New site with codec comparisons going back to 2001

[Tab]

I just finished my new website, and included some of the bigger codec comparisons (video and audio) that I've done over the years going all the way back to 2001. You can really get a feel for the progression of technology. There are screenshot comparisons done in JavaScript, PSNR and SSIM charts and graphs, as well as a written analysis. The 2001 comparison even has full perceptual ranking data from a group of viewers. Anyway, check it out (2008 coming soon): http://mike.command-q.org/Codec.html

The site itself is my online portfolio, feel free to look around if you want to.

[bayme]

PSNR and SSIM charts and graphs

Really nice, but with graphs I'd add something like "higher means better" or whatever is applicable per graph.

[TechNight]

very nice site man

[DereX888]

I just finished my new website, and included some of the bigger codec comparisons (video and audio) that I've done over the years going all the way back to 2001. You can really get a feel for the progression of technology. There are screenshot comparisons done in JavaScript, PSNR and SSIM charts and graphs, as well as a written analysis. The 2001 comparison even has full perceptual ranking data from a group of viewers. Anyway, check it out (2008 coming soon): http://mike.command-q.org/Codec.html

The site itself is my online portfolio, feel free to look around if you want to.

Nice!


Some suggestions though:

Perhaps you should register some free redirection service, like "CodecComparisons.2ya.com" or something like that...
(check out shorturl.com or any other one)

and

Please ADD some descriptions to your graphs, with so many same or similar colors it is very difficult to read them!
Just a quick example:

See - with just first 3 letters added at the bottom it is immediately very clear what is what
(i.e. I know WAV would be the largest of them all in this graph so that was a no brainer, but for those 2 other purple colors I have no idea which one is for WV and which is for ALS...)

[PuzZLeR]

I too will agree that many people viewing them may be confused as to "what's better" - the smaller or bigger for some attributes. There should be descriptions and a clearer legend.

Whether ordered by codec (site's choice), or by performance rank, is perfectly acceptable, as long as it's consistent, which is done well here.

A few other things:

VC-1 (like H.264/AVC) is a standard/format, not a codec really. The implementation should have been included in the comparisons (for example WMV9 is an implementation of VC-1 as x264 is an implementation of H.264). In other words, something like "WMV9", or "MC-VC-1" should have been there instead of "VC-1". This should also apply to even MPEG-1 implementations (but most use the same bitrate of 1150kbps anyway in much the same way).

I'd like to comment that Ateme's implementation of H.264 would compare very well with x264 if it wasn't for the fact that its only consumer GUI is Nero Recode, which is not very efficient with the codec's fine features. Hence Nero Digital didn't score too well as a result later on.

Some MPEG-2 implementations would have been nice in the mix. But it's probably in a league of its own.

At any rate, good work! Fun site.