[midvar]

Especially since this states H.264 compliance, I'd be willing to say this can't possibly live up to it's claims.

Video encoders are notorious for their bloated claims and faulty comparisons. After a quick perusal of their site I see they compare themselves only to web-m, and use generalized %'s to claim differences between products and processes.

They say they've optimized for human perceptual quality. Perhaps they have. But did they really do a better job than the open source H.264 alternative (x264) used by everyone from YouTube and Hulu, to Facebook? One thats been in development for _years_ now and beats just about everything thrown at it in a fair comparison? I think not. I'd love to be wrong though.

When they do eventually come out with comparisons, I hope they have read this first : http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/archives/472