• Google removes H.264 support from Chrome.
    45 replies, posted
[quote]The official codec for HTML5's video tag has been under debate ever since developers began adopting the new technology. A current standard, H.264 was a codec thought to be just perfect for use in the video tag, so perfect that Microsoft even announced Internet Explorer 9 will only support the codec for their HTML5 video tag. Google however has other plans for what codec will rise above the rest. Google will begin phasing out H.264 support in Chrome over the next couple of months, Product Manager Mike Jazayeri writes on the Chromium Blog. Chrome will instead support their own codec, WebM (VP8), and the outside Theora codec as both are "completely open codec technologies." The changes made to Chrome in the next few months will allow for support of these codecs simply via the HTML5 video tag. Reasoning behind removing H.264 from Chrome is that it, while playing "an important role in video," it is not truly an open codec like WebM or Theora technologies. H.264 was under fire last Fall for fears that people would be forced to pay royalties to use the codec. MPEG LA confirmed that H.264 will stay royalty-free to help create a standard for web video that all vendors could access with their mind at ease. Google apparently is not satisfied enough, and only wishes to support truly open technologies as a goal of the company is to "enable open innovation." The search giant wishes to keep everything as open as possible, and with H.264 having patents owned by Microsoft and Apple, Google did not see that as fitting for their open web.[/quote] Source: [url]http://www.neowin.net/news/google-removes-h264-support-in-chrome[/url] ------------------- Even though they're going to use WebM, I think they should still support H.264. H.264 is so popular and widely used I don't see this as a good thing. Plus from what I've read H.264 is a better codec (don't know if it actually is or not).
Good. A closed codec is crap.
Why not have it and not need it then need it and not have it?
I haven't noticed any difference.
Good. H.264 is clunky as shit. Many a time has an old PC cried because that abomination of a codec actually stressed their system.
H.264 is still the best compressing program right now. As far as the industry is concerned. It's incredibly complicated what it does, but even the dummies version of what it does is pretty cool.
I hope this doesn't mean we'll miss out on being able to watch videos online. Could support for the codec be added through a plug-in/extension?
Good. It's a horrible codec.
This is a good move. We only need one open, standard video codec on the web. WebM is definitely the way to go. [editline]12th January 2011[/editline] What I don't understand though is that Chrome has Flash built-in. You would think they'd stop coupling Flash with Chrome as well.
In Google I trust.
All the more reason HTML5 (specifically video tags) isn't ready. WebM > H.264
proves that fucking apple are still retards for not supporting flash, if people are phasing out h.264, where is the ipad gonna get video from now ?
[QUOTE=dude2193;27366433]proves that fucking apple are still retards for not supporting flash, if people are phasing out h.264, where is the ipad gonna get video from now ?[/QUOTE] Just because Google is phasing it out doesn't mean Apple will to. We could just end up with a clusterfuck of codec support. Or Apple could use WebM.
[QUOTE=Panda X;27366541]Just because Google is phasing it out doesn't mean Apple will to. We could just end up with a clusterfuck of codec support. Or Apple could use WebM.[/QUOTE] Doubt they will. The iPhone has hardware H2.64 decoding. WebM would have to be software, and would kill the CPU. In the end, the end user is fucked. Until either Apple or Google get their act together. But H2.64 with it's potential for royalties is cancer.
IE9 to the rescue! It better plug in to DirectShow to provide arbitrary support for every codec you could ever imagine.
[QUOTE=BmB;27367037]IE9 to the rescue! It better plug in to DirectShow to provide arbitrary support for every codec you could ever imagine.[/QUOTE] That would take too much intuitive on Microsoft's behalf, might aswell put it up there with "having tabs and address bar on separate levels"
Apple should start moving to WebM in their next product to keep up with their "open protocol and open standards" scheme.
[QUOTE=johan_sm;27366007]Good. A closed codec is crap.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=DireAvenger;27366069]Good. H.264 is clunky as shit.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Hypernova;27366233]Good. It's a horrible codec.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=MisterMooth;27366247]WebM is definitely the way to go.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=DogGunn;27366395]WebM > H.264[/QUOTE] lmao, look at these children who know nothing about video codecs. h.264 is a god-tier master race codec and this is impossible to disprove. webm tries to borrow concepts from it but fails horribly as it has lower quality per bitrate and is slower to encode.
[QUOTE=deloc;27367745]lmao, look at these children who know nothing about video codecs. h.264 is a god-tier master race codec and this is impossible to disprove. webm tries to borrow concepts from it but fails horribly as it has lower quality per bitrate and is slower to encode.[/QUOTE] Because backing up claims is for pussies.
[QUOTE=Cluckyx;27367759]Because backing up claims is for pussies.[/QUOTE] okay [url]http://www.compression.ru/video/codec_comparison/h264_2010/appendixes.html#Appendix_8[/url]
As closed and horrible as it is, It's still decently popular I don't believe this is a good move, I like to have my video's in chrome instead of having to download them.
[QUOTE=Cluckyx;27367759]Because backing up claims is for pussies.[/QUOTE] My most sincere apologies, sir, here's my pussy-style proof: [url]http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/archives/377[/url] [url]http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/archives/486[/url] [release]VP8, as a spec, should be a bit better than H.264 Baseline Profile and VC-1. It’s not even close to competitive with H.264 Main or High Profile. If Google is willing to revise the spec, this can probably be improved. VP8, as an encoder, is somewhere between Xvid and Microsoft’s VC-1 in terms of visual quality. This can definitely be improved a lot. VP8, as a decoder, decodes even slower than ffmpeg’s H.264. This probably can’t be improved that much; VP8 as a whole is similar in complexity to H.264. With regard to patents, VP8 copies too much from H.264 for comfort, no matter whose word is behind the claim of being patent-free. This doesn’t mean that it’s sure to be covered by patents, but until Google can give us evidence as to why it isn’t, I would be cautious. VP8 is definitely better compression-wise than Theora and Dirac, so if its claim to being patent-free does stand up, it’s a big upgrade with regard to patent-free video formats. VP8 is not ready for prime-time; the spec is a pile of copy-pasted C code and the encoder’s interface is lacking in features and buggy. They aren’t even ready to finalize the bitstream format, let alone switch the world over to VP8. With the lack of a real spec, the VP8 software basically is the spec–and with the spec being “final”, any bugs are now set in stone. Such bugs have already been found and Google has rejected fixes. Google made the right decision to pick Matroska and Vorbis for its HTML5 video proposal.[/release]
[QUOTE=deloc;27367745]lmao, look at these children who know nothing about video codecs. h.264 is a god-tier master race codec and this is impossible to disprove. webm tries to borrow concepts from it but fails horribly as it has lower quality per bitrate and is slower to encode.[/QUOTE] What a joke. You're comparing a codec that has been around for ages, to a brand new codec, which has much more support (in development). The source you provided was comparing the WebM codec when it was 3 weeks old. Since then, it has improved a lot. Give it some time, and you'll see why WebM is a better codec than H2.64. From your own source, which I'm guessing you didn't read too thoroughly. [quote]To date, WebM developers have focused on the VP8 decoder performance and are only starting to optimize the encoder for speed. The WebM project has only been underway for three weeks, and we believe that our encoder speed will improve significantly in the near future. [/quote] [editline]12th January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Max of S2D;27367798]My most sincere apologies, sir, here's my pussy-style proof: [url]http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/archives/377[/url] [url]http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/archives/486[/url][/QUOTE] Absolutely no bias there.................... there's no self interest in those comments is there?
Welp, back to Firefox.
[QUOTE=DogGunn;27367815]Since then, it has improved a lot.[/QUOTE] specs don't change much when reference implementations are being made. and if you actually read the technical specs of webm, you'd know it's inherently inferior to h.264.
[QUOTE=DogGunn;27367815]From your own source, which I'm guessing you didn't read too thoroughly. [quote]To date, WebM developers have focused on the VP8 decoder performance and are only starting to optimize the encoder for speed. The WebM project has only been underway for three weeks, and we believe that our encoder speed will improve significantly in the near future.[/quote] [/QUOTE] From your own source, which I'm guessing you didn't read too thoroughly either [quote]To date, WebM developers have focused on the VP8 [B]decoder performance[/B] and are only starting to [B]optimize the encoder for speed[/B]. The WebM project has only been underway for three weeks, and we believe that our [B]encoder speed[/B] will improve significantly in the near future.[/quote] It's about encoder speed, not the output itself. :wink: [QUOTE=DogGunn;27367815]What a joke. You're comparing a codec that has been around for ages, to a brand new codec, which has much more support (in development). The source you provided was comparing the WebM codec when it was 3 weeks old. Since then, it has improved a lot.[/QUOTE] The specifications of WebM are based on VP8, which is already outdated. It lacks a lot of features which significantly improve the compression ratio. [quote]Overall, VP8 appears to be significantly weaker than H.264 compression-wise. The primary weaknesses mentioned above are the lack of proper adaptive quantization, lack of B-frames, lack of an 8×8 transform, and non-adaptive loop filter. With this in mind, I expect VP8 to be more comparable to VC-1 or H.264 Baseline Profile than with H.264. Of course, this is still significantly better than Theora, and in my tests it beats Dirac quite handily as well. (...) [B]Google is not open to changing the spec: it is apparently “final”, complete with all its flaws.[/B][/quote]
[QUOTE=deloc;27367848]and if you actually read the technical specs of webm, you'd know it's inherently inferior to h.264.[/quote] How so?
[QUOTE=Max of S2D;27367860]-info-[/QUOTE] i knew vp8 was lacking some common compression features, but... b-frames? it's a joke codec already.
[QUOTE=Max of S2D;27367860]From your own source, which I'm guessing you didn't read too thoroughly either It's about encoder speed, not the output itself. :wink:[/QUOTE] Uhh, yeah, and? Just like how they can improve the encoder speed, they can improve the decoder. [QUOTE=Max of S2D;27367860]The specifications of WebM are based on VP8, which is already outdated. It lacks a lot of features which significantly improve the compression ratio.[/QUOTE] And H2.64 hasn't changed either.
[QUOTE=DogGunn;27367892]Uhh, yeah, and? Just like how they can improve the enconding speed, they can improve the decoding. And H2.64 hasn't changed either.[/QUOTE] what.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.