Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mozilla Firefox Enables VP9 Video Codec By Default

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Mozilla Firefox Enables VP9 Video Codec By Default

    Phoronix: Mozilla Firefox Enables VP9 Video Codec By Default

    As of yesterday there's now mainline support for using Google's VP9 video codec within the Firefox web-browser...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTUzODA

  • #2
    As Michael would put it "Version 28 of Firefox will shape up to be a very nice release." I'm really looking forward. Most likely will hit around mid February.

    Comment


    • #3
      Bloat.

      Nobody uses VP9 and no one cares. Mozilla removed the MNG decoder, which has the actual benefit to offer what GIF does but better (>256 colors, alpha channel), because 200kB or so were “too big”.

      Comment


      • #4
        Is VP9 royalty-free?

        Well, I just read these news here and searched more about VP9. What wikipedia says:

        "Although Google has irrevocably released all of its patents on VP8 as a royalty-free format, the MPEG LA, licensors of the H.264 patent pool, have expressed interest in creating a patent pool for VP8. Conversely, other researchers cite evidence that On2 made a particular effort to avoid any MPEG LA patents. As a result of the threat, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) started an investigation in March 2011 into the MPEG LA for its role in possibly attempting to stifle competition. In March 2013, MPEG LA announced that it had reached an agreement with Google to license patents that "may be essential" for the implementation of the VP8 codec, and give Google the right to sub-license these patents to any third-party user of VP8 or VP9."

        source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebM

        Question: is VP9 'free' with 'some parts patented' or not? Is this good for firefox? If it's not there's no advantage for firefox change H.264 for VP9, I think...

        Comment


        • #5
          VP8/9 are free, probably google paid an amount of money to mpeg-la to compensate for eventual patents originally needed by them (but nobody know since the agreement was kept secret, someone also speculated that h.264 infringed vp8 patents). There is no evidence VP8/9 infringe other patents (at least for now), so it is free for Firefox and everyone else.

          Comment


          • #6
            The problem still is that nobody uses them on the web. Neither are popular in HW decoding chips.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by 89c51 View Post
              The problem still is that nobody uses them on the web. Neither are popular in HW decoding chips.
              VP9 is "next gen" and I would guess it has just as much usage on the internet these days as its competitor, h.265.

              VP8 was too late to make an impact, but VP9 has an opportunity as its atleast at the starting line around the correct time.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by 89c51 View Post
                The problem still is that nobody uses them on the web.
                Originally posted by Awesomeness View Post
                Nobody uses VP9 and no one cares.
                The biggest player on the web - YouTube - is starting to use it: http://www.youtube.com/html5 . Chrome already support it.

                No surprise anyway it still not widely used, since the format was finalized only few months ago, there is no stable release library (1.2 has a slow and buggy implementation, 1.3 with full support should be released soon) and software is starting to support it now.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by oibaf View Post
                  The biggest player on the web - YouTube - is starting to use it: http://www.youtube.com/html5 . Chrome already support it.

                  No surprise anyway it still not widely used, since the format was finalized only few months ago, there is no stable release library (1.2 has a slow and buggy implementation, 1.3 with full support should be released soon) and software is starting to support it now.
                  Youtube uses h264 in most if not all cases. In my gstreamer enabled FF it uses that. With no gstreamer enabled it used webm for the videos that played (there were some that didn't). And don't even get me started on what happens with monetized videos.

                  In other words Google doesn't give a fuck at the moment. Neither HW manufacturers. Ie are these codecs HW accelerated in your new AMD/nVidia card.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by 89c51 View Post
                    Youtube uses h264 in most if not all cases. In my gstreamer enabled FF it uses that. With no gstreamer enabled it used webm for the videos that played (there were some that didn't). And don't even get me started on what happens with monetized videos.
                    Indeed, VP9 + MSE + DRM should finally be enough to replace H.264 and flash both in quality and features.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by 89c51 View Post
                      Youtube uses h264 in most if not all cases. In my gstreamer enabled FF it uses that. With no gstreamer enabled it used webm for the videos that played (there were some that didn't). And don't even get me started on what happens with monetized videos.

                      In other words Google doesn't give a fuck at the moment. Neither HW manufacturers. Ie are these codecs HW accelerated in your new AMD/nVidia card.
                      YouTube uses H264 -> yes, because only Chrome supports VP9 right now, and the encoder is not good enough yet for mass re-encoding of all videos

                      monetized videos -> a few weeks ago, for the first time ever, YouTube supported HTML5 for monetized/premium/popular channels, it just came automatically, I didn't even activate the HTML5 test. Not sure when they will rollout that to more people

                      Google doesn't give a fuck -> yes, clearly the future of video doesn't interest a company owning YouTube and investing 300 million into a codec at all

                      HW manufactures don't give a fuck -> yes, earlier this year VP9 was only delayed for fun and not because several hardware partners requested some changes in the bitstream due to implementation problems. Also the reference hardware decoder for VP9 is still being finalized

                      But clearly, VP9 is too late because all websites are showing HEVC/H265 video at the moment.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by d2kx View Post
                        YouTube uses H264 -> yes, because only Chrome supports VP9 right now, and the encoder is not good enough yet for mass re-encoding of all videos

                        monetized videos -> a few weeks ago, for the first time ever, YouTube supported HTML5 for monetized/premium/popular channels, it just came automatically, I didn't even activate the HTML5 test. Not sure when they will rollout that to more people

                        Google doesn't give a fuck -> yes, clearly the future of video doesn't interest a company owning YouTube and investing 300 million into a codec at all

                        HW manufactures don't give a fuck -> yes, earlier this year VP9 was only delayed for fun and not because several hardware partners requested some changes in the bitstream due to implementation problems. Also the reference hardware decoder for VP9 is still being finalized

                        But clearly, VP9 is too late because all websites are showing HEVC/H265 video at the moment.
                        While vp9 is new we have vp8 for quite some time and noone has been giving a fuck about it. Remind me if google used its power (ie youtube) to promote webm and give it more presence.

                        Monetized videos sometimes play but its probably because someone forgets to flip a switch preventing to do so or they are testing something. Soon after they finish what they do you get the This needs flash message.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          The real question is whether Google can get Adobe to use it as the default codec in all of their web products. As much as I hate to say it, their tools are still the standard bearers for much of the larger web development community.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by rudregues View Post
                            Well, I just read these news here and searched more about VP9. What wikipedia says:

                            "Although Google has irrevocably released all of its patents on VP8 as a royalty-free format, the MPEG LA, licensors of the H.264 patent pool, have expressed interest in creating a patent pool for VP8. Conversely, other researchers cite evidence that On2 made a particular effort to avoid any MPEG LA patents. As a result of the threat, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) started an investigation in March 2011 into the MPEG LA for its role in possibly attempting to stifle competition. In March 2013, MPEG LA announced that it had reached an agreement with Google to license patents that "may be essential" for the implementation of the VP8 codec, and give Google the right to sub-license these patents to any third-party user of VP8 or VP9."

                            source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebM

                            Question: is VP9 'free' with 'some parts patented' or not? Is this good for firefox? If it's not there's no advantage for firefox change H.264 for VP9, I think...
                            It's not really a new codec, just an extension for 4K content.

                            VP9 and H.265 are extensions of the current VP8 and H.264 respectively for 4K resolutions, when you are dealing with 8.3MPixel of 4K content versus the 2.1MPixel content at 1080p there are allot more things you can tweak to use a lower bitrate and the required 10 bit color gamut of 4K video and still get a better end result from your encode then you do with current methods and only 1080p resolution to work with.

                            Firefox isn't going to be swapping out anything since these modded codecs are for like I said, very high resolution content, VP8 and H.264 will still be the preferred codecs for 1080p and under content

                            I don't have Flash installed but use Flashgot on Youtube all the time to purposefully download videos in VP8, if I get a 4K display I'll start downloading VP9 content from them as well.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by 89c51 View Post
                              Youtube uses h264 in most if not all cases. In my gstreamer enabled FF it uses that. With no gstreamer enabled it used webm for the videos that played (there were some that didn't). And don't even get me started on what happens with monetized videos.

                              In other words Google doesn't give a fuck at the moment. Neither HW manufacturers. Ie are these codecs HW accelerated in your new AMD/nVidia card.
                              In my experience 99% of the videos on Youtube also have a VP8 version already available no matter what the HTML5 player says.

                              Install Flashgot if you don't believe me, it'll list all versions of the video available on Youtube's servers in all quality levels.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X