211–220 of 225 posts
JPEG-XL next, please
JXL support is already available in stable release Chrome, behind a feature flag (chrome://flags). I enabled it and it works well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
High resolutions like UHD require really high bitrates when encoded with H264, because H264 wasn't designed with such high resolutions in mind. HEVC/H265 improves upon its predecessor in this regard, so Netflix's edge hardware only keeps their UHD content encoded in HEVC/H265. If you request HD content, you're not only getting a different resolution, but also likely a different encoding scheme.
What streaming platforms will let you stream at 1080p without widevine? (or equivalent)
Widevine, and DRM more generally, has everything to do with why most providers don't stream above 1080p(even if) on Windows. Netflix's Windows app (ie not Chrome and possibly limited to only Netflix Originals..) being a notable exception:
Amazon Prime Video: Nope
HBO Max: Nope
Paramount+: Nope
Disney+: Nope
Hulu: Nope (Maybe originals in the app?)
Apple TV: God nope; ugly as sin I don't even think they are hitting 1080p but maybe I'm just spoiled now
There may also be aggressively limited bitrates at 720/1080p for H.264 streams. Would need to dig into it but that could make those resolutions look like garbage compared to how they used to look(ie a Vudu 1080p stream circa 2011).
Basically it's a shitshow and a damn shame for personal computing in 2022.
Aside from all the patent nonsense, what is even up with that naming? “Advanced" -> "High Efficiency" -> “Versatile" is nearly as bad as USB marketing… Can we not just stick to h264 -> h265 -> h266?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And -- universality of the playback. "Why don't people adopt Vorbis?" almost answers itself, "Where/on what devices are they going to play it?" Without looking -- does your Apple TV support X?
For the record, it seems like more and more devices are supporting Opus for general use cases. It seems to be the audio codec end game - at 16kbps it sounds as good to me as 64kbps mp3
Yes, exactly and AFAIK it's because Chrome/Google/YouTube has recently supported Opus to the exclusion of these proprietary formats for higher quality (read HEVC level) video.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> at the same time I think that everyone on HN does believe that IP should exist, and people should have rights to what they create. Maybe, but I've never seen people protesting the idea that math can't be patented, and compression methods are pretty close.
You can't patent "pure math" but given that describes literally anything that it is possible to do on a computer, including simulating a physical device, we know that there is an intrinsic point where things go from "math" to something patentable. The rationale for "you can't patent maths" is basically "you can't patent a fact". Blanket anti-software patent people take a maximalist position: if it's a step of instruc…
Why is that absurd? Here's my attempt to describe a maximalist position: If the machine actually does something then you get a valid patent for the real world. But the patent won't apply to simulations of the real world. So it doesn't really matter whether it's "patentable" or not. We could give patents to both variants, but if someone is only interested in the data the machine outputs, they can run a simulated version without violating either patent.
> it is an explicit statement that if you ever come up with anything idea, no matter how much it cost you to invent it, or develop it, it has zero value - because apparently the hard part of complex and new technology is writing code, not developing the technology in the first place
Math takes tons of effort too! Deep complicated proofs are no more "just a fact" than compression schemes are "just a fact".
> The core problem with software (and worse, process) patents is that they let you patent an idea, rather than an actual implementation of an idea
I worry that there's no good way to make a thorough guideline for what counts as idea and what counts as implementation for things that are code-based.
Though in the strictest sense you could just rely on copyright for implementations and toss out patents entirely.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cool. Can you explain how a new or soon to be released device having hardware support for something adds hardware support to the last 9 years of devices apple has sold that still work with iMessage and Apple's Photos app? Or should Apple just break those because you have a personal bias against a standardized file format? I guess Google and Android have demonstrated that supporting hardware after you've sold it isn't…
Above was never about older devices. They can use H.264 and VP9 which have hardware support for years already. It was about newer ones. There isn't a need to ever use the toxic H.265.
All Apple devices communicate with each other via heic, etc. older devices may not be able to encode the video version, but they can all decode it.
You are saying that Apple should revert all of their image and video encoding to h264 because you’ve decided av1, etc is better, and that justifies regressing 100s of millions if not billions of devices.
I do not understand why you find this concept so hard to grasp - millions or billions of devices exist, are in use, and produce and display heic and heif data. Those devices will continue to do so, because new hardware that supports new codecs can’t be magically installed in those devices. So if nothing else, devices that produce the standardized format you despise will continue to produce that format, hence it makes sense for chrome to support that format.
new devices can encode in av1 and similar, but only if you think it’s reasonable for Apple to effectively break older devices for no real reason. Given people already accuse Apple of designed obsolescence, despite providing greater long term support for all its devices than any other company, I can’t imagine “Apple breaks sending images to old ‘supported’ devices” going over well.
Again, this is a super basic and obvious concept that should not be remotely challenging to understand.
I get that you hate heif and hevc, and I get that new hardware supports codecs that might be better, but that is not remotely relevant because there are vast numbers of devices out there that don’t support your favorite codec of the day.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> My 10980XE is like 96% occupied while watching AV1 without HW acceleration That seems high. What resolution and frame rate is the video? And which decoder are you using? dav1d is a highly optimized software decoder so that's the one to try: https://code.videolan.org/videolan/dav1d/ It's used in Firefox, Chrome, ffmpeg, etc.
I tried it on some 8K HDR test video on YouTube on Linux/Firefox... All 18 cores and 36 threads at ~96%. NUC with an older Atom (7PJYH) gave like 0.1fps...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Above was never about older devices. They can use H.264 and VP9 which have hardware support for years already. It was about newer ones. There isn't a need to ever use the toxic H.265.
What part of this do you not understand? All Apple devices communicate with each other via heic, etc. older devices may not be able to encode the video version, but they can all decode it. You are saying that Apple should revert all of their image and video encoding to h264 because you’ve decided av1, etc is better, and that justifies regressing 100s of millions if not billions of devices. I do not understand why you…