Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 55

Thread: VP9 Codec Now Enabled By Default In Chrome

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    906

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by powdigsig View Post
    This is so important for me that I just MUST comment!
    I use WebM, VP8 (the previous version) and if youtube won't play the video for me in WebM in Chromium I just ./youtube-dl -tf it down and then open with Totem/VLC and just enjoy
    VP9 sounds cool. So what version of Chrome/Chromium? Must be dev version, right? Now I use 27.x.(which I got from Alex Shkop's ppa)
    Quote Originally Posted by »John« View Post
    I absolutely hate DRM platforms and that's why I'm doing exactly the same thing. This extension even makes it extremely convenient
    Quote Originally Posted by madjr View Post
    so when will youtube switch fully to html5 ?
    If video has embedding enabled, change URL:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUVTCEeBrhM

    to

    http://www.youtube.com/embed/yUVTCEeBrhM

    ... and you are fully HTML5. No need for Flash, as you can still comment on video without Flash installed and watch content in HTML5 via this easy workaround.

    Embedded videos will always be served as HTML5.
    Youtube disables HTML5 in non-preview mode for A LOT of content, because they need to insert Ads and their Ads engine is not working on HTML5/WebM yet.
    So if OP has opt-in'ed for monetarisation, thus turned on the Ads, and then only Flash is allowed.

    You can also use extension (for Firefox; Chrome should have equivalents) such as Youtube Anywhere Player, that force HTML5.
    Last edited by brosis; 06-17-2013 at 01:41 PM.

  2. #22

    Default

    Hrm
    Code:
    git clone https://code.google.com/p/webm.libvpx/
    cd webm.libvpx
    ./configure
    make
    ./vpxenc birds.y4m -o vp9-test.webm -p 1 -t 12 --good --cpu-used=2 --end-usage=cq --cq-level=10 --target-bitrate=25000 --kf-min-dist=0 --kf-max-dist=360 --codec=vp9
    Resulting encode speed 1 minute per frame.

    Did I do something wrong?

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    germany
    Posts
    55

    Default

    so, google now creates "web standards" by publishing some new development version of their browser, say "this is now the final standard" and start using it on their own services?

    Thank you, Microsoft from the nineties, for being such a great role model.

    Not that i have any objections against having better codecs on the web, but the only purpose of developing software in this manner is to keep apple, mozilla, microsoft, etc from "catching up" with google's new "standard".

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    114

    Default

    Asking if VP9 is better than H264 is about as useless as asking if Linux is better than Windows or Mac OSX.

    If you don't care about freedom, fine, go get yourself a Mac, H264, MS Office, etc, you will be much happier.

  5. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dstaubsauger View Post
    so, google now creates "web standards" by publishing some new development version of their browser, say "this is now the final standard" and start using it on their own services?

    Thank you, Microsoft from the nineties, for being such a great role model.

    Not that i have any objections against having better codecs on the web, but the only purpose of developing software in this manner is to keep apple, mozilla, microsoft, etc from "catching up" with google's new "standard".
    Your claims are incorrect. VP9 has been published as a specification and even submitted to the MPEG (Not to be confused with MPEG-LA) standards committee. It is a fully open specification with a royalty free patent license.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    germany
    Posts
    55

    Default

    @RahulSundaram
    [...] Today also marks the day that the VP9 Bitstream is considered frozen.
    Please tell me how this is not "Google makes a standard by releasing the software".

  7. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dstaubsauger View Post
    @RahulSundaram


    Please tell me how this is not "Google makes a standard by releasing the software".
    You seem confused. Google doesn't get to declare any standards on its own. For something to be called a standard, it has to go through a standards body like ISO. VPx has been submitted to the MPEG standards committe but hasn't gone through the standardization process and it will take time. This is not something you want to rush.

    Google has published a reference implementation for VP9 a while back but they are finalizing the spec and releasing a reference implementation at the same time and this is not a uncommon thing for anyone publishing a new version of a codec. Ogg codecs have been published by Xiph in a similar manner. The spec is under an open royalty free license and the reference implementation is under free and open source license. What more do you want?

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,347

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hajj_3 View Post
    That won't happen. The "encrypted media extensions" html5 drm will be used for pay content like films, tv shows, live broadcasts etc on youtube and possibly music videos, possibly partner videos. The rest won't otherwise enormous numbers of people wouldn't be able to use youtube.
    Ok, and you're sure that won't happen because... what, Google says so? Well, that changes everything. Everyone knows we can ALWAYS trust big, multinational corporations, they NEVER go back on their word or have hidden ulterior motives...

    Google is one of the parties behind the HTML5 DRM plan. The whole thing is a scheme lobbied for by hollywood gatekeepers and media giants, who want to protect their "intellectual property". Mark my words, soon we'll see youtube videos that require DRM to play, because if the media giants demand that of Google... they'll pretty much have to give in.
    Last edited by dee.; 06-17-2013 at 04:56 PM.

  9. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dee. View Post
    Ok, and you're sure that won't happen because... what, Google says so? Well, that changes everything. Everyone knows we can ALWAYS trust big, multinational corporations, they NEVER go back on their word or have hidden ulterior motives...
    The more realistic reason is that DRM extensions in HTML 5 is better suited for ... DRM (duh) and Google has a commercial interest in an open video codec.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Vilnius, Lithuania
    Posts
    2,394

    Default

    Nice. I hope this will also be a part of the Lib-ray standard.

Posting Permissions

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