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

81–90 of 104 posts

Re: WebM support on 4chan

#81

Post by derf_ »

sb057 wrote: post #66
sprash wrote: post #61

WebM is clearly a far inferior experience compared to gif on firefox: - at the start there is a stupid "fade in" effect. - the loading animation does sometimes not disappear even though the video has fully loaded. - the loading animation is generally annoying. Gifs just stop when bufffering and continue as soon as there is new data. - a useless control bar shows at the bottom on hovering. - Unlike gifs the video does…

>- at the start there is a stupid "fade in" effect. This is only for non-embedded images. Also, I'm pretty sure this can be "fixed" with ease. >- the loading animation does sometimes not disappear even though the video has fully loaded. After viewing hundreds, if not thousands, of WebM files, I have never experienced this. >- the loading animation is generally annoying. Gifs just stop when bufffering and continue as…

> Fair enough, but this will surely be implemented soon enough.

Starting in " rel="nofollow">https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=963922>.

Re: WebM support on 4chan

#82

Post by jfb »

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 defines a number of profiles and levels that define the acceptable tools from the overall suite that a conforming decoder implementation can rely on. "Baseline" uses very few of these tools, relative to the more sophisticated profiles.

Re: WebM support on 4chan

#83

Post by pippy »

WebM is a fantastic step forward. I prefer gfycat links over imgur gifs when browsing reddit (gfycat is a service that converts gifs to WebM). It does have minor teething problems (controls, loading animations, etc) but its advantages outweigh its negatives.

WebP however for some reason hasn't gained as much traction as WebM. Firefox refuses to merge support, despite the fact it leverages the same library is WebM. I'd like to see WebP gain support more than WebM, Google's mod_speed converts images to WebM if using the Chrome browser to save on bandwidth.

Re: WebM support on 4chan

#84

Post by d0ugie »

astrange wrote: post #63
X4 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure how you're going to solve the WebM hosting issues, but I would be really curious to see a list of issues large sites like 4chan have. I think me and other people would surely like to solve such «sysadmin/developer puzzles» for fun. WebP is larger than APNG [1] and is supported more widely according to the following table [2]. There is a way to add compatibility to older browser too [3]. Other than that, ther…

WebP/M and H.264 are lossy formats, so any comparison citing one ultimate filesize for them is nonsensical. I'd expect them to beat PNG with acceptable quality, since PNG's compression (gzip with some prefilters to make image data more gzippable) is the work of someone either limited by patents or not informed enough to make their own entropy coder. Also try 'ffv1' in ffmpeg; it's lossless and will win every time.

Lossy and lossless.

Transcode a bunch of different-looking PNGs to a WebP losslessly, each pixel preserved exactly, and you'll see a byte savings in the neighborhood of 30%. Go lossy and much more savings, with the option of alpha transparency on lossy if you're into that.

It's not just efficiency, it's versatility that these formats bring to the table. Though the efficiency is compelling.

Re: WebM support on 4chan

#85

Post by yohui »

Sir_Cmpwn wrote: post #8
aspensmonster wrote: post #2

Awesome! I'm still waiting for other sites like imgur to get with the program :D Edit: Thread 2 (Yeah, 4chan, possibly probably nsfw, etc): http://boards.4chan.org/g/res/41215438#p41215438

https://mediacru.sh (I helped make this)

There's also http://gfycat.com, which seems fairly popular on reddit. And there's https://vine.co, too, though it's aimed at a different niche.

But imgur support would really drive the replacement of GIFs with HTML5 video mainstream, if/when it arrives.

Re: WebM support on 4chan

#86

Post by yohui »

threeseed wrote: post #74
gcb0 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

First, free software can be developed by one entity, or even one person.

Second, that's a list of contributors to the "Google C++ Testing Framework", not WebM.

Re: WebM support on 4chan

#87

Post by lern_too_spel »

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.

h.264 has several profiles. Support for particular profiles in hardware varies. If you want to do low latency encoding with a hardware "h.264 encoder" for video conferencing you may find that you're out of luck. Since there is only one VP8 profile, hardware VP8 means hardware VP8.

Re: WebM support on 4chan

#88

Post by tormeh »

qqueue wrote: post #32
moot wrote: post #5

More details here: http://blog.4chan.org/post/81896300203/webm-support-on-4chan

What other reasons were there to limit videos to 2 minutes, without audio? They certainly aren't technical limits. The commons reasons cited on 4chan are: 1. All videos with sound would be "screamers", where the audio would get really loud unexpectedly halfway through, as a simple troll. 2. 4chan is an _image_ board, not a video board. 3. the MPAA and other copyright holders would crush 4chan with DCMA takedown reque…

>as well as the novelty eventually wearing off.

You haven't been on 4chan much, have you? I can promise you it would never get old. Anyway, what 4chan wants is basically better GIFs.

Re: WebM support on 4chan

#89

Post by enneff »

yohui wrote: post #86
threeseed wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WebM is not free. It is controlled by a single company. https://code.google.com/p/webm/source/browse/third_party/goo...

First, free software can be developed by one entity, or even one person. Second, that's a list of contributors to the "Google C++ Testing Framework", not WebM.

Third, the AUTHORS file for libvpx lists people from nVidia, Opera, Broadcom, and many other non-Googlers.

https://code.google.com/p/webm/source/browse/AUTHORS?repo=li...

Post reply on HN