| Page 1 of 1 |
WaldoJ
VIP Member
Posts: 32678
|
 Posted: Thu, 12th Jun 2014 14:51 Post subject: webm support |
|
 |
DO IT NOW!!!
| Sin317 wrote: | | I win, you lose. Or Go fuck yourself. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tw1st
Posts: 6112
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Thu, 12th Jun 2014 15:06 Post subject: |
|
|
everybody's doin' it!
| BenQ XL2420T 24" 120Hz | Ducky Shine III 9008 White LED - Brown MX | Logitech G9x |
| Corsair Carbide 400R | Asus Sabertooth z77 | i7 3770K @ 4.3Ghz - 1.200v | CM Hyper 212 Evo - Push/Pull |
| SLI eVGA 4GB GTX980 ACX SC | Vengeance 16GB RAM 1600 DDR3 | AX850w PSU | Samsung 840Pro 128GB SSD | WD Black 1TB HD |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 12th Jun 2014 15:14 Post subject: |
|
|
Last edited by Interinactive on Tue, 5th Oct 2021 02:04; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Werelds
Special Little Man
Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
|
| Posted: Thu, 12th Jun 2014 15:17 Post subject: |
|
|
Because Chrome has started sucking serious balls with MP4 files.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 12th Jun 2014 15:47 Post subject: |
|
|
??
"Quantum mechanics is actually, contrary to it's reputation, unbeliveably simple, once you take the physics out."
Scott Aaronson | chiv wrote: | | thats true you know. newton didnt discover gravity. the apple told him about it, and then he killed it. the core was never found. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 12th Jun 2014 16:07 Post subject: |
|
|
Because there is now much more hd pr0n in webm available.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73194
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Thu, 12th Jun 2014 17:36 Post subject: |
|
|
MP4 ftw. DerpM is an inferior codec.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Werelds
Special Little Man
Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
|
| Posted: Thu, 12th Jun 2014 19:17 Post subject: |
|
|
Except that neither is a codec 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73194
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Thu, 12th Jun 2014 19:30 Post subject: |
|
|
MPEG4 AVC vs VP9 and AAC vs Vorbis just for you 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 13th Jun 2014 01:02 Post subject: |
|
|
Last edited by Interinactive on Tue, 5th Oct 2021 02:04; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Werelds
Special Little Man
Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
|
| Posted: Fri, 13th Jun 2014 10:25 Post subject: |
|
|
MP4 actually has the widest support nowadays. It's just Chrome that handles it miserably (has to be encoded just right). Then again, Chrome's handling of HTML5 video is poor altogether, because if you don't put preload="none" on it you can forget about having anything play properly at all. There's something wrong with their partial response handling.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73194
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Fri, 13th Jun 2014 15:58 Post subject: |
|
|
Not only is it the widest supported on desktop, but on mobile devices it is practically the only supported through hardware. Modern mobile chipsets have either dedicated chips or the CPUs have special instructions for hardware accelerated decoders. The WebM/Ogg/Vorbix/VP9 are the same Mozilla bullshit fight as the Firefox OS is to proper mobile operating systems (and Chrome OS to desktop ones).
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73194
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Fri, 13th Jun 2014 16:01 Post subject: |
|
|
| Interinactive wrote: | | LeoNatan wrote: | | MP4 ftw. DerpM is an inferior codec. |
Yet if all browsers and video servers could just agree on one, the average user wouldn't give a shit and things would be much easier |
I give a shit. Fuck the moron average user and fuck the content creators, that is too cheap to make H264 MP4 files! Internet video is bitrate starved as it is, no need to use a terrible codec just to appease some silly RMS sympathisers. That's politics. I am a man of technology, and the "open" codecs are not where the best technology is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 13th Jun 2014 16:19 Post subject: |
|
|
Last edited by Interinactive on Tue, 5th Oct 2021 02:04; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73194
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Fri, 13th Jun 2014 16:37 Post subject: |
|
|
Their argument is political. They could integrate mp4 support into firefox - for free - but then the problem they qq`ed about was that they'd be at the mercy of the mpeg-la. Well who cares, assholes, do the best for your users. Then you have the RMS zealots that claim that the codecs are better because they are free  even if they are technologically behind by ~10 years. These is the same camp of idiots that claim LibreOffice is better than Microsoft Office and Gimp is better than Photoshop because they are free.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73194
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Fri, 13th Jun 2014 16:42 Post subject: |
|
|
| Interinactive wrote: | | I remember fiddling with both formats years ago wondering why there was a standard, and it looks as if nothing has changed since |
Uhm, MP4 is defacto a standard. Who doesn't support it? All major browsers support it. Even Mozilla caved in. So you are left with some Linux derps that have not installed it from commandline. Well, fuck them.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Werelds
Special Little Man
Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
|
| Posted: Fri, 13th Jun 2014 16:43 Post subject: |
|
|
They have integrated h264 into FF, for the record 
It wasn't a political issue, it was a real issue. Mozilla would've had to pay royalties to MPEG LA because the way this shit works in the US is just that stupid. Thanks to Cisco however, we're now well on our way to getting it as the standard (they released free binaries and pay the royalties - so Mozilla uses those now). It's only Chrome that fails unless it's encoded just right, as well as Apple being relatively picky about what you serve up to which device. My Opera hasn't failed one yet and the few tests I've had to do in FF and IE all went fine too in the cases where Chrome failed.
All browsers support it now though. The majority also support webm though and that's seeing wider use because those that support it, support ALL of it. MP4/h264 in some cases is still limited to devices only supporting a particular profile, which makes it so annoying to use.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73194
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Fri, 13th Jun 2014 16:47 Post subject: |
|
|
Who uses webm outside of the politically-inclined holes of the ineternets (such as Wikipedia, although they still use Ogg if I am not mistaken, even worse). YouTube had a play with that, but as far as I know, the video selection is still abysmal compared to MP4. Who else?
Years ago, there was a solution of the license problem. mpeg-la was willing to "look the other way" in a form of a letter of good will not to look for patent license money. Their interest was - if MP4 became the standard, they'd see even larger hardware adoption, thus even more money from the hardware vendors. Mozilla tanked the deal because they were afraid mpeg-la might go back on their words after a while. Like the RMS zealots don't like Mono (still) because Microsoft may decide to sue for patents.  It's all a political bunch of crap. Technology loses.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Werelds
Special Little Man
Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
|
| Posted: Fri, 13th Jun 2014 17:17 Post subject: |
|
|
| LeoNatan wrote: | Who uses webm outside of the politically-inclined holes of the ineternets (such as Wikipedia, although they still use Ogg if I am not mistaken, even worse). YouTube had a play with that, but as far as I know, the video selection is still abysmal compared to MP4. Who else?
Years ago, there was a solution of the license problem. mpeg-la was willing to "look the other way" in a form of a letter of good will not to look for patent license money. Their interest was - if MP4 became the standard, they'd see even larger hardware adoption, thus even more money from the hardware vendors. Mozilla tanked the deal because they were afraid mpeg-la might go back on their words after a while. Like the RMS zealots don't like Mono (still) because Microsoft may decide to sue for patents. It's all a political bunch of crap. Technology loses. |
Well I've seen lots of videos getting linked to me in webm format lately. Why I don't know exactly (never asked anyone), but my guess would be the fact that webm is cheaper to encode. As I said in a certain other thread, the average user is an idiot
It's the same thing as lots of Apple users still using fucking .mov files. Convenience. Where that comes from in this case I don't know, there must be some hot new tool to record/transcode video or something that defaults to webm.
And yeah, MPEG LA really did put out an open letter stating that internet video that was free to the end user would not be subject to the royalties. The "free" bit there being the big issue, because that is something a browser has no control over, something they can't check.
HTML5 video has bigger issues than the codec and container anyway. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73194
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Fri, 13th Jun 2014 18:24 Post subject: |
|
|
Uhm, now read your comment about "codecs" MOV files are containers for H264 these days, so Apple users using them does not mean they are using inferior codecs. The actual QuickTime codecs are not and have not been used for years. MOV, like MKV, are superior container to MP4, because they allow a wide range of codecs to be used for video and audio, rather than the narrow list of MP4, as well as a lot more metadata.
Also, encoding H264 couldn't be easier. Since it is an industry standard, toolkits for it are very advanced, optimized and also free! 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73194
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Fri, 13th Jun 2014 18:25 Post subject: |
|
|
As usual for these questions, we have to look what formats the porn industry is using. H264 is the winner.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Werelds
Special Little Man
Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
|
| Posted: Fri, 13th Jun 2014 20:42 Post subject: |
|
|
| LeoNatan wrote: | | Uhm, now read your comment about "codecs" MOV files are containers for H264 these days, so Apple users using them does not mean they are using inferior codecs. The actual QuickTime codecs are not and have not been used for years. MOV, like MKV, are superior container to MP4, because they allow a wide range of codecs to be used for video and audio, rather than the narrow list of MP4, as well as a lot more metadata. |
No, .mov is used as a container for h264 when used from general consumer applications or devices, such as smartphones.
As you probably know, our main product is built around video and a lot of our clients are film production agencies or studios. Now, I'd have to ask one of my colleagues for the exact details (I started on this shit 3 years ago but others now work on that project and I can't remember my findings from back then), but one of the standard software packages these companies use exports in a .mov container but with a very dodgy codec (like I said, can't remember what exactly). Those videos fail to get transcoded on any of the encoding backends we use. I couldn't get any of those videos to work either - unless I had Quicktime available. That's what I mean when I say ".mov" - in a lot of software for Macs, the default is still ".mov" but not with h264 as standard codec. Most likely older software, sure, but nevertheless extremely common.
We've even told some of them to export to h264 and still ended up with .mov files that wouldn't play unless Quicktime was installed; I've honestly never inspected any of these videos to see whether they really were h264 though. This is just what my colleagues said at the time
| Quote: | | Also, encoding H264 couldn't be easier. Since it is an industry standard, toolkits for it are very advanced, optimized and also free! |
Didn't say easier, I said cheaper. WEBM/VP8 encoding is very lightweight with very little fiddling, h264 requires a bit more knowledge to get a good result
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for h264 becoming the standard (preferably even h265, but that's something for 2020 ). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73194
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Fri, 13th Jun 2014 21:18 Post subject: |
|
|
Uhm, most professional grade video encoding software these days exports to internal formats and H264. If some of this software still uses some unknown codec that QuickTime supports on Mac, that's their problem.  Like some silly apps on Windows still save to AVI files with some obscure crap that happens to be in Windows. Even QuickTime on Mac, when transcoding an existing video, offers to either save in .MOV or .MP4, but uses H264 by default.
H264 requires very little knowledge these days. With the appropriate encoder, because the tools are very mature and optimized, it comes down to a function of time-quality tradeoffs, which everyone understands. That is why even scene encodes these days look good - the tools have matured incredibly.
H265, on the other hand, is nowhere near this state. The tools are not stable, results are lacking and generally, since there is no support yet in hardware, there is no push toward improving the toolkits. Of course, none of this matters, as there is no content yet, to push this. Once content starts to appear, we will see the same rapid improvement of the toolkits. At some point H264 encoding software was getting visibly better and better by the months.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 1 of 1 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
