickyfingerz

Doin fine

Join Date: Oct 2005

Posts: 24984
Share

Post
#10

06-05-2008, 02:01 PM

Originally posted by Brad Gosse

H264 is better looking hands down.

Brad knows. 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.
Comment
BucksMania

Confirmed User

Join Date: Oct 2005

Posts: 3758
Share

Post
#11

06-05-2008, 02:05 PM

Originally posted by Brad Gosse

H264 is better looking hands down.

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
Comment
Bugbee

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jun 2004

Posts: 4609
Share

Post
#12

06-05-2008, 02:32 PM

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.

Stephen Bugbee
www.x2k.com
ICQ# FUCK ICQ
bugbee AT x2k dot com

X2K consulting and media services - specializing in business development, technology and profitability of your new or existing products and services

X2K MEDIA SUITE

Need a high risk merchant account? Contact me..

Are you a donor? Have a heart and help someone in need. Go to the DMV and be sure you are a donor, it saves lives!!!!
Comment
brandonstills

Confirmed User

Join Date: Dec 2007

Posts: 1964
Share

Post
#13

06-05-2008, 02:44 PM

Originally posted by Makingcoin

Isn't there a vp7 out now?

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.

Brandon Stills
Industry and programming veteran
[email protected] | skype: brandonstills | ICQ #495-171-318
Comment
BucksMania

Confirmed User

Join Date: Oct 2005

Posts: 3758
Share

Post
#14

06-05-2008, 03:51 PM

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

Doin fine

Join Date: Oct 2005

Posts: 24984
Share

Post
#15

06-05-2008, 03:54 PM

Originally posted by BucksMania

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.
Comment
brandonstills

Confirmed User

Join Date: Dec 2007

Posts: 1964
Share

Post
#16

06-05-2008, 03:55 PM

Originally posted by stickyfingerz

Brad knows. 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.

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

Brandon Stills
Industry and programming veteran
[email protected] | skype: brandonstills | ICQ #495-171-318
Comment
stickyfingerz

Doin fine

Join Date: Oct 2005

Posts: 24984
Share

Post
#17

06-05-2008, 03:57 PM

Originally posted by brandonstills

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.
Comment
BucksMania

Confirmed User

Join Date: Oct 2005

Posts: 3758
Share

Post
#18

06-05-2008, 04:09 PM

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)
Comment
stickyfingerz

Doin fine

Join Date: Oct 2005

Posts: 24984
Share

Post
#19

06-05-2008, 04:15 PM

Originally posted by BucksMania

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.
Comment
BucksMania

Confirmed User

Join Date: Oct 2005

Posts: 3758
Share

Post
#20

06-06-2008, 01:38 AM

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?
Comment
stickyfingerz

Doin fine

Join Date: Oct 2005

Posts: 24984
Share

Post
#21

06-06-2008, 04:27 AM

Originally posted by BucksMania

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 ?
Comment
BucksMania

Confirmed User

Join Date: Oct 2005

Posts: 3758
Share

Post
#22

06-06-2008, 03:25 PM

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
Comment
stickyfingerz

Doin fine

Join Date: Oct 2005

Posts: 24984
Share

Post
#23

06-06-2008, 03:29 PM

Originally posted by BucksMania

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.
Comment
J-Reel

Confirmed User

Join Date: Feb 2002

Posts: 3782
Share

Post
#24

06-06-2008, 08:06 PM

Good info in this thread. Thx.

Scheck out the new girls at www.hawtmoney.com

ICQ 177-447-671
Comment
BucksMania

Confirmed User

Join Date: Oct 2005

Posts: 3758
Share

Post
#25

06-07-2008, 10:45 AM

thanks sticky, you were very helpful, i think im ready to go now
Comment
stickyfingerz

Doin fine

Join Date: Oct 2005

Posts: 24984
Share

Post
#26

06-07-2008, 10:52 AM

Originally posted by BucksMania

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.
Comment
ucv.karl

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jul 2006

Posts: 498
Share

Post
#27

06-07-2008, 01:03 PM

Originally posted by stickyfingerz

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 ?

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).

It's better when you can Switch.
ICQ: 263079754
Comment
stickyfingerz

Doin fine

Join Date: Oct 2005

Posts: 24984
Share

Post
#28

06-07-2008, 03:37 PM

Originally posted by ucv.karl

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.
Comment
peedy

Confirmed User

Join Date: Oct 2004

Posts: 866
Share

Post
#29

06-09-2008, 01:19 AM

h.264 FTW

--
Peedy

PeedyCash
CCBill Powered, NO BULLSHIT!
Comment

Previous template Next

Working...