265 has poor support

>>103297686
Nigger no modern browser expect for Safari support h265

>>103297686
literally every fucking website in existance will accept any type of file, but no, 4chan was always the bottom of the shitter. This place is glowware. They are everywhere and will do anything to spread their evil.

>>103297728

they took a decade to support vp9 NOW they finally allow mp4 but dont support 265 which isnt even the latest anymore, its av1

>>103297728
jap shit are usually 2 decades behind

>>103297686
> WHY U NOT SUPPORT SOMETHING THAT ISN'T SUPPORTED BY EVERYONE!1
neck ye self
>>103297752
> if i keep mentioning av1 then people will just magically support it for no apparent reason
you faggots really do live in a fantasy land of make believe

>>103297962
>>103297752
>>103297728
Every browser already supports it, 4chan is DELIBERATELY blocking uploads if a h265 stream is detected.
There's zero reason for this other than to dangle this as a 4chan pass only feature.

>>103297974
no retard no website supports it INCLUDING youtube because of H265/HEVC active patents

>>103297728
>literally every fucking website in existance will accept any type of file
they'll accept whatever but they usually convert / recompress it using something else. 4chan just isn't built for that. it's far easier to state what format is needed and if users are too incompetent to convert a video then they can fuck off back to tiktok and reddit.

>>103297974
unless h265 is done in hardware at the same scale as 264 then it's never going to happen. see you in 10 years and two more weeks.

>>103297686
4chan isn't a circlejerk trooncord server for a group that re-encodes Crunchyroll streams.
Get over it.

Meanwhile every major browser today supports AV1 and yet 4chan doesn't support it.

>>103297989
>unless h265 is done in hardware at the same scale as 264
It literally is
All devices that are capable of hardware decoding h264 are also capable of hardware decoding hevc, unless it's a shitty Intel laptop from 2011. Yet no browser except for Safari supports it even in software mode because of mpeg-la and their retarded patents.

it's never enough for these faggots

Let's worry about making moderation better first.

>>103297962
>> if i keep mentioning av1 then people will just magically support it for no apparent reason
>you faggots really do live in a fantasy land of make believe
That's not even what anyone here is doing. Do you have AV1 or some weird shit?

>>103297686
Because you touch yourself at night

>>103298082
You mean way more than most people? OP is a mod/janitor?

>>103297717
Firefox has it. I don't get why people don't just use Firefox...
Inb4
>Muh trannies
They drink water! Watch out for that water! They breathe air too!
>Muh spyware
So disable it. It's 3 clicks you lazy fat fuck.

Since 4chan doesn't paywall any of their images/videos, nor do they encode the content themselves, they chould probably get away with not having to pay license fees for hevc.
But then who really wants to take that risk?

File: 1729059087297198.jpg (19 KB, 360x360)

19 KB JPG

just imagine if av1 was supported

>>103298047

>fucking image board doesn't allow screen caps of a 4k desktop because 4MB size limit
allowed webm immediately to combat shitty animated gif restrictions
>but was vp8
>vp9 came out over a decade ago
>still didn't support it for years causing lack of quality webm compression
>now FINALLY allows mp4 when 8 and other chans and imagboards have supported it for as long as webm
>WEBM.NEVER BECAME UNIVERSALLY SUPPORTED
>still can't choose it on most video editing software
>so you have to double encoder your clips to get it to webm
>also have to double encode because even if you REMOVE THE FUCKING AUDIO ON THE SOURCE CLIP YOU HAVE TO USE A SEPARATE WEBM CONVERTER AND CHOOSE "REMOVE AUDIO"" OR 4CHAN WON'T ALLOW IT EVEN THO THERS A FUCKING GLOBAL SETTING FOR WEBM AUDIO

>>103298212
Ironically, Firefox is the only browser that doesn't support it.

>>103298488
>YOU HAVE TO USE A SEPARATE WEBM CONVERTER
Can you do it all in ffmpeg?

>>103298488

also the irony of claiming anything MP4 related isnt universally supported when the ONLY thing that uses WEBM is YouTube and only if you specifically choose it, MP4 is the higher quality and has been universally supported for 2 decades over all hardwares

try uploading a webm file to any popular social media and it won't even recognize the file

>>103298029
I use chrome and it doesn't

>>103298521

nobody fucking uses terminal non GUI bullshit autism

File: Screenshot 2024-11-24 223600.png (188 KB, 1587x731)

188 KB PNG

>>103298530

its been supported for over half a decade

>>103298537
only you don't retardo

okay but why isn't webp supported?

>>103298656
FUCKING THIS

niggers talking about support, literally everything defaults to webp when saving the image

>>103298656
Because webp is shit.

>>103297686
Implementing mp4 without AV1 support was peak retard moment.

>>103298488
why is there even the audio restriction? If its file size there is a size limit already. Is handling audio tracks really so different from a back end perspective?

>>103297686
sneed

>>103298488
>WEBM.NEVER BECAME UNIVERSALLY SUPPORTED
uhhh youtube?

>>103298752
to stop screamers you idiot

>>103299016
Okay you idiot there's this thing called webm sound script, I've never got a screamer once since it was made *checks notes* 7 years ago

>>103297686
>high cpu load for the exact same video quality
what's the point of x265?
the only thing I see is it saves you a few MBs, which is worthless

>>103298512
Firefox has it on Windows under specific circumstances due to it piggybacking off of the Windows media libraries. It's not on Linux or macOS.
Chrome has it but only hardware decoding (no software support)
Safari has it because Apple deepthroats the MPEG consortium.

>>103297702
In conclusion, fpbp.

>>103299042
no such thing

File: f66eeec70719d6cf32d5c9019(...).jpg (1.44 MB, 1489x2000)

1.44 MB JPG

>>103298488
>fucking image board doesn't allow screen caps of a 4k desktop because 4MB size limit
yes it does, i post 2160p .png screenshots all the time
are you really using negrosoft paint to save screenshots?
>still can't choose it on most video editing software
every decent video editing program has vp9/opus support and of course the webm container
>you have to double encoder your clips to get it to webm
you encode the source to vp9/opus in a webm and that's it, what the hell do you mean by "double encode"...
>also have to double encode because even if you REMOVE THE FUCKING AUDIO...
no you fucking don't you monkey, just copy the video stream and leave out the audio


you're so confidently wrong...
just learn ffmpeg, it's more intuitive than you think
here's how you strip audio (-an) out and as a bonus cut it to 19 seconds(-to 00:00:19.000), instantly, WITHOUT ENCODING ANYTHING(-c:v copy):

ffmpeg -i input.mp4 -to 00:00:19.000 -c:v copy -an -f mp4 nature_cut.mp4

>>103299145
>yes it does, i post 2160p .png screenshots all the time
What's going on in those screenshots? If you have anything more complex going on that doesn't compress well then you're going to have to compress them to a JPEG. Maybe you can use something like optipng on them but it's still not guaranteed that it'll reduce the size enough.

>>103299087
storage and bandwidth are expensive in india

>>103299145
the only thing ffmpeg misses is encode to size to account for file size limits

>>103297686
no use case

File: 1723906412269169.png (34 KB, 1093x488)

34 KB PNG

>>103297686
just use webm bro

File: av1.png (6 KB, 256x256)

6 KB PNG

>265
>Anno MMXXIV

>>103299228
That's already doable by calculating the average bitrate needed. It would be nice if you could just give it a specified file size limit but usually you can't always tell the right bitrate to use and sometimes have to brute force it.