Why can't we use WebMs encoded in VP9? It practically reduces

Thread replies: 7
Thread images: 1

Anonymous
2016-05-28 08:15:09 Post No. 544033
[Report] Image search: [Google]

File: webm-558x156.png (39 KB, 558x156) Image search: [Google]

39 KB, 558x156

Anonymous 2016-05-28 08:15:09 Post No. 544033 [Report]

Why can't we use WebMs encoded in VP9? It practically reduces their file sizes by half.

>>

Anonymous 2016-05-28 19:23:54 Post No.544329
[Report]

Anonymous 2016-05-28 19:23:54 Post No.544329 [Report]

H265 master race.

>>

Anonymous 2016-05-28 20:22:56 Post No.544347
[Report]

Anonymous 2016-05-28 20:22:56 Post No.544347 [Report]

>>544033
>>544329
Shove it, nerd

>>

Anonymous 2016-05-28 20:27:11 Post No.544348
[Report]

Anonymous 2016-05-28 20:27:11 Post No.544348 [Report]

>It practically reduces their file sizes by half
i think you answered your own question

>>

Anonymous 2016-05-28 20:30:22 Post No.544349
[Report]

Anonymous 2016-05-28 20:30:22 Post No.544349 [Report]

>>544347
lol, nice one Brett

>>

Anonymous 2016-05-29 04:03:50 Post No.544728
[Report]

Anonymous 2016-05-29 04:03:50 Post No.544728 [Report]

Maybe it's because there's still a significant number of browsers that can't decode VP9?

>>

Anonymous 2016-05-29 04:42:10 Post No.544785
[Report]

Anonymous 2016-05-29 04:42:10 Post No.544785 [Report]

>>544348
Are you actually mentally retarded? Reducing the file size by half would be something those responsible for footing the bandwidth bill would actually want.

Where the fuck do you braindead mongs even come from?