71–80 of 205 posts
I don't know if its just me, but the GIFVs embedded on the page dont load for me, unless I click on them to open them in a page on their own, and the second one doesn't play even in this case. Firefox 32.0.3 on Linux
It is asking for adobe flash on linux
"With all these improvements, Imgur will now denote converted MP4s with a .gifv extension. The intention is to signal to users throughout the Internet that these links will feature a GIF experience that incorporates all the current and future enhancements made through Project GIFV. Imgur plans to submit an accompanying specification to relevant standards organizations before the end of the year." This is bizarre. GIF…
This whole thing is about preserving the GIF culture. So, people do care.
Besides, browsers will probably start treating GIFVs differently if this catches on and becomes a standard.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Browsers should display GIFVs without transport controls (unlike ), and ignore any audio tracks that are included - basically construct a limited MP4 profile and handle it appropriately. It's a useful construct imho.
Ah, that actually makes some sense, as far as a file format specification. So GIFV would offer a subset of the functionality of a typical video file format (most notably, absence of sound). Although I would think it would make more sense to just strip out the audio, rather than instruct browsers to ignore any audio tracks.
On the server's side, yes, that would make more sense. However, the fact is that the MP4 format supports audio, and it will always be possible for a server to supply a webpage with a GIFV item that points to an MP4 file that contains audio. What should the browser do in that case? Playing the audio is probably not desired. Refusing to display the video, or displaying "Warning: this video file contains audio and isn't a valid GIFV file", would probably just confuse or irritate the user--it's probably not their responsibility to fix the server's website. The remaining option seems to be that the browser ignores the audio track, and I'd say this is the necessary conclusion.
(Cf. how browsers deal with HTML that's missing a bunch of end tags.)
Can't we just all settle for .webm? The cancerous patented MP4/H264 combination must die.
Unfortunately .webm doesn't work in IE, OSX Safari or iOS. Though I'd far prefer these services work with both WebM and H264, and use whichever works best.
The whole debate is only hurting users and developers, while lining the pockets of MPEGLA (or whoever is responsible for h264 licensing).
It broke my autogfy extension. :/
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned this yet: why is imgur allowed to use copyrighted material to promote this new feature? I'm pretty certain they didn't get permission to use those clips from Tron or Star Wars. Does the fact that they were created by a user somehow give them immunity?
I think existing copyright law allows this kind of usage. Please refer to Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 107. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
From the article you referenced, "A key consideration is the extent to which the use is interpreted as , as opposed to merely ."
These are not parodies, being used for education or being used for critical analysis of the subject.
an animated gif is not necessarily a video clip, but it seems that i'm in the minority these days. here's a gif by nicolas sassoon, which format would you prefer? http://i.imgur.com/fv0qgkc.gif (1.3 MB) or http://i.imgur.com/fv0qgkc.gifv (3.9 MB)
I think one of the bigger concerns these days with "short video clips on the web" - which is what we're all trying to solve with whatever technology - is workflow. People finally understand how to make gifs even if they're super low quality, or super large, then these poorly compressed "images" are being converted into various other things. If the tools were there to create audio-less MP4 / webp/m, that would help a lot.