Is the removal of H.264 from Chrome a step backward for openness? comments
Page 3 of 3(117 comments)
Left under the original article, as archived.
ChrisThursday, January 20, 2011 11:25:54 AM
Originally posted by hellspork:
Biggest problem is that WebM does not support subtitles or embedded unicode webfonts.
That isn't needed. It should be handled outside the video container. Browsers should support it like they support CSS to style HTML.
WebRiderThursday, January 20, 2011 11:37:39 AM
Embedded audio is not needed. It should be handled outside the video container.
Knut Remi "DrLaunch" LøvliThursday, January 20, 2011 12:39:26 PM
Originally posted by Slamdex:
Originally posted by hellspork:
Biggest problem is that WebM does not support subtitles or embedded unicode webfonts.
That isn't needed. It should be handled outside the video container. Browsers should support it like they support CSS to style HTML.
This is already possible with VideoSub and the <track> tag. Browsers should indeed support it. It's also common to use a similar method in some video players for the desktop.
Originally posted by webrider:
Embedded audio is not needed. It should be handled outside the video container.
Although it's easy to do already, you're not making any sense.
AsiresThursday, January 20, 2011 12:59:20 PM
Originally posted by andygeerlings:
In case you don't understand: I do not agree with your definition. And I'm not particularly alone in that.
Looks like you're alone.
Originally posted by webrider:
Embedded audio is not needed.
Already embedded, but you can apply to the Google.
Originally posted by hellspork:
The .ogg encoder is still too weak in most implementations, resulting in unacceptable audio quality in many cases....However they need solid and varied encoders
That sounds like total nonsense. ogg has best sound at 128-256 bitrates and simply has no bad encoders. mp3 has many encoders (most of them are bad) and many quality controls ("q" parameter. Please note, ogg uses always best quality).
WebRiderThursday, January 20, 2011 2:20:19 PM
oops, i forgot to include the [ sarcasm ] tag in prev. post, sry
Originally posted by hellspork:
PsyOpts [...] WebM may be better than h.264 in the case of low-res/low-bandwidth video streams
For sure H.264 can easily beat VP8 in this segment. But much more interesting that even Theora 1.2 (Ptalarbvorm) looks slightly better than VP8. Btw theora encoding is 4 or 5 times faster.
Knut Remi "DrLaunch" LøvliThursday, January 20, 2011 2:53:18 PM
Originally posted by webrider:
oops, i forgot to include the [ sarcasm ] tag in prev. post, sry
I'm sure most of us understood your sarcasm. But it was pointless as it's already common to have subtitles in a separate file, which is why you're not making any sense.
What I did not notice is that I just took the bait. This has nothing to do with the openness of WebM and the openness of the web, which is what we're supposed to discuss in the comments of this blog post. Let's discuss the technical aspects of WebM vs. H.264 elsewhere.
WebRiderThursday, January 20, 2011 3:30:23 PM
Originally posted by drlaunch:
it's already common to have subtitles in a separate file
because of AVI (avi muxers to be more exact) limitations
Cutting SpoonThursday, January 20, 2011 11:03:41 PM
Including subtitles with embedded fonts, ensures the original footage is not compromised. It also wraps all data into one container, which improves management and transport. The MKV container is already capable of such uniform presentation. The notion that WebM was copied from MKV but did not support subtitles, is an insult. Chapter support could also have been nice, but that is much less important.
You may have noted that the WebM team's roadmap includes the "fansubbing" community of users (college students aiming to become media professionals). So perhaps there is hope for the container to offer text overlay features.
Asires: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQxbpryKKQo The WebM version has an exceptionally poor .ogg recode. I have a standalone copy of Opera that is opted-in for html5, and the difference in quality is appalling. Ogg's potential is excellent, but there ARE bad encoders just like it's possible to make FLAC sound terrible.
WebRider: Make no mistakes...x264 can readily compete against WebM on this front. But most h.264 encoders are terrible in this arena. Please recall that I am talking about VERY low bitrates. Theora looks better when using PsyOpts, worse without them. VP8's frame analysis logic is not efficient, so even a very fast PC will struggle to encode 1080p in realtime. x264 High Profile can drive 1080p at the magical 120-150fps required for stereoscopic 3D capture, it is nearly as fast as the lossier XviD.
ChrisFriday, January 21, 2011 3:44:29 PM
Originally posted by hellspork:
Including subtitles with embedded fonts, ensures the original footage is not compromised. It also wraps all data into one container, which improves management and transport. The MKV container is already capable of such uniform presentation. The notion that WebM was copied from MKV but did not support subtitles, is an insult.
I don't know why you think it's an insult. Subtitles are added outside the video, which makes sense. It's added through the web page. This is video on the web. The original footage isn't less or more compromised whether you include subs or not.
Cutting SpoonFriday, January 28, 2011 2:02:54 AM
Video on the web needs to be portable and approachable. Requiring additional scripting on the page and the download of two separate files adds complexity that would have been unnecessary with a SLIGHTLY more complex container.
DillonFriday, January 28, 2011 3:01:43 AM
Apparently the mkv group is waiting for the subtitle format (vtt or whatever it's called now) to be finalized before updating the webm container to hold subtitles, but they fully intend for subtitles to be included in video files.
ChrisFriday, January 28, 2011 5:54:08 AM
Originally posted by hellspork:
Video on the web needs to be portable and approachable. Requiring additional scripting on the page and the download of two separate files adds complexity that would have been unnecessary with a SLIGHTLY more complex container.
Video is portable and approachable, especially with separate subtitles because they can be manipulated separately.
Your "insult" comment was simply uncalled for. You may disagree with the way subtitles are supported, but that doesn't give you the right to post something like that.
Cutting SpoonFriday, January 28, 2011 8:03:47 PM
Now, Dillon's comment was most informative. This is the sort of information I'd been hunting for.
Chris, a video container can pack many different subtitle kits with a minimal increase in file size. Additional subtitles can be muxed in, or will display if the file is added to the same directory as the video. Unfortunately, operating systems do not stack videos with subtitles in the same fashion as HTML resource files are associated with .html documents. Management is messy, and the folder quickly becomes clogged.
I think fansubbers and other small nonprofit broadcaster will adopt webm when these technical challenges are met.
I don't know if fansubbers would ever go to webm though. They tend to prefer either quality or speed (and h.264 with the x264 encoder wins at both of those). Additionally they like to use styled subs with either .ssa or .ass subtitle formats that allow complex subtitle typesetting with animation, fonts, and a bunch of other crazy stuff. I suppose they could do some of it with CSS but I'm not sure and it's probably a lot more difficult than with software like aegisub.
Cutting SpoonMonday, January 31, 2011 6:53:37 PM
Yes, that is a definite concern and I do not expect the working group to QC such extensive features. But simple things like embedded captions etc would be nice. And low-bitrate webm codings may plausibly be used in a "watch online" format.
ChirpieTuesday, February 1, 2011 10:00:08 AM
Isn't WebM a format for the web? Do fansubbers view videos on the web? I thought they downloaded the videos, in which case they will be using some other format than WebM anyway (seeing as WebM is for use on the web).
Cutting SpoonTuesday, February 1, 2011 5:48:50 PM
It's partly a factor of advertising revenue. Many text/comic translators want the reader to use their online reader, because it generates ad-impressions for them. Subbers have approached the idea of watching online for similar reasons, but there are technical thresholds which must be met. If they could use WebM and the Video tag, it would be much easier to distribute.
ChrisThursday, January 20, 2011 11:25:54 AM
Originally posted by hellspork:
That isn't needed. It should be handled outside the video container. Browsers should support it like they support CSS to style HTML.WebRiderThursday, January 20, 2011 11:37:39 AM
Knut Remi "DrLaunch" LøvliThursday, January 20, 2011 12:39:26 PM
Originally posted by Slamdex:
This is already possible with VideoSub and the <track> tag. Browsers should indeed support it. It's also common to use a similar method in some video players for the desktop.Originally posted by webrider:
Although it's easy to do already, you're not making any sense.AsiresThursday, January 20, 2011 12:59:20 PM
Originally posted by andygeerlings:
Looks like you're alone.
Originally posted by webrider:
Already embedded, but you can apply to the Google.
Originally posted by hellspork:
That sounds like total nonsense. ogg has best sound at 128-256 bitrates and simply has no bad encoders. mp3 has many encoders (most of them are bad) and many quality controls ("q" parameter. Please note, ogg uses always best quality).
WebRiderThursday, January 20, 2011 2:20:19 PM
Originally posted by hellspork:
For sure H.264 can easily beat VP8 in this segment. But much more interesting that even Theora 1.2 (Ptalarbvorm) looks slightly better than VP8. Btw theora encoding is 4 or 5 times faster.
Knut Remi "DrLaunch" LøvliThursday, January 20, 2011 2:53:18 PM
Originally posted by webrider:
I'm sure most of us understood your sarcasm. But it was pointless as it's already common to have subtitles in a separate file, which is why you're not making any sense.
What I did not notice is that I just took the bait. This has nothing to do with the openness of WebM and the openness of the web, which is what we're supposed to discuss in the comments of this blog post. Let's discuss the technical aspects of WebM vs. H.264 elsewhere.
WebRiderThursday, January 20, 2011 3:30:23 PM
Originally posted by drlaunch:
because of AVI (avi muxers to be more exact) limitationsUPD. FSF's position
Cutting SpoonThursday, January 20, 2011 11:03:41 PM
You may have noted that the WebM team's roadmap includes the "fansubbing" community of users (college students aiming to become media professionals). So perhaps there is hope for the container to offer text overlay features.
Asires: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQxbpryKKQo The WebM version has an exceptionally poor .ogg recode. I have a standalone copy of Opera that is opted-in for html5, and the difference in quality is appalling. Ogg's potential is excellent, but there ARE bad encoders just like it's possible to make FLAC sound terrible.
WebRider: Make no mistakes...x264 can readily compete against WebM on this front. But most h.264 encoders are terrible in this arena. Please recall that I am talking about VERY low bitrates. Theora looks better when using PsyOpts, worse without them. VP8's frame analysis logic is not efficient, so even a very fast PC will struggle to encode 1080p in realtime. x264 High Profile can drive 1080p at the magical 120-150fps required for stereoscopic 3D capture, it is nearly as fast as the lossier XviD.
ChrisFriday, January 21, 2011 3:44:29 PM
Originally posted by hellspork:
I don't know why you think it's an insult. Subtitles are added outside the video, which makes sense. It's added through the web page. This is video on the web. The original footage isn't less or more compromised whether you include subs or not.Cutting SpoonFriday, January 28, 2011 2:02:54 AM
DillonFriday, January 28, 2011 3:01:43 AM
ChrisFriday, January 28, 2011 5:54:08 AM
Originally posted by hellspork:
Video is portable and approachable, especially with separate subtitles because they can be manipulated separately.Your "insult" comment was simply uncalled for. You may disagree with the way subtitles are supported, but that doesn't give you the right to post something like that.
Cutting SpoonFriday, January 28, 2011 8:03:47 PM
Chris, a video container can pack many different subtitle kits with a minimal increase in file size. Additional subtitles can be muxed in, or will display if the file is added to the same directory as the video. Unfortunately, operating systems do not stack videos with subtitles in the same fashion as HTML resource files are associated with .html documents. Management is messy, and the folder quickly becomes clogged.
I think fansubbers and other small nonprofit broadcaster will adopt webm when these technical challenges are met.
DillonFriday, January 28, 2011 8:48:27 PM
I don't know if fansubbers would ever go to webm though. They tend to prefer either quality or speed (and h.264 with the x264 encoder wins at both of those). Additionally they like to use styled subs with either .ssa or .ass subtitle formats that allow complex subtitle typesetting with animation, fonts, and a bunch of other crazy stuff. I suppose they could do some of it with CSS but I'm not sure and it's probably a lot more difficult than with software like aegisub.
Cutting SpoonMonday, January 31, 2011 6:53:37 PM
ChirpieTuesday, February 1, 2011 10:00:08 AM
Cutting SpoonTuesday, February 1, 2011 5:48:50 PM