Linked by Brooss on Tue 15th Mar 2011 23:32 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 466330
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Things we already knew about
by 1c3d0g on Wed 16th Mar 2011 05:21
in reply to "RE[2]: Things we already knew about"
RE[4]: Things we already knew about
by Eugenia on Wed 16th Mar 2011 06:17
in reply to "RE[3]: Things we already knew about"
>people like you who refuse to move to something better
The benchmark article proved that it's not "something better". As for closed minded, I suggest you read more of my anti-MPEGLA articles, general copyright, media articles, etc etc, here on osnews and on my blog, before you blatantly troll here by declaring me "closed minded".
If anything, by being an developer, an ex-tech reviewer/journalist, and a current filmmaker (with quite some following for my tutorials), I have way more visibility than you have on the matter. Just because you'd like a proprietary technology to fail for philosophical reasons doesn't mean that it will. I WANT THE SAME THING YOU DO. But it won't freaking happen.
RE[3]: Things we already knew about
by Neolander on Wed 16th Mar 2011 06:28
in reply to "RE[2]: Things we already knew about"
RE[3]: Things we already knew about
by smitty on Wed 16th Mar 2011 06:37
in reply to "RE[2]: Things we already knew about"
Youtube's quality sucks. It's visibly soft on my HDTV (watching its HD videos via my Roku).
Sure, but you said no video sites could use it. Obviously the biggest and most important one can.
And youtube doesn't use webm for normal usage, it's only used as a last resort, if h.264/flash is not found.
That's because it's in beta. Or don't you think that in 12 months or so they'll flip the switch and have FF/Chrome/IE9 with WMF codec default to the WebM page and have the Flash/h.264 there as a backup for mobile and older browsers? I don't think they spent all that time re-encoding their entire back library just on a whim, or as a backup. They're going to do something with that.
RE[3]: Things we already knew about
by Beta on Wed 16th Mar 2011 11:07
in reply to "RE[2]: Things we already knew about"
>Note that Youtube is already encoding everything in VP8, so apparently it is good enough for them.
Youtube's quality sucks. It's visibly soft on my HDTV (watching its HD videos via my Roku). Vimeo is way better, about 25% better. And youtube doesn't use webm for normal usage, it's only used as a last resort, if h.264/flash is not found.
Youtube's quality sucks. It's visibly soft on my HDTV (watching its HD videos via my Roku). Vimeo is way better, about 25% better. And youtube doesn't use webm for normal usage, it's only used as a last resort, if h.264/flash is not found.
The quality of Vimeo does not matter, as when you visit their site in a Flash-free Firefox 4, you see a download link for Safari... seriously.
Some video is better than no video.





Member since:
2005-06-28
>Note that Youtube is already encoding everything in VP8, so apparently it is good enough for them.
Youtube's quality sucks. It's visibly soft on my HDTV (watching its HD videos via my Roku). Vimeo is way better, about 25% better. And youtube doesn't use webm for normal usage, it's only used as a last resort, if h.264/flash is not found.