Slashdot Mirror
Firefox Gains Support for VP9 Video Codec
An anonymous reader writes "With the latest Firefox nightly builds the VP9 video codec is enabled by default. VP9 is a step ahead of the open-source VP8 codec but up to now has only been supported by the Chrome browser. VP9 support will officially appear in Firefox 28."
Someone encodes something in VP9 that I actually want to watch.
Off topic, but Firefox supports animated PNG files, IE 11 and the latest Chrome do not.
Once both Firefox and Chrome support VP9, YouTube's HTML5 player will probably be using VP9 to save your bandwidth, especially when viewers like you turn on 720p or higher resolution.
VP9 is tainted by licensing agreements with MPEG LA. Google could change its licensing scheme at any moment as well.
Disclaimer: I am not the author of the following pdf
http://iphome.hhi.de/marpe/download/Performance_HEVC_VP9_X264_PCS_2013_preprint.pdf
According to the above pdf
"x264 encoder achieves an average gain of 6.2% in terms of BD-BR savings compared to VP9
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Thank you. I don't think 'cosmonaut' is the right word, though. The Golden Girls were in America, so it was probably astronaut.
do people use them? Just asking. I've seen lots of DIVX, xvid, MOV, wmv, 3GP, MKV and MP4 files. thanks for posting the link though.
How exactly is it tainted? Mpeg LA agreed you can use it and not worry about their patents. How is THAT a problem?
Fyi, no, they can't change the license in a way that creates problems for using the codec. It's called "promissory estoppel". Basically, it means that once they promise to let you use it freely, that stops them from suing anyone.
Most of the remaining MPEG LA patents that matter run out in Q1 2014. They have others, but most of them are on features added to MPEG-4 late, ones that aren't needed in a browser's decoder, such as interlace support and decoding of images with errors.
Yeah, but why would you? It's a slightly less efficient implementation of h264 with no hardware support.
This story is about the latest nightly build of Firefox, so just click the "Reset Firefox" button in about:support and STFU.
Call your ISP, not the Mozilla Foundation.
Maybe it's your interweb connection. Never have i had problems like those unless i've had a bad connection.
How much less could you care?
confidant
I'm fairly confidant thanks
It's too bad that virtually 99% of sites will be using H264 AVC and AAC.
It's a slightly less efficient implementation of h264 with no hardware support.
That's assuming you're using h264's baseline profile.
You are confusing it with VP8.
This is just my $0.02, but if the trolls are anything like some of the rest of us, I have to assume it's because we're tired of the constant promotion of second-rate codecs that put ideology ahead of technical concerns.
Who else is going to keep the patent trolls of the MPEG LA honest?
As long as there's a semi-viable second choice available that's available it will force more reasonable conditions from the lawyers.
And as another commenter noted [1], the difference is about 6.2%, which isn't exactly atrocious IMHO.
[1] http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4536585&cid=45647357
How exactly is it tainted? Mpeg LA agreed you can use it and not worry about their patents. How is THAT a problem?
Do you remember GIF, and why PNG was invented?
Or Eolas? Or the folks that Newegg is currently fighting?
Which is very ironic because Firefox popularity came from the fact that it was a small light weight browser.
Then they kept on adding crap to it, so it is nearly as bloated as IE is. While Chrome has been taking the lime light as the small lightweight browser.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
How does that relate at all to what GP said? Newegg isn't fighting people that promised they wouldn't sue over patents. Quite the contrary, since they're fighting people who are suing over patents. I don't know about the rest of your examples, but I'm guessing they're similar, in which case they are completely irrelevant to what GP said.
You're probably one of those people that uses then when you should than and vice versa.
PNutts was correct in using confidant and, afaik, those are the correct lyrics to the Golden Girls theme song. I'm fairly confident that's how it should be.
But, than again, your right, should of kept mah mouth shut.
The general-purpose chip has already existed since graphics cards switched from fixed-function pixel shaders to programmable pixel shaders. If a pixel shader can compute bump mapping and SSAO, it can compute motion reconstruction and IDCT.
The greater the complexity in a system, the greater points of failure. All this movement of processing onto the client just leads to more client side security holes. HTML5 is so complex, there are so many potential points of attack, it is the NSA's wet dream to have all browsers compete on implementing it fully. If Firefox 17 had 0-days that the NSA could use to attack TOR (yeah yeah, it was the FBI, I completely believe that it wasn't a crumb the NSA gave them), I imagine a fully HTML5 compliant Firefox XX will have enough 0-days out there to keep the NSA stringing the FBI along for another century or two. (As as aside, the NSA, on the other hand, has taken a wholistic approach to breaking encryption; they record everything and figure once they manage to get a quantum computer working in about 5-10 years, they'll be able to decrypt all of it in one shot.)
Where can one find a browser that just displays marked up, laid out content that implement the latest security protocols these days?
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
Just don't price h.265 out of the Professional market or google win codec market in software and hardware!
It's great for the viewer because you have more detail in less bandwidth (smaller footprint) but it's a bitch at encoding and is slower than mp4,H264 or H265 in encoding speed. VP8 is still a good alternative as well since it's more mature and has wider support.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
... oooshhh
The idea of "standards" in image formats is moot, because W3C takes hands-off approach to the issue. They said: "use whatever the hell formats you want, we don't care". So of all anti-APNG arguments I heard, that one is especially weak.
If lossless WebP is so good, then why in filesize comparisons gif2webp loses in to gif2apng basically every time?
Probably because APNG has blending for sub-frames while WebP doesn't. For single-frame images, WebP is going to win. I wonder if they will change their minds and add that at some point.