191–200 of 225 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
different box
What other "box level encryption" is there?
http://fileformats.archiveteam.org/wiki/Boxes/atoms_format
Encryption of boxes, not encryption with boxes. (the existence of AES sboxes is coincidental, and is not what was being discussed)
Why is this being done, when AV1 exists? It's hard to see HEVC as anything else than a legal liability.
From https://www.dignited.com/93186/av1-vs-hevc/ : Compared to HEVC, AV1 is still relatively new hence it suffers limited hardware support. Again it is key to note that Intel, AMD, Nvidia, Qualcomm, and most hardware manufacturers already had support for the incumbent HEVC. That means that a hardware accelerated encoder can run HEVC 5x faster than AV1. And… A vast majority of devices in the market; phones, TVs, table…
Shameful.
No Widevine support so 1080p tops streaming; yay. It's supper frustrating in 2022 to need to switch to my Fire stick just to play UHD(R). Edit: Except with the Netflix windows app; it will do it.
What's the correlation between no widevine support and streaming resolution?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
tell that to every Linux user who was doing anything with mp3's before the patents expired just a couple years ago. i'm pretty sure even the Windows version of Audacity -- a tool with over 100 million downloads -- integrated with it. are you claiming the LAME approach wasn't successful? or that its success was a fluke, context-dependent, or for some other reason is a bad analogue?
Yeah downloading an OS that couldn't play MP3's by default, and required you to jump through hoops to let it play them, because said distro was avoiding law suits, Just like how Audacity didn't ship with LAME, but required you to supply your own dll. Yes patents had zero effect on the User experience.
a reasonable person might conclude that patents are a bad thing as a result. like it or not, HEVC is patented and that’s not changing anytime soon: but do we decide to develop tools around it, or banish it?
that any users actually went through the awful UX of downloading codecs is some evidence that mp3 support was valuable to them. is this still the case, today with HEVC, or not?
if the argument was really as simple as “HEVC is bad UX”, we wouldn’t have this discussion: nobody would use something with bad UX if they didn’t feel compelled to for some other reason. why anyone would feel compelled to, is the more interesting discussion.
I think most of the commenters are basing their responses on the (terrible) headline rather than what actually seems to have happened. As comment 19 of the bug report says, "This bug is not about to implement HEVC in Chrome", and "Chrome does already support the native HEVC decoder for progressive download videos using the HTML5 tag on Android". The issue description notes that as of Feb 2015, "Playing plain HEVC mp4…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What other "box level encryption" is there?
http://fileformats.archiveteam.org/wiki/ISO_Base_Media_File_... http://fileformats.archiveteam.org/wiki/Boxes/atoms_format Encryption of boxes, not encryption with boxes. (the existence of AES sboxes is coincidental, and is not what was being discussed)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure how you think for-profit companies like Mozilla, Google or Apple would get away with shipping 'ha ha I tricked you!' patent circumventions to a billion people. It's not like Audacity. Keep in mind that Firefox AFAIK still relies on OS codecs for h264 because shipping it themselves is such a difficult proposition due to patents. And on Windows, if you want native HEVC or AV1 playback you have to buy it fr…
On my new laptop, whenever opening a h265 I would get message from the media player saying I can buy HEVC for $3 or something. But if you follow the link below to the Windows store, you can download it for free! ms-windows-store://pdp/?ProductId=9n4wgh0z6vhq Found out on Howtogeek https://www.howtogeek.com/680690/how-to-install-free-hevc-co...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Based on the Quicktime File Format, MP4 is most usually only a container these days. Moving Pictures Experts Group developed the MPEG-4 standard with many parts[1] including a codec called MPEG-4 aka MP4V or just MP4, which was still popular for SD video encoding only a few years ago, though not exclusively, and it is still available to encode video in Apple Quicktime (MPEG-4 Basic, MPEG-4 Advanced), ffmpeg, HandBrak…
Noone calls MPEG-4 Part 2 "MP4". Usually it's MPEG-4 Video, MPEG-4 ASP, or (when using that encoder) Xvid.
Let each of them know, please, that I and my compadres apologize for referring to MPEG-4 Part 2 as MP4 to save time, and refer to the container as MPEG-4 Part 14 to avoid ambiguity. Major faux pas there, how embarrassing, mea culpa, and thank you for taking the time to set us straight by letting us know what every single other person does.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There may be more than one person posting on HN.
While true, I think it was illustrating the "damned if you do, damned if you don't" approach HN takes to Google in general.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There may be more than one person posting on HN.
The comment was about the internet "hivemind"; no need to be pedantic about it. Keep in mind that upwards of 95% of people will read comments but not post any themselves (and to address an obvious retort, sure, it'll be a different 95% for each submission). So the general "tone" of the comments absolutely impacts public perception, especially now that practically no-one consumes straight-news without social media com…