Prototype Viktor
Member
a few if the webm's aren't working in 35.0.1916.27 beta-m like ScepticMatt's 2 pass Mind Blown one, as that just plays only black when clicked/hovered
That's just audio, though, isn't it?Edit: here's the 2-pass "mind-blown" encode
http://a.pomf.se/wdszgq.webm
That's the problem I'm trying to fix in chrome/VLC, it works everywhere elseThat's just audio, though, isn't it?
The reason we don't have a modern animated image standard is because Google ignored APNG.So... The actual animated image format, .WEBP, is being ignored while people work on .WEBM (e.g. The format used for YouTube videos) "images" instead?
So... The actual animated image format, .WEBP, is being ignored while people work on .WEBM (e.g. The format used for YouTube videos) "images" instead?
try typing ffmpeg -version, it should say built on Apr 6 2014 (or later)
Otherwise you might have set some environment variables, thus using another version of ffmpeg
Yeah, yours doesn't work on my Chrome. Mine VP9 works fine on my Chrome, however. But it doesn't seems to work on others.That's the problem I'm trying to fix in chrome/VLC, it works everywhere else
APNG would have never worked due to the 30+MB file size for images due to every frame effectively being an "I-frame".The reason we don't have a modern animated image standard is because Google ignored APNG.
In any case, for most of the things people use gif for in forums like this a movie format is more suitable.
WEBP can be either lossy or lossless, unless I am reading the Wikipedia entry wrong...The key is webp is lossless, and thus will create bigger files, while webm is pushed by sites (specifically, the current push is driven by 4chan) that used animated gifs to display not lossless animations but bits of videos, where being lossy isn't a problem.
do I find that old ffmpeg and uninstall it for good.
type "where ffmpeg"
edit: maybe not, not sure how it works in windows
type "where ffmpeg"
edit: maybe not, not sure how it works in windows
The reason we don't have a modern animated image standard is because Google ignored APNG.
In any case, for most of the things people use gif for in forums like this a movie format is more suitable.
vp8, single pass crf 4
500k: 33.40 39.59 39.27
01M: 38.09 42.42 42.82
02M: 41.88 45.63 45.93
05M: 48.5 50.97 51.17
50M: 49.80 52.04 52.17
vp9, single pass crf 4
500k: 34.53 41.10 40.85
01M: 35.55 41.97 41.92
02M: 36.12 42.62 42.35
05M: 36.11 42.75 42.45
50M: 36.16 42.69 42.46
vp8, double pass crf 4
500k: 35.18 40.42 40.37
01M: 38.30 42.43 42.83
02M: 40.87 44.77 45.18
05M: 45.23 48.23 48.52
50M: 49.81 52.03 52.17
vp9, double pass crf 4
500k: 36.10 42.19 42.21
01M: 39.81 44.46 44.93
02M: 42.96 46.69 47.10
05M: 48.22 50.79 51.06
50M: 52.76 54.61 54.78
What ffmpeg build you are using
FFmpeg said:FFmpeg version: 2014-04-07 git-a7a82f2
On Win 7 64-bit. Have to use the 32-bit version since the 64-bit one gives some error at launch that I haven't bothered to check a solution to.
As you can see, ffmpeg VP9 bit rate control is broken, so single pass videos are blurry/blocky in the beginning no matter how high the bit rate (without setting qmax)
So I recommend using two pass VP8 in ffmpeg for now.
Josh Aas said:I contribute my opinion to the matter of whether or not WebP support is added to Firefox, but I do not unilaterally determine what happens. I'm happy to be transparent. This might get a bit long.
Here’s why I don’t think the case for WebP is good enough, at least right now.
1) We lack data showing that WebP is significantly enough better than JPEG in terms of compression. What "significantly enough" means exactly is up for debate, but the case right now is not super compelling. A lot of the unqualified results people throw out (those without a clear methodology) have to do with re-encoding, where quality isn’t necessarily being maintained and re-encoding properly with a JPEG encoder would also have improved file sizes.
2) Last time I checked, it was not possible to create large WebP images. I couldn't encode a ~20 megapixel image. These images are already on the Web and they're only going to get more popular. Adding a new format that can’t handle these images would be unwise. This is probably fixable, but last time I checked it wasn't done.
3) I suspect it's unlikely that MS will agree to include WebP support in IE, maybe ever. Not having MS on board, given their market share, is problematic. It means lots more header/UA checks and double solutions for every use of WebP, possibly for a long time.
4) I haven't done extensive testing on this yet, but word is that WebP compression advantages fall off when an image gets larger than about 500x500 pixels. This might be why we see WebP perform a bit worse on the Tecnick image set (~1200x1200) than the Kodak set (~768x512) in my last study. This may also be impacting other peoples' tests. I'm curious to know more about this.
5) Users can't do much with WebP images today if they save them. As Facebook learned, this frustrates users. As this is a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem it's less important, but it is a consideration.
I also think that from a technology perspective we're already capable of doing much better than WebP, and I wonder if we can't do significantly better in a reasonable amount of time. We can't wait forever to ship something because the cutting edge is never quite ready, but WebP is pretty far from the cutting edge (e.g. HEVC). I would be a bit disappointed if after waiting 20+ years WebP is the best we can do for replacing JPEG. That said, moving the ball here is tough and I respect the WebP folks for trying to do so, getting as far as they have, and spurring action on the topic. I’m just not convinced WebP is enough yet.
I’ll mention Daala, since it sometimes comes up. The timeline for a potential Daala still-frame format is unclear. If this path were pursued, an encoder/decoder impl is probably significantly more than a year out. We’re not putting our eggs in this basket at this point, but it would be cool if it worked out. Working out means Daala has to perform as hoped, then we’d have to choose to pursue a still-frame format and spend engineering time on the necessary tools.
As for “alpha alone is worth it”… Alpha would be great, but I don’t agree, in part because anyone who used WebP for alpha would be creating more work for themselves because a non-WebP solution would still be needed. Firefox supporting WebP is not going to change the fact that a large number of users (most?) won’t be able to do anything with WebP (unless you want to use WebPJS, which you can use now).
I hope to do another image study some time in the next couple of months. It would include changes based on feedback from the last study, updated versions of encoders (including WebP 0.4), results for mozjpeg, and maybe some new metrics. As always, we’ll re-evaluate based on the new data. If WebP shows solid gains, and there is no hope for anything better in the near-to-mid term, I may change my position and I'll advocate that others do so as well.
For those who perceive that we aren’t paying enough attention to data people give us: We do pay as much attention as we can, but getting good data is complicated and doing a thorough analysis of reports takes a lot of time. We can’t afford to look at everything as deeply as we’d like to determine its validity. The best thing for us is to take notes on feedback and suggestions and integrate them into our own testing.
Looks great and runs smoothly on Media Player Classic Home Cinema. Stutters at several points on Firefox 28.Another test, this time suing the IrfanView batch conversion method from earlier.
http://a.pomf.se/rdcxvk.webm
Jesus Christ WOW, I knew there was a difference but this is just too much.Is this working???
REVEAL:
http://fat.gfycat.com/CarefreeNewHornet.webm
RETAIL:
http://fat.gfycat.com/FatalWhirlwindKissingbug.webm
ffmpeg -i your_gif.gif -c:v libvpx -crf 12 -b:v 500K output.webm
ffmpeg -i your_video.mkv -ss 00:00:10.000 -to 00:00:20.000 -c:v libvpx -crf 4 -b:v 1500K -vf scale=640:-1 -an output.webm
Result (15MB):ffmpeg.exe -i RESOGUN.mp4 -vf scale=960:-1 -ss 00:38.000 -to 00:43.500 -c:v libvpx-vp9 -qmax 20 -crf 0 -b:v 15M -an output.webm -psnr
Looks great and runs smoothly on Media Player Classic Home Cinema. Stutters at several points on Firefox 28.
This thread has made me switch from Safari to Chrome. And boy, this is awesome.
I would switch too but Chrome triggers discrete GPU on my MBP 2010 no matter what :/
Looks great and runs smoothly on Media Player Classic Home Cinema. Stutters at several points on Firefox 28.
Video format or MIME type not supported
Video can't be played because the file is corrupt
WebM's have stopped working for me embedded on GAF using the NeoGAF extension.
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/webm-for-neogaf/gcjkaaggachnbhepejjhfacpldjflffl
Browser: Chrome, non-beta
OS: Win 8.1
Has anyone else experienced this?
They were working fine until ~2 days ago.
You can turn this off through the flags screen for experimental features.
chrome://flags/
Most videos work fine, but some refuse to play, giving the following error messages -
Running Cyberfox 25.0.1 with the Greasemonkey script posted in the OP. Any ideas?
Until webm files can be embedded into safari on iOS then I will prefer GIFs.
Likewise. It's useless as is.
Apple/Microsoft would rather profit from their juicy MPEG patents.Likewise. It's useless as is.