Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

WebM support on 4chan

blog.4chan.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 104 posts

Re: WebM support on 4chan

#71

Post by StavrosK »

ANTSANTS wrote: post #69
gnur wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know the details, but how is the quality on both? I can image that webm takes longer, but if it creates a file that has a higher visual quality for the same filesize that is great. I think nearly all streaming providers would take an increase in processing time for a decrease in bandwith, while quality stays the same..

I'm pretty sure h264 is the superior codec in all regards except for that pesky license issue. It encodes faster and creates smaller files that look better. From (lead x264 developer and HN user) DarkShikari[1]: "Overall, VP8 appears to be significantly weaker than H.264 compression-wise. The primary weaknesses mentioned above are the lack of proper adaptive quantization, lack of B-frames, lack of an 8×8 transform, a…

> a pithy, if slightly inaccurate, description of VP8 would be “H.264 Baseline Profile with a better entropy coder..."

and

> Overall, VP8 appears to be significantly weaker than H.264 compression-wise.

don't seem to go very well together, to me. How can VP8 be a better H.264 and worse than H.264 at the same time?

Re: WebM support on 4chan

#72

Post by ANTSANTS »

StavrosK wrote: post #71
ANTSANTS wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure h264 is the superior codec in all regards except for that pesky license issue. It encodes faster and creates smaller files that look better. From (lead x264 developer and HN user) DarkShikari[1]: "Overall, VP8 appears to be significantly weaker than H.264 compression-wise. The primary weaknesses mentioned above are the lack of proper adaptive quantization, lack of B-frames, lack of an 8×8 transform, a…

> a pithy, if slightly inaccurate, description of VP8 would be “H.264 Baseline Profile with a better entropy coder..." and > Overall, VP8 appears to be significantly weaker than H.264 compression-wise. don't seem to go very well together, to me. How can VP8 be a better H.264 and worse than H.264 at the same time?

H.264 Baseline Profile

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/MPEG-4_AVC#Profiles

Re: WebM support on 4chan

#73

Post by threeseed »

valarauca1 wrote: post #3

This is a very big moment for WebM. I feel 4chan has become the 'porn' industry of the internet. With VHS vs Betamax the largely deciding factor was which standard porn supported (this was again to a lesser extent with bluray). The general lack of adoption of animated png's is often pointed squarely on 4chan. Since it generated most of the web's viral funny content. And since most of it was in .gif, who needs to supp…

When is this "Porn decides video formats" argument going to die ?

H.264 versus WebM wasn't decided by Porn. BluRay versus HD-DVD wasn't either.

Re: WebM support on 4chan

#74

Post by threeseed »

gcb0 wrote: post #39
kalleboo wrote: post #23

Any reason to not support h264, which seems to have similar levels of browser support? (trades Firefox on Linux/OS X/WinVista for support on IE/Safari/iOS/Android)

Probably he cares about software freedom?

WebM is not free. It is controlled by a single company.

https://code.google.com/p/webm/source/browse/third_party/goo...

Re: WebM support on 4chan

#75

Post by mpyne »

valarauca1 wrote: post #48
aspensmonster wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say Google has its own share of responsibility for the lack of adoption of APNGs. Chromium doesn't support them out of the box.

You really shouldn't blame google, but blame KHTML (who's code base was forked to develop Webkit, and then Blink). KHTML didn't move to support apng until 2010-2011 which was a few years after the webkit fork.

uh hwat?

APNG was still years away when Webkit was forked from KHTML. Webkit was so long ago that Firefox didn't exist, nor did "Mozilla Firebird", and IIRC nor did Phoenix.

Re: WebM support on 4chan

#77

Post by threeseed »

ANTSANTS wrote: post #69
gnur wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know the details, but how is the quality on both? I can image that webm takes longer, but if it creates a file that has a higher visual quality for the same filesize that is great. I think nearly all streaming providers would take an increase in processing time for a decrease in bandwith, while quality stays the same..

I'm pretty sure h264 is the superior codec in all regards except for that pesky license issue. It encodes faster and creates smaller files that look better. From (lead x264 developer and HN user) DarkShikari[1]: "Overall, VP8 appears to be significantly weaker than H.264 compression-wise. The primary weaknesses mentioned above are the lack of proper adaptive quantization, lack of B-frames, lack of an 8×8 transform, a…

I think you are underplaying the support of H.264. Almost every single camera (video or photo), console, handheld device, browser, editing tool, effects tool, phone, tablet, OS, digital video player, website available today supports H.264.

People complain about it being closed but actually it is far more open on the hardware side since each of the big manufacturers are part of the H.264 process.

Re: WebM support on 4chan

#78

Post by ANTSANTS »

threeseed wrote: post #77
ANTSANTS wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure h264 is the superior codec in all regards except for that pesky license issue. It encodes faster and creates smaller files that look better. From (lead x264 developer and HN user) DarkShikari[1]: "Overall, VP8 appears to be significantly weaker than H.264 compression-wise. The primary weaknesses mentioned above are the lack of proper adaptive quantization, lack of B-frames, lack of an 8×8 transform, a…

I think you are underplaying the support of H.264. Almost every single camera (video or photo), console, handheld device, browser, editing tool, effects tool, phone, tablet, OS, digital video player, website available today supports H.264. People complain about it being closed but actually it is far more open on the hardware side since each of the big manufacturers are part of the H.264 process.

If I came across as downplaying the adoption of H.264, it wasn't my intent.

Pretty sure Firefox doesn't support H.264 out of the box on Linux, though. I couldn't wrangle the gstreamer plugin into displaying it either.

Re: WebM support on 4chan

#80

Post by gillianseed »

modeless wrote: post #58
stefantalpalaru wrote: post #15

Why not use a tag with the 'loop' attribute to better simulate animated GIFs?

And turn off video controls. They get in the way and lack of them never hurt gif.

Hmm... the video controls only appear when I hover above the video, atleast on the 5 or so webm files I tried on 4chan just now.
Post reply on HN