Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 13th Jan 2011 20:31 UTC
Internet & Networking And the fallout from Google's decision to drop H.264 support from its Chrome web browser continues to fall. Opera's Haavard - speaking on his own behalf - slammed the article which appeared on Ars Technica earlier today, while Micrsoft's Tim Sneath likened Google's move to the president of the United States banning English in favour of Esperanto. Also within, a rant (there's no other word for it) about the disrespect displayed by H.264 proponents towards the very open source community that saved and invigorated the web.
Permalink for comment 457788
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: My own opinion
by Jack Matier on Fri 14th Jan 2011 03:06 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: My own opinion"
Jack Matier
Member since:
2005-07-17

Maybe I'm missing something here, but are you actually wanting to *edit* in webM or just export it? I ask because I tend to see webM as an export format.

In my short stint of video editing (months, not years) I remember having to use a format that worked as close to the editor and the original as possible. Using another format would cause filters to be applied slowly and an inability to do live previewing/processing. For sharing you'd compress it eh?

Comparing this to the still images, I'd say it's the same way isn't it? You work with images as close to the original as possible but what people view is going to be different. No matter what you're going to lose information when you do a transference of mediums.

Talking as a consumer, it's rare where the video I want to consume actually requires me to see every pixel. Would it be sharper? Heck yes. Do I know the difference? Only in a theoretical sense. Besides, my consumer devices alter what I see so it, uh, "looks and sounds better".

But going back to still images example and bias. When a designer works with his/her high res image he/she has that image memorized in all it's fidelity. Every nuance of the image is captured perfectly. When it's compressed into a smaller format or a different colour space and etc etc to be frank it looks like crap - to the designer. The consumer gets to enjoy it on his $50 LCD screen with speakers picked up for a dollar from the next door neighbours garage sale. Do you see where I'm coming from?

I guess I'm trying to get into your shoes a bit more and experience your views.

Edited 2011-01-14 03:08 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 5