Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 32

Thread: Mozilla Firefox Enables VP9 Video Codec By Default

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,162

    Default

    Quote 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.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,739

    Default

    Quote 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.

  3. #13

    Default

    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.

  4. #14

    Default

    Quote 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.

  5. #15

    Default

    Quote 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.

  6. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 89c51 View Post
    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.
    Yes, Google has been extremely stupid about video codecs, they'll defend VP8/9 in court against the MPEG-LA but do absolutely nothing to force it's adoption even though they easily can force it on pretty much all Android and Chromebook hardware because if that hardware is using a DSP for video codecs then it's a firmware update away from supporting VP8 if it is already capable of supporting H.264.

    That said, even though I'm in the Youtube HTML5 trial and 99% of videos I've tried have a VP8 version available Youtube still demands that I install Flash to view it in page, hence why I always tell people about Flashgot to just up and download it, the VP8 content is there, but Google would rather you install Flash for advertisement purposes rather then push their codec...

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    127.0.0.1
    Posts
    112

    Smile

    Quote Originally Posted by Kivada View Post
    That said, even though I'm in the Youtube HTML5 trial and 99% of videos I've tried have a VP8 version available Youtube still demands that I install Flash to view it in page, hence why I always tell people about Flashgot to just up and download it, the VP8 content is there, but Google would rather you install Flash for advertisement purposes rather then push their codec...
    [offtopic]https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-all-html5/[/offtopic]

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    780

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 89c51 View Post
    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.
    People don't change format if the other format does not offer any new capabilities. That is why it was useless to push vp8 against h264, which was the de facto standard. But you can see vp8 as a real life test.
    Now there is a new generation of codecs, and there will be a change of old gen to nex gen. And this time vp9 does not lag behind in adoption, so it makes sense to push it at last.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    210

    Default

    Great, just FOUR months until the feature shows up in Stable.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    299

    Default

    Quote 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.
    did you noticed that it hasn't yet a stable full feature implementation? why should anybody use it if it wasn't ready yet? your whol argumentation is absurd. the. standard has just been finished so it is no wonder that it hasn't been used yet.
    In other words Google doesn't give a fuck at the moment.
    because google doesn't give a fuck they fought as hell to get it finished and free for all, and hurried to come up with afast and stable first reference implementaion that is usable.

    *sigh*

    you argue that a codec that just apeared on the game field has not much use... >.>

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •