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

Introducing GIFV

imgur.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 205 posts

Re: Introducing GIFV

#121

Post by SCHiM »

revscat wrote: post #113
bhouston wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They need to get the raw MP4 file eventually so the browser can display it, it can not always redirect.

I understand that, I'm just curious as to the mechanism that they are using.

I'm not sure, and the server response from your sample certainly does not fit with this idea, but maybe it's because curl uses http/1.0?

Or is that wget that uses 1.0... Fire up wireshark ;)

Edit:

So it was the useragent and accept header that did it. Nevermind my stupid idea.

Re: Introducing GIFV

#122

Post by [deleted] »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #106
karl_gluck wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's exactly my point -- (editing clarification) that the Copyright Act does not consider this 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.

It doesn't have to be. Parody and education are the situations where you can pretty much use the entire thing... but they're not using the entire thing.

[deleted]

Re: Introducing GIFV

#123

Post by cheald »

xpaulbettsx wrote: post #43
jawns wrote: post #22

"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…

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.

Except GIFV isn't a file format then, it's a presentation profile.

GIF, MP4, JPG - these are all formats. Trying to call "GIFV" a format is just marketing fluff.

Re: Introducing GIFV

#125

Post by wjoe »

ssalenik wrote: post #17

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

They work for me, Firefox 32.0.3 on Arch Linux. You'll likely need some gstreamer packages installed (I think the package on Arch is gst-plugins-good for h264), same as for watching YouTube videos in HTML5 mode rather than Flash.

There's also an about:config option "media.gstreamer.enabled" which needs to be set to true, but I don't remember ever having to set this myself.

Re: Introducing GIFV

#128

Post by GhotiFish »

personZ wrote: post #69
sauere wrote: post #8

Can't we just all settle for .webm? The cancerous patented MP4/H264 combination must die.

Can't we just all settle for .webm? This debate is partly why the web is overrun with enormous animated GIFs. It seems pretty clear that webm isn't going to be widely supported. Time to move on.

Move on to what? The annihilation of firefox through a cheap licensing move?

Re: Introducing GIFV

#129

Post by piyush_soni »

jawns wrote: post #22

"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…

That was the first question I had after I read the article. What's the need of calling it 'gifv' when it's really mp4? Does imgur want to take credit for creating a new format when it really hasn't? Conversions happen all the time behind the scenes.
Post reply on HN