WebM. Oh man this could be awesome.

Announced yesterday at Google i/O, the goog’s annual developer conference, WebM is the latest installment in google’s ongoing series: ‘Anything you can do, i can do better.’

Taglined as “an open web media project”, WebM is a multimedia format, and while it’s rumored to function better than the increasingly popular H.264 codec, the core ‘feature’ here is that the format is open-source and thus will be completely free for both development and use.

The format leverages existing technology it acquired and further developed in its purchase of video compression company On2 Technologies, and without going into too many technical details, the claim here is that this codec will offer comparably high-quality picture, with smaller file sizes / bandwidth use, solid performance with older machines, and capable of delivering video with Flash (and arguably more important – without it).

While there is some question as to whether this format will truly hold up to the H.264 in terms of picture quality, I truly hope Google is able to deliver, as I think this would be a massively helpful step towards simplifying video on the web.

Even setting aside the potential here for compliant full-video sites without flash, better real-time video effects, and myriad other creative possibilities, on the simplest level, I just want WebM to let people see multimedia content the way it was built. As a person who’s generating video for the web on almost a daily basis, right now everything centers around compromise.

Mov. Mp4. Wmv. Avi. Flv. Full-res. Half-Res. Bitrate. Dual-Pass. Single-Pass. Data Rate. Okay. Please. Stop. My goal is a clear and simple one. Provide clients with high-quality video they can view in a timely fashion.

But often, this is easier said than done. Lack of codec consistency and support across different systems means I spend a lot of time and effort converting my work into a variety of formats and sizes, with all sorts of fine-tuning to maintain quality and keep those files as consistent as possible.

While the HD offerings of Vimeo and the overhaul of Youtube for HD content have made strides in improving this balancing act, the idea of a streamlined solution for efficient, consistent video delivery on the web gets me more excited that in probably should.

But if this open-sourcing allows the freedom it is claiming, the benefits would be tremendous to a lot of folks. Myself. Our clients. Perhaps even my mom, whose emails requesting to ‘see what i’m up to’ have long been hindered by her refusal to install Quicktime (her first attempt was reportedly quite traumatic.)

And with backing by Adobe Flash and YouTube already in place, I think WebM has a very good chance of shaking things up.

One video with the ability to be plugged into multiple sources? A delivery system to populate multiple sites with one format while simultaneously providing clients with a high-quality copy I’m sure they’ll be able to play? Yes, please.

Please WebM. Please be awesome.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Google opens sources $124.6m video codec (go.theregister.com)
• Google unveils WebM royalty-free video codec (telegraph.co.uk)
• IE9 will support now-released, open-source VP8 video codec (seattlepi.com)
• Google Releases VP8 as Open Source Royalty Free Video Codec, Launches WebMproject.org with Broad Support from Online Video Industry (klessblog.blogspot.com)

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

Popularity: 8%