Since WebP will never get adopted on 4chan because herosheema is busy watching chinese cartoons then I propose we bring back the WebP hack back from the dead. It will also cuck apple users into converting the files into images on their fagbook to use them as a bonus.
Hack:for %f IN (*.png) DO ffmpeg -loop 1 -i "%~nf.png" -an -c:v libvpx -qmin 20 -quality best -threads 4 -t 4 -r 4 "%~nf.webm"
The hack basically uses the WebM container to store a VP8 video stream with a duration of 4 seconds of a still image. Why a 4 second image? Well it turns out if you just store a single frame it will loop infinitely and cause your CPU to burst into flames.
>>54866820
>Well it turns out if you just store a single frame it will loop infinitely and cause your CPU to burst into flames.
u wot m8?
You can change the output quality of the WebM by modifying the -qmin parameter. 4 means near-lossless and 63 means super shitty quality.
>>54866820
![[DANGER].webm](https://i.imgur.com/F2D3JUA.jpg "[DANGER].webm")
>>54866841
See for yourself. WebM related is just a png converted to a webm without all the special parameters.
>>54866887
>680x641
>2.83MB
lmao what did you do?
>>54866820
iCucks and tumblrinas on suicide watch
-qmin 63test
>>54866930
Cool
>>54866930
>lmao what did you do?
Perhaps you should play the video.
>>54866966
>>54866820
FYI: qmin sets the lower bound of quality, qmax sets the upper bound of quality (quantization factor). You're also wasting data running above 1 fps.
>>54866976
All I get is a still image playing 500 frames in one second. How did you manage to get the file size to 2.83MB? Is every frame different or are they the same?
Because if they are all the same than VP8 is pretty fucking dumb, why would it encode 500 frames separately when the first one is the one used in all the other frames?
>>54867012
>FYI: qmin sets the lower bound of quality, qmax sets the upper bound of quality (quantization factor).
I know, I just want VP8 to use specific QF to control output quality and file size.
>You're also wasting data running above 1 fps.
I'm afraid running below 4 fps will cause CPU usage spikes though. No point in this WebP hack if it fucking obliterates your CPU.
Anybody know what the max 4chin WebM resolution is?
I think I dun goofed. Is there anyway to control the quality precisely beside providing the -qmin and -qmax parameters? Seems like a fucking drag to have to type out both of them. -crf doesn't seem to affect over all final quality/file size.
Testing 1200x1600 res WebM
>>54866820
When the fuck is VP9 support getting added?
>>54867112
try the same maximum as normal images and merge sort from there.
>>54867205
-b:v 100M
the number being the bitrate in K/M/G etc
>>54867269
Thanks!
I'm kinda curious -t 1 -r 1 doesn't work?
I'm too lazy to sit down and do A/B testing so someone just lay it out for me straight; are the VP9 streams on youtube actually better quality than the H.264 streams? The VP9 streams use a much lower bitrate so I would think they're equal or maybe even worse.
>>54867287
just leave out the -r
>>54867287
>>54867289
>I'm too lazy to sit down and do A/B testing so someone just lay it out for me straight; are the VP9 streams on youtube actually better quality than the H.264 streams?
Yes, modern VP9 btfo H264 at the same bitrate. It is however more CPU intensive than HEVC though. Wish more HW support would exist for it.
>>54867345
Okay
>>54867385
I think large short static webms are probably a bad deal.
post your whole line.
>>54867385
That somehow made it worse, lmao
>>54867394
ffmpeg -c:v libvpx -qmin 0 -qmax 0 -quality best -t 1 "%~n1.webm"
>>54867445
replace qmin qmax and quality with -b:v 100K
2048x2048 WebM test
2048x2048 confirmed as max WebM res, nothing bigger than that will upload.
![[HorribleSubs] Anne Happy - 01 [720p].mkv_snapshot_19.35_[2016.06.01_17.04.26] (2).png](https://i.imgur.com/L4BjnSz.png "[HorribleSubs] Anne Happy - 01 [720p].mkv_snapshot_19.35_[2016.06.01_17.04.26] (2).png")
>>54867459
The main thing is I'm trying to get something that is as close to the original file as possible. That single frame webm is 1/5th the size of the original but its very close to visually identical from what I can tell.
>>54867511
Actually I'm pretty sure that's said in the /wsg/ sticky.
It also has a lot of ffmpeg tips, everyone go there.
>>>/wsg/welcome
OP here something bad happen gtg, sorry
Doesn't seem to do anything to my CPU, just kinda ramps up the usage but it just goes up and down like normal
Now what's it have to do with apple users?
>>54867637
iOS doesn't support vpx
>>54867637
>Doesn't seem to do anything to my CPU, just kinda ramps up the usage but it just goes up and down like normal
This causes unnecessary stress on the CPU.
>Now what's it have to do with apple users?
aplel users can't save webms.
>>54867648
You can still open them in vlc or safari but it's an annoying chore to have to do for every webm you encounter. This is partly why I sold my iphone 6 and got and android phone instead.
>>54867498
>tfw I can view this in clover with 0 problems
I like this hack. Maybe it will help keep more redditors out of 4chan.
>>54867038
The video is 6144fps
http://xooyoozoo.github.io/yolo-octo-bugfixes/#fruits&webp=s&bpg=s
BPG is superior, but I agree. WebP is better than JPEG.
>>54867385
1min load avg on a dual core got to 0.99
nice work
this is a fucking terrible hack and you should feel disgusted for seriously suggesting this
>>54867904
Hiroshima won't allow webp, what else are we supposed to do?
>>54867873
BPG isn't free
>>54868020
Neither is JPEG or h.264
>>54867498
>2048x2048
>loads instantly
why can't we have webp?
>>54867970
Use PNG or JPEG
>click on webm to expand it
>it starts loading and quickly fades out to black
>it then fades back in with a darkened overlay
>right click -> hit play
>it now fades in but with the wrong colors and while consuming shittons of CPU
webm for still images is truly the future
>>54868076
There's no support on it for iOS at all. I think this is the main reason why 4chan is holding back. If everyone switched to webp overnight all iOS users would be left in the dark. Who knows, maybe tim cuck is paying 4chan from supporting webp too.
>>54868118
Thats actually your browser doing that.
Get a better browser.
>>54868123
No one uses iOS here except for like 10 faggots that don't matter.
>>54868123
>If everyone switched to webp overnight all iOS users would be left in the dark.
And Firefox
but both would be patched instantly since now the whole internet is using webp
>>54868131
Firefox supports webp.
>>54868118
You're using an iPhone user aren't cha? :^)
>>54868180
... the cuck assumed loudly, as he flaunted his botnet status
>>54868148
It supports vpx, it cannot open webp images directly because it doesn't understand the container format. If you convert them to webm then it can read them
>>54868180
>browsing /g/ on a phone
summer sure is here
can't wait for you fuckers to have some classes to attend to again
>>54868118
forgot to add it
>open “image” in new tab for closer inspection
>can't just zoom in or out as normal, always scales down to browser size
just no
>>54868202
wew lad. Glad I started using Chrome a year ago, Firefox is a fat feminist train wreck.
>>54868221
>proud user of the botnet that doesn't even hide the fact that it openly spies on its users
stay bluepilled cuck
>>54868202
Yeah my bad didn't know he meant an image.
You know Firefox is truely fucked when webkit-gtk starts to have better support.
>>54868227
>enjoys using a web browser taken over by feminists
>calls me a cuck
What does it look like for iphone users?
>>54868268
who gives a shit?
>caring about apple, ever
>>54868206
I'm actually a college dropout working as a plumber but k
>>54868260
>implying enjoyment
I don't enjoy using firefox, it's just the least shit option in a cesspool of ridiculously shitty browsers
out of the box, firefox is a piece of garbage, but unlike chrome you can actually install enough addons and make enough about:config tweaks to turn it into something that can remotely be considered a browser
can't say that for anything else
>>54868268
ex-iphone user here: you have to open each of these webms individually in safari or vlc.
>>54866820
Why do you call this a webp hack, when it has almost nothing to do with webp?
Webp would be fucking glorious for animations.
moot was a retard for implementing webm, and then going out of his way to remove sound in them, when webp only supports video.
A huge problem I have with webm is that if I try to seek in the video while it's still loading, even if I'm seeking into a period that's been loaded, the video freezes completely until the whole thing is loaded.
o-oh
>>54867373
It's not more intensive for decoding, VP9 is less complex than h265
libvpx is still slower than x265 though, encoding still takes ages
>>54867385
chrome works fine on my laptop
>>54872262
It's not a problem when you open it in a separate tab but when you open it inside the thread it causes the cpu to panic.
>>54866930
I opened it, but nothing serious happend (a little more cpu load than ususal (at maximum it was 25% on a quad core system)).
Does this only affect a specific browser engine?
>>54873742
Maybe, cpu usage goes to like 80% when I open the webm inside the thread on firefox. Never used any other browser so I don't know how other browsers behave.
Still we should stick to OPs parameters just to be safe.
>>54873770
I tried epiphany on linux (uses webkit) and there was no lag. I even opened multiple of the previous webms and still no lag (but then the CPU usage was like 50% but not more than that)
>>54866820
Fuck off with this shit you stupid niggers. It's lossy and it acts like a fucking video player.
Holy shit, look at that file size.
>>54873844
>>54867385
>>54867352
>>54866820
>and cause your CPU to burst into flames
I don't get it (hurr I'm dum) why would this be a problem? It's just a video. Are people to stupid to see that it's a video? Don't they see the pause/play button or look at the extension (but that could be changed (It's still a vide if you calll it .png.penis.lel.kek.hack.lol))?
>>54873884
>why would this be a problem?
Because when you open it in a browser it will auto-loop that same frame over and over again infinitely. This will cause pointless stress on the CPU and overall slow the users computer with no benefit whatsoever. Yes you can stop this by hitting pause but it's a fucking pain to do and using OPs parameters ensure that no significant CPU resources are used even when the video auto-loops every 4 seconds.
>>54874206
Follow OPs parameter settings you nigger. All that looping is gonna set my laptop on fire.
>>54866930
Did this on Firefox.
It wasn't unresponsive or anything, but it did use a fair bit of power.
Testing webm with -qmin and -qmax of 63 with-filter:v unsharp=luma_msize_x=7:luma_msize_y=7:luma_amount=2.5added in.
>>54874415
Holy shit that actually looks okay. Gonna try this with a higher res image.
>>54874401
Or, in webm if I must.
>>54874009
>>54874206
I have also openend the "poop.webm" in a webkit based browser (also epiphany, like >>54873800) but it didn't stress my cpu much. No lag and my laptop is "old" (ca. 2011)
>>54874503
As for the rate/time thing.
This is 2s at 1fps and it doesn't add significant load when open.
I think so long as your video has more than one frame, firefox is happy.
The thing here being that the file is smaller (half IIRC) that way.
>>54874503
>>54874507
It's funny to see so many germans using this imageboard lately (I noticed it in other threads as well (screenshots or file names))
Testing another webm with same parameters as >>54874415
This is pretty cool. Maybe I should join YIFY.
>>54874529
Not all browsers will behave the same so for the sake of compatibility we should stick to OPs parameters.
Testing Webm with-t 2 -r 1
Tell me if this stresses out your CPU guys.
>>54874550
OPs parameters result in a nearly doubled filesize.
That's all well and good, but if the parameters I provided work in Chrome as well, that's pretty much every browser happy with it.
This is essentially a kludge until webp is properly supported on channel 4 anyway.
>>54874612
almost no difference (only a little bit more)
>>54874634
For reference this is with OPs parameters.
>>54874612
No but this>>54866887 does
>>54874503
Now gonna post equivalent jpegs.
This one is the same size as the 2s/1fps webm I posed.
>>54874714
This one is the same size as OPs spec (4s/4fps)
>>54874634
>OPs parameters result in a nearly doubled filesize.
False. going from-t 4 -r 4to-t 2 -r 1only reduces file size by ~20%
see >>54874535 and >>54874612
Still if-t 2 -r 1doesn't cause much unnecessary cpu usage then it should be used instead.
>>54866887
this ones the only one that works for me, up to like 53% cpu usage
I don't understand the point of this
>>54874741
I was referring to the image I posted.
The first was to my spec, (60,3kB) and the second was to OPs spec (101,8kB).
Not double, but much more than 20%.
When I say OPs spec, I mean I literally copied his arguments verbatim.
>>54874773
Super tiny images with file sizes for about the same quality as a JPG image 2-5X as big.
>>54874818
*super tiny image file sizes
>>54874773
Annoying most nonfreetards on the board.
>>54874850
>Annoying most nonfreetards on the board.
Especially icucks.
>>54866887
It says it's one second long buts it's playing longer.
Testing high res image withfor %f IN (*.jpg) DO ffmpeg -loop 1 -i "%~nf.jpg" -filter:v unsharp=luma_msize_x=7:luma_msize_y=7:luma_amount=2.5 -an -c:v libvpx -qmin 63 -qmax 63 -quality best -threads 4 -t 2 -r 1 "%~nf.webm"
>>54874887
This looks like ass
>>54874530
Krautchan is utter shit...
>>54874887
Now with a-qmin 50 -qmax 50
>>54866820
well well well
>>54874921
It's also 90KiB.
>>54874921
The point is to compress the image as much as possible while still maintaining a lot of detail. JPG would have shit up this image to infinity at 90KB
>>54874933
Still looks like ass
>>54874887
Here is a ~90KB JPG to compare to
Doesn't libvpx ignore quality when you don't set the bitrate?
Like doesn't ffmpeg give it a silly low bitrate which it adopts as its max?
If you were to have these 'webm pictures' set at a bitrate to be half the equivelant jpeg size, they would probably look just as good.
At the moment most of them look pretty average (because they are silly small).
>>54874974
I think the point should be to compress images while avoiding artifacts. No point in pursuing the smallest possible file size if it's gonna look like ass
>>54866887
thats the only that did ANYthing 54-53 %
>>54874989
Yeah, quality isn't my aim detective. Just retention of details at extremely low file sizes.
>>54874994
holy shit
>>54866820
This thread made my phone crash.
>>54875067
lmao you have less than 2GB of RAM don't you? I played all of these Webms with my warp elite on clover and none of them made my phone crash.
Can our fellow icucks even play webms like >>54867498 ?
>>54875086
>lmao you have less than 2GB of RAM don't you?
Well yes
>>54875198
Time to step it up senpai. There are a lot of ~$100 android phones with 2GB of RAM out there. They'll probably drop down further in price this black friday too.
Now testing text with the following parameters:for %f IN (*.png) DO ffmpeg -loop 1 -i "%~nf.png" -filter:v unsharp=luma_msize_x=7:luma_msize_y=7:luma_amount=2.5 -an -c:v libvpx -qmin 50 -qmax 50 -quality best -threads 4 -t 2 -r 1 "%~nf.webm"
Can everyone read the words on it? PNG was 152KB btw.
![Untitled.webm_snapshot_00.00_[2016.06.02_13.07.09].png](https://i.imgur.com/duOFs0n.png "Untitled.webm_snapshot_00.00_[2016.06.02_13.07.09].png")
>>54875301
It looks like shit but text is surprisingly readable.
>>54875301
Anon I think you might need to use lossless webp for text.
>>54875394
That would increase file size close to a PNG, not what I want. I want the smallest file size for a image of text that's still readable. Gonna try the navy seal pasta next.
>>54866820
hrm did the mods change the webm max dimension
>>54875469
Max allowed is 2048x2048
Looks like PNG wins this time
PNG of text was 24KB
parameters used in webm:for %f IN (*.png) DO ffmpeg -loop 1 -i "%~nf.png" -filter:v unsharp=luma_msize_x=7:luma_msize_y=7:luma_amount=2.5 -an -c:v libvpx -qmin 50 -qmax 50 -quality best -threads 4 -t 2 -r 1 "%~nf.webm"
>>54875503
My apologies, I tried to upload an image I scaled only vertically to 2048, butt was 3277px wide.
Anyone know how to make the script accept both PNG and JPG images? It's a bitch having to use different scripts for different image file types.
>>54875620
shiiieeet
>>54875533ffmpeg -y -i 1464888240250.png -c:v libvpx -an -threads 8 -qmin 63 -qmax 63 poop.webm[\code]
I used this as source: http://i.4cdn.org/g/1464888240250.png
>>54875675
Looks like PNG btfo VP8 in terms of text image compression... for now. I wonder if an update to libvpx can fix that.
total fail :D
>>54876346
fucking hacker. lol jk tell me how you were able to convert both PNG and JPG files at the same time family.
>>54876461
(as a menu command in spacefm)for i in "${fm_filenames[@]}"; do echo "$i"; done | parallel -j $(nproc) ffmpeg -r 0.1 -i "{}" -c:v libvpx -deadline best -qmin 5 -qmax 5 -b:v 0 "{.}.webm"
>>54876513
Cool
>>54866820
>Well it turns out if you just store a single frame it will loop infinitely and cause your CPU to burst into flames
what kind of shit-tier setup are you running? single frame webms open fine in firefox and mpc-hc fro me.
>>54866820
Thanks for this thread. You made me do something.
I changed one of my projects in HTML5 and CSS3 to use webp. I realized that picture element doesn't work properly, and it loads the fallback picture even in Chrome, and that sjwfox doesn't support webp, so I made my template use only webp pictures, and added a information box that displays in shitty web browsers.
Sometimes things like that are required to force a standard.
>>54874926
>Krautchan
what is this?
http://www.mediafire.com/download/93u78v7vlptk1gl/bury_pink_gril.7z
I made a collection of WebM pics of bury pink gril for anyone that wants them. Might upload more collections.
Only parameters changed/added are a -qmin and -qmax of 16
>>54876513
can i make this work in cinnamon or i3 too?
>>54877816
that's just regular bash, the only spacefm-specific part is the "fm_filenames" array, which contains the filenames you have selected in spacefm when the menu item was selected
gnu parallel is also optional, of course, but why wouldn't i encode multiple at a time (ffmpeg/libvpx can hardly do much on their own when given only a single frame to encode)
>>54878171
I dont understand bash. I still made it work for me with thisfor f in *; do ffmpeg -r 0.1 -i "$f" -c:v libvpx -deadline best -qmin 5 -qmax 5 -b:v 0 "${f%.*}.webm"; done;
>>54867385
firefox seems barely affected
compare sizes:
>>54878247
same thing, just;
- no parallel, only one is encoded at a time
- processes anything in the current directory
>>54867873
And flif is even better
http://www.mediafire.com/download/mlmytccs55lj8ix/chinese_cartoon_reactions.7z
>>54874994
>>54879422 is significantly better than the webp garbage at >>54874887
especially compared against the original (pic related)
webp confirmed meme status
>>54879422
>>54879464
Interesting, any .exe encoders available yet?
>>54879422
It still looks pretty blocky, any way to reduce the blockiness while still maintaining the JPG container?
Here is a 91KB Webm which looks better imho. Anon up there used a sharpen filter on his Webm, I didn't.
>>54873114
>It's not a problem when you open it in a separate tab but when you open it inside the thread it causes the cpu to panic.
on pic i open it in thread i believe (the 4chan's thread)
>>54879422
Something's very fishy here. Why does the file save to a 128KB JPG when I download it?
>>54879422
wtf anon, is mozilla paying you to falsely advertise mozjpeg?
>>54879867
Hi there!
You seem to have made a bit of a mistake in your post. Luckily, the users of 4chan are always willing to help you clear this problem right up! You appear to have used a tripcode when posting, but your identity has nothing at all to do with the conversation! Whoops! You should always remember to stop using your tripcode when the thread it was used for is gone, unless another one is started! Posting with a tripcode when it isn't necessary is poor form. You should always try to post anonymously, unless your identity is absolutely vital to the post that you're making!
Now, there's no need to thank me - I'm just doing my bait to help you get used to the anonymous image-board culture!
what a completely pointless exercise
congrats OP
>>54879913
It does make for trolling aplel users until they figure out how to convert Webms into JPGs lel. Plus VP8 offers better quality for the same file size compared to standard JPG and even Mozjpeg JPG it seems.
This may seem completely pointless for small res images but it would help load 1080p or higher res pics faster across all network connections.
>>54879988
>Plus VP8 offers better quality for the same file size compared to standard JPG and even Mozjpeg JPG it seems.
Bullshit. See >>54879422 >>54874887
>>54879913
Oh did you also know Webms support transparency?
>>54880038
Hi there!
You seem to have made a bit of a mistake in your post. Luckily, the users of 4chan are always willing to help you clear this problem right up! You appear to have used a tripcode when posting, but your identity has nothing at all to do with the conversation! Whoops! You should always remember to stop using your tripcode when the thread it was used for is gone, unless another one is started! Posting with a tripcode when it isn't necessary is poor form. You should always try to post anonymously, unless your identity is absolutely vital to the post that you're making!
Now, there's no need to thank me - I'm just doing my bait to help you get used to the anonymous image-board culture!
>>54880065
/b/ is over that way
>>54880025
That anon used a sharpen filter which added noise which made overall compression worse. Not sure why he did that.
Compare >>54879422 vs >>54879676
Also mozjpeg anon might have hacked that JPG, real file size is 125KB not 93KB, see >>54879759 and >>54879867
Opened all webm's at the same time.Nothing happened.
What am i missing here?
>>54879867
>>54879759
Seems 4chan converts the JPEG from arithmetic-coded to huffman-coded when uploading
Here is the original file I uploaded https://0x0.st/csx.jpg
>>54880177
>The Image "https://0x0.st/csx.jpg" cannot be displayed because it contains errors
>>54880205
>Your browser is a piece of shit
>>54880205
It failed to display on Opera, Chrome, Firefox, and Internet Explorer.
Nigga you fucked it up somehow. Upload again.
>>54880235
I have the most recent version of firefox and it won't display. What am I doing wrong?
>>54880247
Works fine here. Pic related
>>54880263
I'm guessing you have libjpeg compiled with arithmetic support disabled
>>54880235
mozjpeg is a piece of shit then. Just tried to open it in firefox dev edition and it doesn't display anything. Christ, can't mozilla do anything right?
>>54880299
So mozjpeg is only supported in like 1% of browsers then? It's fucking pointless then.
>>54866887
Behold! My sequel! My Magnum Opus!
Now improved with even more encode optimization!
>>54880416
My phone froze for a minute playing that kek.
>>54880303
>>54880327
>confusing mozjpeg with arithmetic coding
that's like saying x264 is shit because your toaster can't run High10P
off yourselves clueless scum
>>54880416
ayy
>>54866887
this one works nice i go 56% on 3 core the rest didn't really care
>>54880659
>the rest didn't really care
bunch a lazy niggers
>>54880544
It's actually more than 1000fps; if you examine >>54866887 with mediainfo, you'll see 1000fps as well, but with ffprobe it's 6144fps. >>54880416 is on another level entirely, it's 65536fps.
>[output stream 0:0 @ 0x22c3be0] 100 buffers queued in output stream 0:0, something may be wrong.
>[output stream 0:0 @ 0x22c3be0] 1000 buffers queued in output stream 0:0, something may be wrong.
No, ffmpeg, nothing's wrong. Shh, quiet now.
>>54880896
>No, ffmpeg, nothing's wrong. Shh, quiet now.
You monster, kek
>>54880299
>Doesn't play in any browser
So mosjpeg is doa? It's a good thing 4chan converted your memejpg image to a regular jpg.
>>54868206
sorry I have job so I couldn't spent front of monitor every single time.
>>54880038
Whoah. Why is no one else impressed by this? This means GIF and PNG are both on suicide watch.
>>54883376
Old news.
>>54880416
99%cpu lol, still pc dont lag tho
Reminder
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7vXJbLhTyI
>>54884976
There's no way the webp one looks that bad, but yeah, MANIAC encoding is crazy.
>>54885011
>There's no way the webp one looks that bad
After being re-saved 4000 times? Why not?
>>54880416
what have you done to my poor cpu
>>54880416
Are you even trying?
>>54885166
It's not my fault you're running the video decoder with a small number of threads.
>>54885218
Or, possibly, you're using the libvpx decoder which doesn't support real multithreaded decoding. Use a browser / player that uses FFVP8 if you want to to feel like >>54885089.
>>54880416
Dunno what are you guys freaking out about, I get barely any load on my phone.
>>54885270
Again, probably the libvpx decoder.
>>54880416
>>54885390
Unless you mention what player / decoder you're using, that's not useful.
>>54885437
No clue, it's Chrome.
>>54880416
>>54885390
mpv here, barely has any CPU usage and plays smoothly
(all the frames that don't fit on my 60 hz monitor get dropped, but that's it)
>>54885447
Then the decoder is libvpx, which effectively runs as 1 thread (it uses multiple threads, but only one for decoding a frame).
>>54885457
>(all the frames that don't fit on my 60 hz monitor get dropped, but that's it)
That's because you're re-sampling the video down to 60fps, instead of 65536fps.
It's possible that the overhead comes from trying to draw the frames opposed to just decoding them.
>>54885486
>libvpx
A good thing?
>>54885498
It's the reference decoder, but FFVP8 is much faster (mostly by being multithreaded). Using libvpx could be an issue for 1080p/60fps video, but nobody in their right mind would use VP8 for anything (it is, for the most part, awful).
You will run into noticeable issues trying to decode HD/high frame rate VP9 video with a libvpx-vp9 though.
>>54885486
Yep, that's pretty much what's going on.
I'm using mpv in video-sync mode, which means that all frames are decoded but the display is only redrawn at the display's native refresh rate.
Since the video FPS is higher than the display FPS, mpv's frame scheduler will automatically decide to keep dropping enough frames to compensate.
As a result, most frames are simply decoded and then discarded. Since decoding these frames is trivial (no change), the result is low CPU usage.
Also, worth mentioning is that mpv can be configured to drop frames both in the video output level (decode but discard) or in the decoder level (skip decoding altogether), the latter of which can be beneficial when not all frames are needed to decode the frames that *are* needed.
In this case though, the two settings make no difference.
>>54880416
Jesus christ stop that
idk q
>>54877519
A german Nazi-chan.
>>54875029
We call that "oversharpened"
>>54880416
Why aren't you using the Internet Explorer master race?
>>54886543
>CJK font
Weabing this hard. Kys.
>>54886583
I'm sorry, I don't speak monkey.
Come back when you're 18.
>>54866930
nothing happened
>>54867385
Eh, >>54866887 gets me to 200%, that barely touches 20.
>>54880416
This is good.
>>54888935
The names were ironic, I was actually trying to do the opposite. He did it deliberately.
I will try and rate every webm so we
know whicj is the best one for cpu buring.
I suppose we run a Lagrange to find the
maximum cpu usage we get get.
CPU : i5-2400 4x 3.10 GHz=12.6ghz
>>54866820
+30% cpu usage
>>54866887
+80%
>>54866966
short term +13%
>>54867215
sporadically +30%
>>54867385
+30% constant
>>54867498
+10% sporadically
>>54874206
+40%
>>54874415
Shorterm 20%
>>54874415
sporadically +20%
>>54874612
dude di you eve try its like +3% constant
>>54874939
constant +30%
>>54875469
constant +30%
>>54875675
constant +40%
>>54875872
good results +60% constant
>>54876346
its shitty +8%
>>54878290
+30%
>>54879243
+30%
>>54880416
THAT WHAT I CALL POD RACING1!!!!!!! +94% CONSTANT LELELE
>>54880416
Post that smug famalam
but why?
>>54889279
Mostly because it will piss off the hipsters on 4chan (ie iphone users).
Also VP8 shits on jpg and png most of the time. You can get the same visual quality for half the file size compared to jpg and png in most cases. VP8 seems to do the best job compressing images of chinese cartoons.
>>54880416
5 to 95 on 2500k. Conglaturation.
page 9 rescue bump
If only one could close a webm by clicking on it
>>54891224
You can set to open media when you hover on it in 4chan settings, it will close as soon as you stop pointing to it. You can also close the webm on clover by simply touching the back button on android.
I'm really excited about this because of >>54880038
transparent webM when
>>54866820
>WebP hack
>just uses libvpx-vp8
Are you retarded, anon? Sure the lossy version of WebP share its roots with VP8, but you're hardly "hacking" anything and you're not "implementing WebP". You're just making a single frame webm. Do you want an applause for that?
>236 replies
>CPU burning tests
hell thank you for reminding me why I left this inane place
>>54891331
>why I left
that's cute
>>54891331
whines doesnt contribute yep that's shitposting
>>54891321
They have literally always existed see >>54880038
>>54883376
Because PNG and Gif just werk. It's a mess with WEBM.
>>54891331
Why do hate fun anon?
>>54891378
>It's a mess with WEBM
>webm transparency supported by opera and chrome
k
>>54891331
Well it's as close to webp as we're gonna get. Hiroshima refuses to support webp on 4chin.
