• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

NeoGAF, welcome to .webm - the FUTURE (of burning out your CPU)

G

Gattsu25

Banned
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?
 
D

Durante

Member
Gattsu25 said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
C

Chev

Member
Gattsu25 said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
B

b&jy77VjiKn$#F

Member
ScepticMatt said:
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
Click to expand...

You're right, seems like I have another ffmpeg install on my pc or something. Typing "ffmpeg -version" will show that old ass version instead. I have to type "D:\folder\ffmpeg.exe -version" and it will show me the new version -.-

Now, where do I find that old ffmpeg and uninstall it for good.
ScepticMatt said:
That's the problem I'm trying to fix in chrome/VLC, it works everywhere else
Click to expand...
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.
 
G

Gattsu25

Banned
Durante said:
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.
Click to expand...
APNG would have never worked due to the 30+MB file size for images due to every frame effectively being an "I-frame".
Chev said:
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.
Click to expand...
WEBP can be either lossy or lossless, unless I am reading the Wikipedia entry wrong...


Google has proposed using WebP for animated images as an alternative to the popular GIF, citing the advantages of 24-bit color with transparency, combining frames with lossy and lossless compression in the same animation, and as well as support for seeking to specific frames.[15] They report a 64% reduction in file size for images converted from animated GIFs to lossy WebP, and a 19% reduction when converted to lossless WebP.​
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebP
 
R

RedShift

Member
In an ideal world we'd have both APNG and webm/webp.

APNG could replace GIFs for small cartoony images like smily GIFs or graphs/diagrams or whatever. Embedded WebMs/other HTML5 video could be for when people post GIFs that are basically videos like game footage or a clip from a TV show or something.

Would it be easy to update the Chrome/Firefox plugins so that they embed other video formats as well?
 
A

Alo81

Low Poly Gynecologist
Durante said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't think APNG is really viable with current internet situations. The files are way too big to be worthwhile. I really think WebM is a better substitute, provided we end up having good hosting options.
 
S

ScepticMatt

Member
I found the issue with two pass ffmpeg vp9 two pass encode.

In short, its key frames are missing or incompatible with webm.
The default behavior in chome with <video> tags is that it either doesn't show any video or stops after the first missing keyframe after showing artifacts.
If you open the developer tools (right-click->inspect elements), it shows "cancelled"
You could either try to remux it, or use dynamic streaming instead of <video> tags (with mse/DASH).
Frustratingly, I haven't found a workaround yet.
Source: http://ffmpeg.gusari.org/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1029&p=2461

Besides that, I did some efficiency tests using the first second of the mindblown clip.
(using -psnr options. results in YUV, higher is better)

Code: 
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

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.
edit: example webms (500k/5M/50M double pass VP8)
http://a.pomf.se/tmeuir.webm http://a.pomf.se/gcviju.webm http://a.pomf.se/epbbiv.webm

There is little quality difference between 5M and 50M, with the exception that 5M hides source macroblocking, while 50M preserves it.
 
B

b&jy77VjiKn$#F

Member
-SD- said:
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.
Click to expand...

I've already found the resolution. Don't worry about it.
ScepticMatt said:
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.
Click to expand...

Seems like it. What is even weirder is that the VP9 I made plays fine on my Chrome and MPC, but appears blocky/broken to others. Hmm.

To add that my VP9 is 2 pass encoding.
 
S

Servizio

I don't really need a tag, but I figured I'd get one to make people jealous. Is it working?
Is there any way to use webm or webp as a desktop background?

The only way I've found with webm's is to use VLC Player's "Set as wallpaper" setting, which is fairly clunky.

A scenario in which I could make my own desktop sized cinemagraphs in webp is what I have in mind.
 
K

-KRS-

Member
Speaking of WebP. Looking at bugzilla feature requests regarding it, it seems that Mozilla is rather against adopting it at all. The reason being that it's not good enough yet and perhaps will never be, according to mozilla devs. Kind of a lame position to have in my opinion. It wouldn't be the first time mozilla does something like that though. They also helped kill the JNG image format.

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=600919

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=856375

Here's a reply from the last link made last month by a mozilla dev:
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&#8217;s why I don&#8217;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&#8217;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&#8217;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&#8217;m just not convinced WebP is enough yet.

I&#8217;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&#8217;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&#8217;d have to choose to pursue a still-frame format and spend engineering time on the necessary tools.

As for &#8220;alpha alone is worth it&#8221;&#8230; Alpha would be great, but I don&#8217;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&#8217;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&#8217;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&#8217;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&#8217;t afford to look at everything as deeply as we&#8217;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.
Click to expand...
 
S

ScepticMatt

Member
What are webms?
webms are video files that uses a subset of the matroska container format with VP8/VP9 video and vorbis audio codec.
VP8 is the older codec, while VP9 is the new experimental codec.

Select Source:
-i <yourfile> Select Source video, use quotation marks if path contains spaces or special characters
examples:
-i input.gif if the source file is in the same folder as ffmpeg.exe
-i "C:\Users\Matt\Desktop\your video.mkv"

Optional filters:
-vf "<filter1>, <filter2>", use quotation marks for multiple filters
example: scaling filter. iw, ih for source image width, "-1" for preserving aspect ratio
-vf scale=iw/2:-1 (e.g. downscaling from 1080p to 960x540, or from UHD to 1080p)
-vf scale=500:-1 (e.g. downscaling to 500 pixels wide, preserving aspect ratio)

other filters can be found here: (e.g sharpening, frame rate conversion, fade in/out)
https://www.ffmpeg.org/ffmpeg-filters.html

Optional Start/Endpoint
-ss start-point
-to end-point
examples:
-ss 3 start at three seconds
-ss 02:15 start at two minutes 15 seconds)
-to 01:00:01.050 end at 1 hour, 1 second 15 milliseconds

Codecs:
-c:v libvpx VP8 video
-c:v libvpx-vp9 VP9 video
-c:a libvorbis vorbis audio
-c:a/-c:v copy copy original VP8/VP9/vorbis tracks
-an discard audio tracks

Bit rate:
-b:v video bit rate
-b:a audio bit rate, 200K default if not set
examples:
-b:a 192K
-b:v 500K
-b:v 5M

Quality control:
-q:a for audio conversion quality, overrides -b:a.
0-10, 3=default, 10=best
example:
-q:a 8

-crf for variable bit rate quantisation control , turns -b:v from constant into target bit rate
4-63 for VP8, 4=best
0-63 for VP9, 0=best

example:
-crf 4

-qmax, -qmin :eek:ptional to limit quantisation ranges crf can use, if crf alone doesn't work well enough.
For example, VP9 crf usually gives way to little bitrate for the first second of the video, so I recommend setting qmax
range from 0-64, lower=better
examples:
-qmin 0 -qmax 42

-psnr to measure compression quality
I found Y=40 to be a good target, obviously limited by the quality of the source
Y = luminance, U,V are the less important colour components
example:
LPSNR=Y:46.32 U:47.41 V:47.03


4chan examples:
ffmpeg -i your_gif.gif -c:v libvpx -crf 12 -b:v 500K output.webm
Click to expand...
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
Click to expand...

This is what I used for a conversion of the Resogun trailer, extremely difficult to compress.
So I trey overkill levels of bit rate on it. Result: LPSNR=Y:42.49 U:44.14 V:43.87
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
Click to expand...
Result (15MB):
http://a.pomf.se/kmuwxz.webm

That's it for now! I might cover two pass encoding for even higher quality later.
The full ffmpeg manual can be found here:
https://ffmpeg.org/ffmpeg-all.html
 
V

VisceralBowl

Member
So um, I used the script from earlier and I did everything. Once I am done with the audio option the console window just goes away and nothing actually happens. No processes are running and my CPU usage isn't changing.
 
G

Granadier

Is currently on Stage 1: Denial regarding the service game future
H

Herne

Member
Most videos work fine, but some refuse to play, giving the following error messages -

Video format or MIME type not supported
Click to expand...

Video can't be played because the file is corrupt
Click to expand...

Running Cyberfox 25.0.1 with the Greasemonkey script posted in the OP. Any ideas?
 
W

wilflare

Member
Granadier said:
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/
Click to expand...

I've tried but the trigger code seems to be hard coded to prevent Chrome from having issues with the NVIDIA discrete GPU on MBP 2010
 
Schrade

Schrade

Member
Herne said:
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?
Click to expand...

Cyberfox 28 is the latest version. Firefox only recently added support for VP9 in Firefox so you want to upgrade your Cyberfox.

For those that run Pale Moon, it hasn't been updated yet to support VP9.
 
S

StayDead

Member
Tobor said:
Likewise. It's useless as is.
Click to expand...

It's not useless, the internet is evolving and for the better, but Apple are pigheaded about things like this and as google developed the webm they won't support it.

It doesn't make webm useless, it's still better than gif and if they want to be pigheaded about it, just stop supporting their devices.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

The Xbox November Update Rolls Out Today | Connect to your Discord voice channels from your Xbox console
Hardware Platform
5
846
ReBurn replied
RetroArch 1.8.2 (and onwards)
2 3 4
192
40K
Teslerum replied
  • Locked
Tips for using NeoGAF
6 7 8 9 10
462
37K
Popstar replied
2015 Game Gifs/WebMs thread of WE NEED MORE RAM
2
56
19K
Seyavesh replied
STEAM | Discussion Thread - Everyone's favorite PC Platform
120 121 122 123 124
6K
1M
Pandemic replied
Top Bottom