Youtube : All New Videos are transcoded into WebM


Recommended Posts

Miuku.
Anyway. I don't like HTML5 video on YouTube as it lacks full screen feature. But i don't like Flash either, especially buggy 10.2.

Well, naturally I don't know what browser and OS you're using but on a Mac I can press Shift+Command+F and I have a fullscreen browser window with the HTMl video in full screen - better yet, this doesn't slow up multi-screen in any way (especially handy if I just detach the browser window from Firefox).

Noteworthy is that the performance in HTML5 videos in such a case is mind blowingly better than Flash without any graphical issues of any kind.

Link to post
Share on other sites
HawkMan

Well, naturally I don't know what browser and OS you're using but on a Mac I can press Shift+Command+F and I have a fullscreen browser window with the HTMl video in full screen - better yet, this doesn't slow up multi-screen in any way (especially handy if I just detach the browser window from Firefox).

Noteworthy is that the performance in HTML5 videos in such a case is mind blowingly better than Flash without any graphical issues of any kind.

Funny, must be something with your "awesome" linux system, cause on my multi monitor system(s), I've never had ANY performance issues running flash video full screen on one monitor and doing anything else on the other. and it hasn't used more performance than running non full screen either, so I'm not entirely sure what you think you're talking about here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
OuchOfDeath

Being open source doesn't mean to be automatically being standard. WebM is not listed among HTML5 codecs.

http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/video.html

And there is Theora in Ogg listed for those who like open source.

What Google is doing is simply pushing their own standards for own commercial interests.

WebM isn't "their own" standard. It's been officially approved by the Free Software Foundation and is licenced under a BSD-styled licence, which means in a sense everyone owns it now and are free to use it in just about every way imaginable. You seem to have this concept flying over your head. You can't be "pushing" something when that something is fully open source and doesn't belong to any one entity. And the argument that it's for their own commercial interest is simply absurd. While it may be partially true it's irrelevant because the main point is they're pushing to have one of the vital parts of today's web open and not controlled by a profit-motivated entity. Google can make as much money off of this for all I care as all the money they are putting into this is also going to every person out there in the world, because WebM is opensource and free for everyone to use in every way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Udedenkz

WebM isn't "their own" standard. It's been officially approved by the Free Software Foundation and is licenced under a BSD-styled licence, which means in a sense everyone owns it now and are free to use it in just about every way imaginable. You seem to have this concept flying over your head. You can't be "pushing" something when that something is fully open source and doesn't belong to any one entity. And the argument that it's for their own commercial interest is simply absurd. While it may be partially true it's irrelevant because the main point is they're pushing to have one of the vital parts of today's web open and not controlled by a profit-motivated entity. Google can make as much money off of this for all I care as all the money they are putting into this is also going to every person out there in the world, because WebM is opensource and free for everyone to use in every way.

Google should have no issue using h264 even with an acquired licence and not burden the end user with this BS.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Growled

Honestly, as long as the videos play for me I really don't care what codecs they use.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Miuku.

Funny, must be something with your "awesome" linux system, cause on my multi monitor system(s), I've never had ANY performance issues running flash video full screen on one monitor and doing anything else on the other. and it hasn't used more performance than running non full screen either, so I'm not entirely sure what you think you're talking about here.

You need to have your eyes checked, you managed to miss my OS albeit it was on the first line. A little less zealotry when replying to posts and a little more facts?

Also, you said never? Really? It wasn't until 10.2 Flash even introduced a "proper" fullscreen mode that worked on multiple monitors. My goodness, never sure must be a short period of time for you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
ichi

Google should have no issue using h264 even with an acquired licence and not burden the end user with this BS.

If they can go with an open royalty free codec, why wouldn't they? It's not as if they had suddenly removed h264 support anyway.

There's no burden for the end user, just one more option for those that can't or don't want to use h264. If you prefer h264, then use h264 ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
HawkMan

You need to have your eyes checked, you managed to miss my OS albeit it was on the first line. A little less zealotry when replying to posts and a little more facts?

Also, you said never? Really? It wasn't until 10.2 Flash even introduced a "proper" fullscreen mode that worked on multiple monitors. My goodness, never sure must be a short period of time for you.

and again, I never had any problems with multiple monitors and full screen on windows. at least not in the last couple of years.

Link to post
Share on other sites
OuchOfDeath

Google should have no issue using h264 even with an acquired licence and not burden the end user with this BS.

What about Opera? What about the countless other pieces of software and organizations that can't pay for the licence because it's too expensive? This is not BS. This is making the web free and open for everyone, not just for those who have tens of millions of dollars to throw around (that's how much it costs). I don't understand how anyone could be against making the web more open.

and again, I never had any problems with multiple monitors and full screen on windows. at least not in the last couple of years.

Incorrect. Everyone has had problems before 10.2. If you clicked on the second monitor while flash was fullscreened it would un-fullscreen, effectively making the second monitor entirely useless.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Udedenkz

What about Opera? What about the countless other pieces of software and organizations that can't pay for the licence because it's too expensive? This is not BS. This is making the web free and open for everyone, not just for those who have tens of millions of dollars to throw around (that's how much it costs). I don't understand how anyone could be against making the web more open.

I have been over this, read the thread please! :angry:

It goes something like this,

1. h264 'fees' do not apply to end users.

2. Microsoft and Apple will keep supporting h264

3. h264 is the de-facto performance, quality, and compression king

4. Companies go down all the time, and if they have to, let it be.

5. h264 is NOT going anywhere. It is the Blu format, it will be supported for a very long time because of this.

People should learn to care what is best for THEM and not for GOOGLE/OPERA/ETC.

Edited by Udedenkz
Link to post
Share on other sites
ViperAFK

I have been over this, read the thread please! :angry:

And people have responded explaining why its not just so easy to use the system decoders for h.264 and be done with it, which you ignored calling users who would be left out an "irrelevant minority"

The web should be free and accessible to anyone, on windows, mac, and linux.

Link to post
Share on other sites
OuchOfDeath

I have been over this, read the thread please! :angry:

No you have not. You assume "Make it available on the OS" is a viable solution. It's not. It's a restriction, and furthermore you assume just because it's available on the OS that developers are free to make use of it royalty-free, which I'm pretty sure is not true. I seriously doubt the MPEG association lets paid applications use h.264 just because it happens to be a codec on the OS. Regardless, you fail to recognize that these are all -limitations- imposed by a group that wants to make as much money as possible, which means imposing more limitations to make more money. None of you think about PNG or JPEG. Have any of you considered what things would be like if it costed millions of dollars to licence the use of these of these image formats? There's a reason the web has flourished the way it has, and that is because the crucial parts of the web have free and open. h.264 is a giant thorn in the web and its open nature and needs to go.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Udedenkz

And people have responded explaining why its not just so easy to use the system decoders for h.264 and be done with it, which you ignored calling users who would be left out an "irrelevant minority"

The web should be free and accessible to anyone, on windows, mac, and linux.

People pay for Windows OS and Mac OS.

Is it not reasonable to expect Windows & Mac to offer more than a free OS?

It still goes under the assumption that they will be required to buy/pirate an h264 codec...

Link to post
Share on other sites
OuchOfDeath

People pay for Windows OS and Mac OS.

Is it not reasonable to expect Windows & Mac to offer more than a free OS?

It still goes under the assumption that they will be required to buy/pirate an h264 codec...

No it is not reasonable to expect more. Furthermore this is about the web and its open nature. The web SHOULD NOT depend on the OS for its functionality. That is how the web has flourished. It is open and platform-independent that anyone can access in any way. Proprietary solutions that impose restrictions, huge costs, and more at the expense of openness and innovation are a thorn in the web's backside and need to go.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Udedenkz

No it is not reasonable to expect more. Furthermore this is about the web and its open nature. The web SHOULD NOT depend on the OS for its functionality. That is how the web has flourished. It is open and platform-independent that anyone can access in any way. Proprietary solutions that impose restrictions, huge costs, and more at the expense of openness and innovation are a thorn in the web's backside and need to go.

I support quality, performance, and functionality.

I only support that which will be better *FOR ME* - which in this case includes, but not limited to, users of Microsoft and Apple products and Operating Systems.

I made a ~$820 investment into h264 - see my systems - two of them were bought considering smooth video playback.

It makes sense that if you use something that will be negatively impacted, that argument makes sense. For me, it doesn't.

h264 can be provided by the distributor, OS, hardware, Adobe?, or your service plan. Companies will deal will this. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
OuchOfDeath

Bahaha you completely miss the point. You assume your "vendors" will fix everything for you. Why should you trust a company whose primary motive is to make money to fix everything for you? What makes you think they won't impose more costs, which MPEG-LA has actually tried to do? They wanted to impose a cost for every user who views a video. You'd have to pay money every time you watched a video on the internet, but they backed out of it for a few years due to a backlash. They'd try again if there wasn't any competition in sight, but luckily there is. That's what your "solution" gets you. Your logic is so extremely flawed. Why on earth should you trust a company to "fix" everything, when you have the absolute guarantee when there is an open and free standard in place? Your logic is so extremely flawed. Vendors will not "fix" things. As I said, MPEG-LA wanted to impose a cost on every user, for every video. That's your vendors "fixing" things for you. This is why we need WebM.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Udedenkz

Bahaha you completely miss the point. You assume your "vendors" will fix everything for you. Why should you trust a company whose primary motive is to make money to fix everything for you? What makes you think they won't impose more costs, which MPEG-LA has actually tried to do? They wanted to impose a cost for every user who views a video. You'd have to pay money every time you watched a video on the internet, but they backed out of it for a few years due to a backlash. They'd try again if there wasn't any competition in sight, but luckily there is. That's what your "solution" gets you. Your logic is so extremely flawed. Why on earth should you trust a company to "fix" everything, when you have the absolute guarantee when there is an open and free standard in place? Your logic is so extremely flawed. Vendors will not "fix" things. As I said, MPEG-LA wanted to impose a cost on every user, for every video. That's your vendors "fixing" things for you. This is why we need WebM.

Will Apple and Microsoft will simply remove h264 support?

Will Blu Ray just die out?

Will GPU manufacturers stop supporting HD video playback?

If Adobe Flash is planning to drop h264 support, why have they invested so much into it with 10.1 and 10.2?

IMO, you are a pessimist.

Link to post
Share on other sites
OuchOfDeath

IMO, you don't understand what I'm actually saying here. No point in continuing this conversation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Udedenkz

IMO, you don't understand what I'm actually saying here. No point in continuing this conversation.

You could try rephrasing in a way that emphasizes how,

1. How h264 effects me negatively.

2. How h264 effects the majority negatively.

2a. If #1 and #2 are different arguments, please state why.

3. If you get past #1 and #2, I think making an argument on how technology wise VP8 is superior is appropriate as otherwise h264 makes sense to pay for.

3a. If VP8 is not superior, you need to make an argument to why it still doesn't make sense to pay for h264.

Something like that.

;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Flawed

Well, naturally I don't know what browser and OS you're using but on a Mac I can press Shift+Command+F and I have a fullscreen browser window with the HTMl video in full screen - better yet, this doesn't slow up multi-screen in any way (especially handy if I just detach the browser window from Firefox).

Noteworthy is that the performance in HTML5 videos in such a case is mind blowingly better than Flash without any graphical issues of any kind.

Like you, I just do F11 in Firefox. Html5 WebM video works really great on Linux :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
Flawed

Will Apple and Microsoft will simply remove h264 support?

If there are no video's on the web encoded with it, what's the point in supporting it? In a couple of years time, h.264 will be a long forgotten memory and the world will be better for it.

Will Blu Ray just die out?

Blu-ray discs themselves will be obsolete in the near future. HD content will persist though. Any codec can be used to compress the HD content, it doesn't have to be h.264 or another proprietary one. Yes, I know the Blu-ray spec mandates the use of such codecs, but HD content doesn't have to explicitly follow the Blu-ray spec, a solid disc based format. HD can be encoded in Theora, WebM, or any other open source, patent free codec.

Will GPU manufacturers stop supporting HD video playback?

A distinction has to be made between HD, or high resolution video, and Blu-ray or other proprietary formats. GPU manufacturers could quite easily add hardware support for Theora/WebM. The reason they don't is because of patent trolls like MPEG-LA, Microsoft, Apple, etc, who wish to make the web proprietary, locked down, and closed to competition and innovation.

If Adobe Flash is planning to drop h264 support, why have they invested so much into it with 10.1 and 10.2?

Flash will soon be irrelevant, so what Adobe does, doesn't concern me. H.264 might be used heavily today, but that's going to change very soon. Browsers, video sites, and the web in general are abandoning it.

IMO, you are a pessimist.

Anybody who seeks to rid this world of proprietary and patented technologies is an optimist.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Passionate

today i encountered such problem .. audio went last and video is hang up in middle .btw ,, it loads better than basic .

Link to post
Share on other sites
Udedenkz

If there are no video's on the web encoded with it, what's the point in supporting it? In a couple of years time, h.264 will be a long forgotten memory and the world will be better for it.

Blu-ray discs themselves will be obsolete in the near future. HD content will persist though. Any codec can be used to compress the HD content, it doesn't have to be h.264 or another proprietary one. Yes, I know the Blu-ray spec mandates the use of such codecs, but HD content doesn't have to explicitly follow the Blu-ray spec, a solid disc based format. HD can be encoded in Theora, WebM, or any other open source, patent free codec.

A distinction has to be made between HD, or high resolution video, and Blu-ray or other proprietary formats. GPU manufacturers could quite easily add hardware support for Theora/WebM. The reason they don't is because of patent trolls like MPEG-LA, Microsoft, Apple, etc, who wish to make the web proprietary, locked down, and closed to competition and innovation.

Flash will soon be irrelevant, so what Adobe does, doesn't concern me. H.264 might be used heavily today, but that's going to change very soon. Browsers, video sites, and the web in general are abandoning it.

Anybody who seeks to rid this world of proprietary and patented technologies is an optimist.

Web Video is just a subset of video. There is also Blu-Ray and HD video from various other sources.

Pirates are good example, because of them MKV is quite wide-spread.

Netflix is another good example.

The answer to the first question depends on the answer to the second question.

Currently computers are going towards having Blu-Ray drives and being able to play Blu-Ray movies.

An OS that cannot play Blu-Ray movies would not be appealing.

I cannot fathom this happening unless there is actually a WORTHY alternative to h264.

Additionally this would be bad from the financial perspective: modern players will be unable to play newer movies.

I find that to be a form of screwing people over.

Same as above. I find that it is not logical to support trash just because trash is free.

When it comes down to the use of "troll" in this thread, is not trolling to offer WebM as an 'alternative' to h264?

This is the same as Linux vs. Windows arguments. Interesting is that although Windows is not free, everyone chooses to use it.

Also look at this from the financial standpoint - support VP8 will be a selling point.

I don't see how Flash can become irrelevant.

There is no alternative to it. What other way is there to design and play quality content such as Qwest of the Manwhore aside form flash?

I haven't heard anything about HTML5 capabilities with vectorized art.

Adobe Flash offers very good performance when it comes to video (Unless it is not h264, then it laggs like hell).

EDIT: My spelling is atrocious.

Edited by Udedenkz
Link to post
Share on other sites
HawkMan

Incorrect. Everyone has had problems before 10.2. If you clicked on the second monitor while flash was fullscreened it would un-fullscreen, effectively making the second monitor entirely useless.

Nope. depending on how it was done. some sites did it, some didn't. but I was watching a lot of online TV channels that use flash before 10.2 full screen on one monitor while surfing on the other.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.