|
RZApublican posted:the best they could do with it right now is to convince mozilla to bake webp support into firefox, and considering firefox has supported webm since like day one I'm kind of surprised this hasn't happened yet actually the problem with webp is that i think it is still evolving. nobody wants to implement an unfinished standard.
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2013 06:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 12:48 |
|
|
and then I had sex with your dad. its hosed up, the unintended consequences of unfinished video codecs
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2013 14:09
|
|
|
Every one of you is a huge gay retard.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2013 14:38
|
|
|
not really sure anyone wants image formats that may be animated or not, most images should be static and ensuring that it is a jpeg/png achieves that easily the compression is also all-around unimpressive compared to other formats that have been suggested, and those all failed. we'll see, i wouldn't mind if it succeeded, but things are not looking good e: pretty neat blog post about an image format s.t. fmt:h264::webp:webm Cybernetic Vermin fucked around with this message at 14:51 on Mar 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2013 14:49
|
|
|
how would you explain animate gifs to someone in the past "It's like tv but no sound and worse. people spend all day looking at the fuckers" I guess you could compare them to those flip books but it'd be impossible to justify
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2013 16:35
|
|
|
webp is loving stupid and doesn't solve anything.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2013 16:39
|
|
|
slogsdon posted:how would you explain animate gifs to someone in the past animated gifs are nearly 25 years old JumpinJackFlash posted:webp is loving stupid and doesn't solve anything. it solves nerds' needs to have a lovely format they can complain isnt supported
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2013 18:34
|
|
|
slogsdon posted:I guess you could compare them to those flip books but it'd be impossible to justify this is exactly how you'd explain it. "imagine if people could take moving pictures for free and also send them by telegraph line to each-other for free and anonymously, why a magic box that has every flip book ever made, boy howdy"
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2013 18:44
|
|
|
The XKCD Larper posted:Every one of you is a huge gay retard.  my lifestyle
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2013 19:09
|
|
|
h.264 (in any supported container) would be best for moving images over 10fps. The idea of having one image format support it all does sound appealing, but then you would have hundreds of idiots going "what setting do i use hurrr" and every image looking terrible. That alone makes different formats for "picture" "graphic" "video" seem more viable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2013 20:06
|
|
|
i think you mean to say "gfx"
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2013 20:11
|
|
|
the concept of using h264 for video only, in a <video> tag, without controls is probably too much for the minds of web developers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2013 20:11
|
|
|
even if they could figure it out they'd still include and load their unused, 10 meg javascript controls on every page.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2013 20:12
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:animated gifs are nearly 25 years old good thing the past goes beyond 25 years back you nonce
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2013 20:12
|
|
|
pagancow posted:That alone makes different formats for "picture" "graphic" "video" seem more viable. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2013 20:16
|
|
|
slogsdon posted:good thing the past goes beyond 25 years back you nonce well if you want be all like that, short boring silent low res videos are 120 years old
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2013 20:21
|
|
|
fishmech'd again
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2013 20:23
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:even if they could figure it out they'd still include and load their unused, 10 meg javascript controls on every page.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2013 21:47
|
|
|
thumbs up if you are rendering rite now
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2013 21:47
|
|
|
 get ur cuda on
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2013 22:10
|
|
|
I just learned today that many of Disney's movies were done at 1.66 aspect ratio (between 16x9 and 4:3) because their CAPS animation system basically maxed out there. #woah
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2013 21:58
|
|
|
not sure how i feel about aspect ratio chat in this thread about video codecs
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2013 23:02
|
|
|
video codecs have metadata flags for pixel aspect ratio and display aspect ratio. it gets a pass from me
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2013 00:46
|
|
|
lol @ non-square pixels
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2013 00:50
|
|
|
You are dead to me if you hand me an anamorphic source material with no DAR metadata flag.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2013 00:52
|
|
|
longview posted:lol @ non-square pixels
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2013 01:20
|
|
|
my 720p plasma has non square pixels. it can also accept a 1080p signal and even looks not that bad at that resolution. thanks for reading my post
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2013 01:28
|
|
|
for that dude who wanted to know why wavelets are hot poo poo: basically the basis functions for wavelets are localized in time and frequency but the sinusoids in the Fourier transform are only localized in frequency which means you can a) get rid of macroblocks b) can represent discontinuities better depending on your wavelet choice theoretically they are better than the dct at more or less everything (and you can calculate the DWT in O(N) time if you are clever) HOWEVER the FFT is well understood and well optimized so the speed thing really doesn't mean much because wavelets overlap motion estimation and poo poo is apparently super hard to SIMD optimize, at least according to the dude who wrote x264 turns out that JPEG2000 wasn't that big of a success so who knows. apparently RED uses a wavelet codec, and the BBC has one in development
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2013 01:30
|
|
|
same
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2013 01:35
|
|
|
holy poo poo I borrowed some friend's colorimeter and it somehow made my display worse. It's like someone turned the color saturation to 70% and decreased the contrast so my blacks are now greys and somehow the yospos report/quote buttons are now a yellow-green compared to everything else here. And then I ran it on the built-in LCD and it did the exact opposite.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2013 01:40
|
|
|
You probably want to use a spectrophotometer, not a colorimeter, especially if you have a new-ish display.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2013 01:47
|
|
|
Malcolm XML posted:turns out that JPEG2000 wasn't that big of a success so who knows. apparently RED uses a wavelet codec, and the BBC has one in development JPEG200 is not a success due to licensing and only minor improvements in compression. Dirac from the beeb is wavelet based video compression which they contracted out a vendor to implement hardware devices for for all internal video routing. First use in the Beijing Olympics I think. Beyond that not forgetting there is fractal compression which is very compute intensive, produces better compression rates and has a nice blurry artifact when scaling. There was Fractal Image Format (FIF) back in the late 90's, and I believe some US government agencies used it for ISDN based video conferencing at very low bit rates.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2013 01:50
|
|
|
pagancow posted:please tell me you do color space conversions correctly if you have to display one source at a different color space. we do a gamma operation to linearize the color values, then convert to another space using a matrix operation, then do another gamma calculation to get to the final color space lots of extra precision in the matrix operation to ensure you get the same precision at the output that you started with all the gamma curves and matrix coefficients are programmable and I think that's about as good as you can do it, its in a graphics accelerator so you can set it all in the driver
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2013 02:31
|
|
|
kwinkles posted:we do a gamma operation to linearize the color values, then convert to another space using a matrix operation, then do another gamma calculation to get to the final color space 
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2013 03:16
|
|
|
Jimmy Carter posted:holy poo poo I borrowed some friend's colorimeter and it somehow made my display worse. sRGB is pretty desaturated compared to what most modern LCDs can do. as designed If you can, just profile your monitor, and calibrate just the white point at 6500K. Appliations that are color managed will still display "correct colors" while everything else will still look about the same.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2013 03:16
|
|
|
how do you feel about that f.lux app
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2013 03:34
|
|
|
longview posted:lol @ squares me in 1955 (a kewl guy) (•_•) ( •_•)>⌐■-■ (⌐■_■)
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2013 03:35
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:how do you feel about that f.lux app owns for ur eyes. turn it off when working with color sensitive poo poo
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2013 04:03
|
|
|
MrMoo posted:Beyond that not forgetting there is fractal compression which is very compute intensive, produces better compression rates and has a nice blurry artifact when scaling. There was Fractal Image Format (FIF) back in the late 90's, and I believe some US government agencies used it for ISDN based video conferencing at very low bit rates. I remember getting so very excited when I heard about this. Bitmaps! Fractals! Resolution independent! Zoom without pixelation! it hit all the right points to capture my imagination. then it came out but was wrapped up in so many patents that it was impossible to find a version so you could try it yourself
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2013 04:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 12:48 |
|
|
Jim Silly-Balls posted:owns for ur eyes. turn it off when working with color sensitive poo poo yes, lets look at a picture that looks different depending on what some programmer who doesn't understand why we have colorspaces change your whitepoint all the time
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2013 04:30
|
|