whers the sound tho

>>103246584
>>>/wsg/
>>>/gif/

>>103246582
Now we need audio god dammit.

File: Boobs.webm (715 KB, 576x1024)

715 KB WEBM

>>103246582

>>103246582
Cringe and corny

>>103246780
So you can play screamers so I never open the things again? How about no and fuck off to the boards that support it.

>>103246817
>can't be played on chrome
lmao

>>103246879
:)

>>103246879
Works on my machine

>>103246780
>Now we need audio god dammit.
Yes. Silly artificial restriction. If people don't like sound they have volume controls, per-app volume controls, etc.... The rest of the thousands of altchans on earth allow sound where video is allowed.

>>103247791
>The rest of the thousands of altchans on earth allow sound where video is allowed.
go back

>>103247892
>go back
to 4chan? I was on the 4chan test servers hosted by YTMND before moot and max got the domain.

>>103247917
ok boomer

>>103246582
>mp4 is here
Any new codecs supported, or just the container?

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

6 KB PNG

>New video codec
>It's not AV1
One job.

>>103246780
"we" don't

>>103246582
no, the only thing .webp deserves is a slow and painful death

>>103247970
h.264 and that's it

File: bPPQR.jpg (4 KB, 311x20)

4 KB JPG

I tried to upload a mp4 made with webm for lazys but it doesn't work

File: Rome-Cunny2[sound=files.c(...).webm (3.85 MB, 1280x720)

3.85 MB WEBM

>>103246582
>mp4s and 264 is allowed now
what the flying fuck? why now, not back when VP9 was up for discussion??

>>103246879
>phone/apple troon screaming again that people PURPOSEFULLY encode vp9 webm's to be as incompatible to them as possible
Never gets old, will never not be funny as hell!
>>103247990
Unironically this. 264 is nice for the speed, but it's worse than VP9 quality/compression wise, so I don't really see the point.

>>103248090
>20 year old codec that's way worse quality than what's already supported
gee, thanks gookmoot.
>>103248178
turn off 4chanx/xt, it hasn't been updated for it yet.

>>103247990
can it do better than this? >>103246817

>>103248205
>turn off 4chanx/xt, it hasn't been updated for it yet.
X/XT user here, both the webm and the mp4 work perfectly fine for me.

>>103248212
VP9/HEVC is an improvement over AVC, while AV1 is an improvement over all of them, so yes.

>unsupported file type
doesnt work on my machine

>>103248222
catbox it

in what way is mp4 better than webm in this context

File: VP8 v VP9 v AV1.png (1.57 MB, 1920x600)

1.57 MB PNG

>>103248212
>>103248234
VP8: https://files.catbox.moe/zt21m9.webm
VP9: https://files.catbox.moe/e8c4bw.webm
AV1: https://files.catbox.moe/iq540r.webm

>>103248234
>t. tech illiterate retard that uses webm for retards
How about you act like an adult and test the codecs yourself? If you're too damn lazy or incompetent for that, then shut the fuck up and stop arguing about shit you don't understand.
If you want the AV1 schizo to spam his usual bullshit, then just wait a few minutes till he sees the thread, he is a (filtered) tripfag if I remember.


THERE HE FUCKING IS GODDAMNIT

File: 1701895650184797.png (8 KB, 563x124)

8 KB PNG

this site is so shit
just remove the audio when i upload
also compress it for me if its over the file limit

x264 is the best lossless video encoder, but that's about it

>>103248245
None at all, period. MP4 is far better on paper generally speaking, but specifically for 4chinz it doesn't get you anything (to my knowledge) that is useful for us. You want subs hardcoded at all times, if there is any, and audio isn't a thing nor does it matter since OPUS is the best there is.
VP9 can be used in both container if I remember right, so you don't get anything there either, plus webm is made for streaming from the get go, while mp4 needs an extra flag to be ideal.
>>103248261
>p-please do the work for me, FOR FREE!!

>>103248285
>>p-please do the work for me, FOR FREE!!
yes

>>103248296
Buy the retarded pass, then I'm sure gookmoot is willing to talk about it.

>>103248296
actually why cant 4chan x do this

the only advantage mp4 gives is access to 264 for the retards that want speed but worse quality than vp9 through webm
>>103248303
x is dead and it's probably feature bloat for xt devs

>>103247791
>If people don't like sound they have volume controls
If I don't want sound I can get on /g/ (on any non-sound board) and be certain that I will be able to follow a thread without needing any audio (links to videos with sound are relatively rare and can almost always be ignored), but if the board allows audio, then watching a significant portion of the posted webms will be pointless without the audio, as they won't be made to be watched muted.

Now that 4chan doesn't support audio, all the webms are made to be watchable without sound by adding subtitles when necessary, or by simply not making/posting the webm if it can't be watched muted.

Saying "if you don't want audio then keep it muted" is like saying "if you don't want audio then don't watch them".
Would you tell people to watch YouTube videos muted and without the automatic captions? No because it makes no sense.

how h.264 compares against vp8?

>>103247791
>other sites do what I want but I'd rather change this site instead of posting there
We already have multiple video boards on this site anyway. There doesn't seem to be any benefit in trying to merge all the boards into 1.

>>103248246
>blotches of color

>>103248254
prove me wrong, encode an av1 out of >>103246582 that's superior to >>103246817 in size and detail

>>103248246
If I'm being honest the sweater is unethical no matter which codec we use, Mr Burns.

>>103248261
Doing that server side would be retardedly easy to deny. All you'd have to do is keep uploading files that intentionally hog their encoding threads.

>>103248324
vp8 is a dogshit codec and always was grossly inferior. Even vp9 isn't much better than x264 encoded h264.

>>103248410
you don't need to decode/encode anything to remove audio from a container

>>103246582
never thought I'd see the day

File: 1661474581520.png (572 KB, 600x580)

572 KB PNG

>>103248318
>/g/tards can't watch videos with sound because audio is broken on lunix

>>103248432
2010 called plasma is broken again

>>103248203
I'm on a phone and the webm played just fine

>>103248426
Removing the audio stream is certainly not as free as you seem to think. The file has to be rewritten.
And you ignored the other half
>compress it for me if its over the file limit
Take into account we're posting on a website that shortened their urls to save bytes which translated into I think TB or PB iirc from moots report. The idea that they're going to allow you to upload files beyond the limits just so they can process them for you, is not going to happen. It's expensive and easy to abuse/exploit.

>>103248455
>Removing the audio stream is certainly not as free as you seem to think. The file has to be rewritten.
4chan already re-encodes every image plus generates thumbnails for images AND videos

File: 4chan small things add up(...).png (510 KB, 1475x1829)

510 KB PNG

>>103248455
>Take into account we're posting on a website that shortened their urls to save bytes which translated into I think TB or PB iirc from moots report
cited
46TB from a 50 byte change.

>>103248455
hurr durr

>>103248469
You acknowledge they already have processing work to do so you're going to have to make an argument explaining why adding more cost is going to be worth it.

>4chan already re-encodes every image
It only strips metadata if present and this is a privacy feature not a convenience one. People were accidentally uploading their coordinates from pictures taken on their phone. Removing exif data is likely something most posts did not want to be implemented, and the admins probably didn't enjoy the cost of it either.

>>103248473
you are reading it incorrectly, it's 23 GB per months less because of the shorter domain and 46 TB less because of using a different domain for the images (there is no google analytics on it so there is no 1 KB cookie)

>>103248473
Can you even read? 46TB comes from getting rid of google analytics 100kb botnet cookies.

>>103248475
forgot to attach an image

>>103248510
>It only strips metadata if present and this is a privacy feature not a convenience one.
false

>>103248523
>By migrating to the new domain, end users now save roughly 100 KB upstream per page load, which a 500 million pageviews per month adds up to 46 terabytes per month in savings for our users.
?

>>103248356
>We already have multiple video boards on this site anyway. There doesn't seem to be any benefit in trying to merge all the boards into 1.
That is not what I said.

>>103248510
nah, this website does indeed re-encode images, try using a extremely inefficient .png encoder and upload your image, the image you download from your post will be smaller than the one you uploaded

>>103248510
They're losslessly reencoding jpegs which bloats them up if they were optimized.

>>103248510
also seconding this >>103248558
this website does indeed bloat some .jpeg images

File: mgf6qeheqlod1.mp4 (1.41 MB, 518x518)

1.41 MB MP4

very cool thankyou moot

>>103248558
cloudflare does that for them

>>103246780
So that instead of having one board (/wsg/) that is much easier to monitor than the entire site, people could post (and therefore share) full copyrighted songs anywhere? Lol, lmao.

>>103248455
Removing an audio stream is nearly instant.

$ time ffmpeg -i in.mp4 -c copy -an out.mp4
real    0m0.144s
user    0m0.072s
sys     0m0.068s

This is on my phone.

>>103248510
The cost of removing exif is also negligible.

>>103248535
>>103248556
>>103248558
I don't like the fact we're focusing on this tangent instead of the original point. It's suspicious.
Whether images re re-encoded or not, as well as why, seems moot. We shouldn't be focusing on stripping GPS metadata from images when the onus of the Anons is to convince the 4chan team why they should harbor the cost of processing videos.
It's clear that one of them is privacy oriented, and the other is not. So you'll have to come up with a different reason than the rationale used for images.
Processing single frames is significantly different from processing multiple different media streams. Both technically and in terms of the board culture. Adding sound is more than just a technical detail.

>>103248604
Hard to believe that people question this to begin with, likely since they never bothered manually creating a file proper, only ever using third party gui's that force you to re-encode.

>>103248623
moving goalposts

>>103248628
I guess, it's a 4chan classic after all.

I still do not understand the need to remove sound. Literally nobody else does this. Is it to avoid ambulance chasing copyright bots detecting music?

>>103248661
go back to tiktok, zoomie

I still do not understand why people are STILL using vp8 to this day or why they bitch about having to remove the sound since you have to encode your clips either way to fit them under 4mb

>>103248684
>go back to tiktok, zoomie
Never been there, not a zoomie. Been here longer than moot and hiro isn't real.

>>103248661
moot's rationale is that people would upload screamers (retarded, i know)

>>103248607
>Adding sound is more than just a technical detail.
Highlighting this post's perspective on it >>103248318

>>103248604
That's not a valuable test.
4chan is a globally public service with open adversaries.
Your phone may be able to easily handle a single request of a relatively small file that wasn't designed to be malicious but 4chan is going to be hammered even by good intentioned users.
Case in point, you and I probably don't care about the difference in 50bytes or 0.1 second. The people that pay the bills will >>103248473 care. And whether they care or not is less of an issue, what matters is if they can practically sustain operations.

>>103248691
trying too hard

>>103248694
Plenty of max volume / distorted junk in /gif/. Solution would be to detect that and discard the post or give that person endless unsolvable craptchas.

>>103248694
Considering most of /f/ was that and people still do this on /gif/ and /wsg/ today, I don't think it's retarded at all.
I also don't think the lack of sound solves it since people will hard cut to porn or gore anyway so sound or not makes little difference but at least it's not deafening people.

>>103248661
harder to moderate

>>103248707
why are you defending the admins
it's not even moot
it's fucking hiroshima who siphons all your data he can get his gook hands on and sells them to advertisers

File: oompa_loompa_10209.png (156 KB, 549x565)

156 KB PNG

>>103248709
minimum effort.

>>103248694
>>103248723
Or just mute the audio by default and let users decide if they wanna volume up
with a voice histogram at the bottom

File: oompa_loompa_10185.png (231 KB, 508x425)

231 KB PNG

>>103248739
That would work too. Canadians get to choose their straw. Everyone should get options for sound.

>>103248694
Screamer are a VERY legit and still relevant concern, they even were the moment sound posting became a thing again through scripts.
If you aren't aware of this then you should unironically lurk more, or browse boards with sound, not just wsg, v or whatever.
>>103248723
>Solution would be...
Effort on their part, meaning they won't bother when they can just not allow it.
>>103248739
Simply muting it isn't a solution, it's an extremely cheap cop out, all so your retarded child can get his toy.

>Error: Corrupted file or unsupported file type.
Anyone else got this?

File: sizechange.webm (696 KB, 632x388)

696 KB WEBM

okay but can you do THIS?

>>103248731
It's not intended to be a "defense", it's an assessment of the real situation.
If you want to know "why" in response to the questions, I gave you a perspective on it.
If you can't convince me you're not going to convince the admins, and ultimately that's your task if you want to see change.
You have to understand their reasons for not doing it and come up with a convincing argument to get them to change their mind.
From my perspective these decisions aren't as simple as people seem to think. 4chan does not have unlimited money or hardware.
The owners do not want the site to run out of money and shut down, and neither do most of us.

>>103248765
By reading the thread you can find out, zoomie

>add mp4
>still have no audio because reasons
>there are people STILL defending and justifying the lack of universal audio
>MUH COPYRIGHT
>>103248694
That hasn't even been a thing since the 00s became the 10s. There is no justification.

>>103248760
>Effort on their part, meaning they won't bother when they can just not allow it.
I mean, sure... thus far my tax dollars are mostly spent well here. Seems like the easiest thing to do is just not block files with sound. That's even less effort. Maybe once Trump dumps a few agencies they will have a bigger budget for this place.

>add pointless mp4
>still no sound because screamer and other autism will forever be a problem
>there are people STILL screaming (ironic) about this because they have autism and moot refuses to let them spam screamer
>MUH NON ARGUMENT
>>103248786
literally untrue fuck off you dumb faggot nigger.

>>103247941
How many dudes do you imagine your future skank of a wife have dick sucked, zoomer?

>>103248786
>I come to imageboards for the audio
there are people STILL defending and justifying the inclusion of audio alongside images
(consider tiktok bro)

>>103248786
>>MUH COPYRIGHT
Yeah let's ignore the one thing that would get this site instantly obliterated by megacorps.

File: 20-20.jpg (1.38 MB, 3840x1604)

1.38 MB JPG

WebP adoption would make a lot of sense considering its low decode/encode complexity similar to that of H264. I don't particularily like it because it's limited to YUV420/8-bit for lossy but given how 90% of video uses precisely just that it's still pretty beneficial. For example while RGB to YUV420 conversions can be pretty destructive, YUV420 to YUV420, not so much. Case in point:

WebP [428 KB/ -70%]
https://files.catbox.moe/ik8pnn.webp

>>103248815
In that case only allow .gif, .png and .jpg.

>>103248815
>>103248816
LET ME DESTROY THIS RIGHT WING NAZI TRUMP LOVING SHIT SITE ALREADY YOU DISGUSTING WHITE PIGS!

File: 143742394762.gif (1.83 MB, 334x320)

1.83 MB GIF

>still no audio

>>103248760
>they even were the moment sound posting became a thing again through scripts.
No, they weren't. Honestly don't think I've ever had a screamer from one.

>>103248834
They literally were you lying sack of nigger shit

>>103248661
Look at it this way, it means people can't just copypaste their favorite tiktok memes and post them here with no effort.

>>103248816
People are so quick to ask 4chan to take financial and legal risks, not considering that if they go down we all lose this service.

>>103248825
Each board can define its own restrictions. It's why we can post pdfs, etc. on some boards and not others.
I wonder if any forbid even gif and are purely imageboards.

>>103248843
They can do that in /gif/ so it stands to reason that is not the logic behind it.

>>103248661
sound is bloat

>>103246590
dogshit boards

>>103248853
different board different rules get over it zoomie pajeet

>>103248855
>sound is bloat
opinion noted and tabulated.

>>103248853
>They can do that in /gif/
And? Why would you go to that cesspool?

.>>103248824
>CVE-2023-41064
>CVE-2023-4863
>CVE-2023-5129
image formats shouldn't be capable of remote zero-day vulnerabilities, zipperhead.

File: 1516422856198.jpg (96 KB, 792x558)

96 KB JPG

Literally the only reason why mp4 finally got introduced is because Applel devicelets have problems with webms

>>103248773
I can't convince you because you obviously just argue for the sake of arguing.

>>103248853
I don't think it's that clear.
We're allowed to do that on /gif/ but not /g/ the same way we're allowed to post about video games on /v/ and not /g/. They're different points.

>>103248873
Are you retarded?

File: oompa_loompa_10007.png (2.01 MB, 1024x1024)

2.01 MB PNG

>>103248869
>get over it zoomie pajeet
I did the needful saar.

Didn't have to re-encode, nice >>>/gif/28171911

>>103248876
/thread
There is no reason whatsoever to use 264 over VP9 besides speed, in which case retards can just continue to use VP8. If they would've added HEVC I wouldn't liked this addition, but they didn't.

File: g's past and present.png (136 KB, 1348x676)

136 KB PNG

they want us to stay that much?

>>103248877
We're literally in a thread focused on discussing the features.
The reason you can't convince me is because you can't discuss it or make an argument.
Your post is ironic and I don't know what you were expecting to see in this thread.

>>103248883
Oh no, don't tell me you actually go there of all places to get your rocks off? What a poor sod.

>>103248853
speaking of /gif/ what the fuck happened to that board? the archive is gone and they cut the pages down for whatever reasons

>>103248901
Whatever, I am not gonna reply to you anymore, it's not worth my time.

>>103248915
Probably running out of storage, don't know. Would have to come from someone that hangs out on their IRC channel. Or maybe Cloudflare is badgering them into buying Enterprise.

>>103248853
yes i'm sure the porn board is where all the tiktok posters are gonna flock to.

>>103248917
The 4chan team reads these posts, refusing to participate in the discussion will not see any changes.
This is basically an admission of what I just said. If you can't convince me you'll never see the changes you want.
I encourage you to not take such half-steps in the future.

>>103248938
I am participating in discussion, just not with you. Have fun!

>>103248934
zoomer are insanely horny faggots of course they are

File: oompa_loompa_10117.png (518 KB, 800x681)

518 KB PNG

>>103248934
most of the tic-tac and YT shorts are focused on softporn to get the clacks.

>>103248915
iirc it was a combination of >>103248932
>running out of storage
and legal trouble with the rekt threads.

>>103248953
what laws do rekt break?

File: 1715810680141159.webm (3.82 MB, 336x640)

3.82 MB WEBM

>>103248915
>>103248932
see >>103233489

>>103248043
>imagine the cortisone
poor little guy

>>103248945
The reason you're not discussing it with me is because I presented the admins perspective. If you can't overcome that now, what are you going to do when the team asks for your input?

>>103248968
It's going to depend on jurisdiction. Considering the contents of those threads it could be a ton of different things. The war propoganda could have gotten them in trouble, but video relating to children are probably the biggest concern for the archive host.

File: 1000023178.webm (3.72 MB, 1920x1080)

3.72 MB WEBM

>>103248876
based, I'll keep making webms

>>103248934
>flock to
>future tense
Who is going to tell him?

>>103248984
>It's going to depend on jurisdiction.
Interesting. If this site were really based out of Japan then 99% of the stuff on /b/ and /gif/ would not be allowed. Their mafia pushed the govt. into having a monopoly on porn. War footage is only illegal in Ukraine and Russia AFAIK and those laws were recent.

>>103248948
>>103249004
you forgot that this is about posting tiktok memes on this site, not just about potentially being the people who consume them.
>>103248949
I just don't see those videos being spammed when the vast majority of threads involve things that aren't allowed on tiktok, like visible genitals/female nipples or gore. at best you'll see them in like, the occassional ylyl thread where they'll get lambasted for it.

>>103233489
>hoarding and coordinating posting porn you don't even like as a 'joke"
gore spam is one thing but I do not understand zoomer humor

>>103248213
try uploading with xt pre-2.18

>>103249025
>the occassional ylyl thread where they'll get lambasted for it.
(this doesn't apply to the ironic shitposters who have existed on this site since forever and only do it to piss people off, obviously)

File: output.mp4 (45 KB, 640x480)

45 KB MP4

>>103248772
testing

>>103248473
article is 11 years old, before 4chins started using cdn

>>103249021
I haven't kept up with it but I think 4chan is still under US law despite being Japanese owned. I think the servers may still be hosted in the US. But I also have no idea how Party A (4chan) and Party B (some detractor country) would decide to divide everything up.
It probably depends on a case by case basis.

>>103249056
>before 4chins started using cdn
? the article is specifically talking about the switch to their cdn network and the urls they decided to use for them being significant.

This is post img,sys,orz, pre 4channel. That's the i.4cdn era.

>>103248969
Any proof to that claim? Because if you go to /gif/ there's several dozen race/gay threads right now, so that doesn't even make sense.

>>103249093
>? the article is specifically talking about the switch to their cdn network and the urls they decided to use for them being significant.
putting "cdn" in the domain name doesn't make it a part of cdn network

>>103248953
>>103248968
Except rekt threads are still a thing to this day, don't know where you got that from.

>>103248806
>>103248815
>>103248816
Where do you sycophants come from? none of this is true.
>MUH COPYRIGHT WILL TAKE DOWN THE SITE
Things already get DMCA'd when reported, Non issue. Not an issue for any other site on the internet. Certainly not an issue even for file hosts like pomf dot lain and catbox where people will upload hollywood fucking movies.
The closest thing to log present here is the idea that some faggots are "hired" by hiro and rapeape to run defense for every retarded decision made on the site.
>>103248984
Like here's an example. Literally making up "legal issues" that don't exist. Hiroshimoot owns the site but it's still hosted in the US. That's kind of why the report interface has an option to report things that violate US law, and not those of japan or whatever.

>>103249093
>It probably depends on a case by case basis.
Well if they are trying to appease other countries that gets sticky fast. Most of the middle east would require the admins hands be forcibly removed for allowing even one picture containing nudity. That was beaten into us prior to deploying to the middle east. "Throw out the nudie mags boys or you will be arrested and dismembered"

>>103249138
I'm failing to see whatever point you're trying to convey.
You're saying the article is old and 4chan doesn't use a "true" cdn therefore something about what was written is wrong? Or what?

>>103249152
None of the threads are archived anymore, it's not specific to rekt threads. What do you mean?

>>103249152
>Except rekt threads are still a thing to this day, don't know where you got that from.
That was my point, not sure what the other person was talking about.

File: 1671263692940008.png (300 KB, 517x610)

300 KB PNG

>>103248875
Those have been patched for a while and are you seriously implying JPG doesn't have these? Don't you remember /b/tards posting JPGs of sinks? Let that sink in...

https://www.bitdefender.com/en-gb/blog/hotforsecurity/openjpeg-vulnerability-allows-execution-of-malicious-code-using-crafted-images

>>103249157
>Like here's an example
it's just one retard who argues with literally everyone

>>103249157
>>MUH COPYRIGHT WILL TAKE DOWN THE SITE
The post you quoted didn't have anything to do with copyright.
The second one
>Literally making up "legal issues" that don't exist.
is not "made up" the archive owner had a notice banner on their website when it happened. This has nothing to do with Hiro or 4chan in the slightest. Archives are 3rd party, excluding the obvious (ephemeral) one hosted on 4chan itself.
You're arguing in bad faith so I'm not reading all this.

>>103249169
I'm replying to a post that says rekt threads are part of the reason they made the changes. It doesn't make sense why rekt threads would still be allowed to exist unhindered if that were the case. They would have become a delete-on-sight clause like the animal abuse threads.

>>103249189
>j2k exploit
???

>Supported codecs are: vp8/vp9 for webm and h264 for mp4.
this is so fucking retarded holy shit

>>103249234
The Anon you're replying to is talking about how 3rd party archives have decided to stop archiving files from /gif/ because they're both large and legally risky.
3rd party archives are not officially affiliated with 4chan outside of rarely coordinating APIs and usage limits. That is to say 4chan rules and archives rules might be different.

>>103249284
Yeah, VP9 on mp4 should be supported

>>103248772
Whats up with this board and its fascination with asian women lmao

>>103249292
that would be equally retarded
we both know I'm talking about the lack of hevc when there is literally no reason not to support it
every browser under the sun supports if fine now days and even apple trash does

>>103249284
true, remove webm, useless format.

>>103248576
No, This isn't good thing. Now can make more low effort posts when the energy converting into webm used to be filter.

Enjoy your tik tok threads & reddit reposts i guess...

>>103249292
>>103249307

>>103249304
Firefox doesn't

>Supported codecs are: vp8/vp9 for webm and h264 for mp4.
this is so fucking great holy shit

>>103249293
It is really strange how a Japanese style imageboard founded on discussion anime (and was eventually purchased by the Japanese) have some affinity for Japanese things. It doesn't make much sense.

>talk shit about the lack of hevc
>schizo instantly starts same fagging
LMAO
>>103249319
first world browsers only firecuck

>>103249284
vp9 came later
trust the HEVC plan

File: file.png (34 KB, 427x253)

34 KB PNG

>>103249331
>first world browsers only
Ok Rajeesh

>>103249201
>b-but
I didn't re-tag the copyright-discussing post that was already tagged. No need.
>b-bad faith
You are making up fake problems to justify 4chan continuing to have fewer features than a tinyboard instance spun up on a raspberry pi.

File: 1717756407491113.gif (1.5 MB, 480x360)

1.5 MB GIF

>>103246829
>>103248760
>aiiieeeeee muh hecking scary screamers ;_;
literal faggots kek

>>103249333
supporting VP9 after VP8 makes sense, online focused codecs using a online friendly container
adding mp4 support now, while cutting hevc is retarded and proves that all of this is to cater to crappletroons
but I guess at this rate we can except av1 support in another 5 years or something

>>103249357
>hevc
botnet

>>103249343
>Firefox peaked in June 2011 (31.28% market share), it has only gone down in market share since then, very slowly but surely. In 2021 it sits at 3.29%.
>2024 1%
I used to use Firefox and support Mozilla. I haven't in many years. Their death and defeat only fills me with sadness. I wish the higher ups would have respected the userbase more instead of forcing the engineers to do the opposite of what their users were asking.

>>103249319
why lie

>>103249370
>av1
pajeet produced virus

I recorded a quick cs2 clip and made a comparison of all the video codecs this website now supports

h.264
>>>/wsg/5739016
vp8
>>>/wsg/5739018
vp9
>>>/wsg/5739019

>>103249375
Not lying? Only Safari and Chromium forks support HEVC

>>103249353
>I didn't re-tag the copyright-discussing post that was already tagged. No need.
I'm not sure what you meant by this. You quoted my post which had nothing to do with copyright at all but your entire post centers around copyright. It's ironic to talk about making things up when you do this.
I'll assume this is interaction bait and not serious so we can reply back and forth to keep the thread bumped if that's your actual goal.

>>103249356
those women are sexually abused/mentally troubled

cute body does not compensate for mental issues

>>103249380
Jesus Fucking Christ why is /g/ full of tech lliterate retards that goes through this cycle whenever a new codec happens?
>GUYS WHAT IS BETTER VP9 OR 8??
>GUYS WHAT IS BETTER VP8, 9 OR AVC??
VP9 is better than all of them, but slow as fuck compared to AVC, which is better than VP8
Why do you faggots not understand this, you literally don't have to make comparison videos for this, these are all year old well known facts

>>103249286
Wait you're talking about archived.moe and desuarchive? They did that ages ago and that was most likely because of the constant kiddie shit and animal abuse stuff. We know because they delete posts/threads from the archive that they consider dangerous, whereas rekt threads are still in there, even if they aren't archiving anything outside of thumbnails anymore (probably to cover their asses in case they miss anything).

The post also mentioned /gif/ becoming a 5-page board, which has nothing to do with the archives. So responding to that post with those 2 reasons makes it seem like they apply to 4chan as well.

>>103249391
>women are sexually abused/mentally troubled
Yeah

>>103249395
but I like making comparisons

>>103248887
>>103249356
that's a man
>>103249395
AV1/AVC can't preload/preview, bud

>>103249395
You sound mad

>264 now supported
>retards will now use their GPUs to encode their clips at an even worse quality than their vp8 clips somehow
cant fucking wait

>>103249356
>that shitty thick cake of makeup
I'd rather they just put a paper bag on their head.

>>103249383
> 7 Supported for devices with hardware support (the range is the same as Edge) on Windows only. Enabled by default in Nightly and can be enabled via the media.wmf.hevc.enabled pref in about:config. 10-bit or higher colors are not supported.

>>103249435
>I am gay
We know

>>103249356
This doesn't look like a White woman to me, Are you sure this is European?

>>103249466
>projecting

>>103249400
There's multiple archives with different rules and policies so it's likely a conflation of multiple statements at multiple times.
Storing the thumbnails is usually fine for both size and law but they will go as far as to remove thumbnails too if they're flagged.

The 4chan board page limit being adjusted is not directly related to the 3rd party archives.
People spamming on purpose to troll the board does put pressure on the archives too since they have to store all that spam.
But that doesn't (directly) influence 4chan's decision to restrict the board for the same or other reasons.
It would make sense that they would prefer to manage half the amount of threads while people are actively raiding them. But it's probably not the sole reason.

>>103249494
>I suck cocks
Don't worry, we know

>>103249466
>>103249497
>We
embarrassing to see people write like that even if they're trying to make a joke

>>103245724

>>103248876
This problem is old and has already been solved, anon.

>>103249610
>they support THIS but not hevc
gookmoot is fucking retarded

File: angry-anakin.png (135 KB, 498x473)

135 KB PNG

Where is AV1 support?!

>>103249632
in 10 years when enough apple devices support it :^)

>>103249622
Don't assume it's supported just because someone posted it. You can defeat the time limit too but that's not officially supported.

>>103249646
>you can defeat the time limit
why am I not shocked, have a hunch how too
point is that they let you upload broken bullshit like that, no matter if even desktop browser have trouble playing it or not

>>103249632
What's the usecase?

>>103249683
What's the usecase for mp4 and avc?

>>103249632
>wheres ablur1
you want blur? just turn -arnr-strength to 5 or 6 on vp9 and get even smaller files than av1

>>103249668
Sure, I know what you mean. Just wanted to point out that it might be an oversight rather than something intentional.
I won't blame the admins considering how many parameters are involved with video standards, it's not surprising one would sneak past a blacklist.

File: 1712977822050636.jpg (49 KB, 480x480)

49 KB JPG

Why not just allow audio on all boards but mute the audio stream outside of /wsg/ and /gif/

So I don't have to encode two copies of every fucking webm

>>103249699
at 1% the encoding speed
>>103249709
>oversight
my guess is that they simply don't care and/or can't tell, even though it should be easy enough to check.
hell, vp9 has the same long time ""issue"", so whatever.
i'm just annoyed that they added pointless 264 but no 265, it's beyond stupid

>LET ME POST SCREAMER LET ME POST SCREAMER REEE
Cry more tiktok zoomie turd

>>103249726
you don't have to reencode anything just pass -an and copy the video stream, it's done instantly

>>103249732
>at 1% the encoding speed
cpu 3 in libvpx-vp9 is faster than svtav1 preset 0 and achieves better results

>>103248867
Welp they're the only ones who allow webms and mp4s with sound.

>>103249796
> just pass -an and copy the video stream, it's done instantly
in english, doc

>>103249915
remux it without the audio track

>>103249683
Posting this without raising the filesize limit.
https://files.catbox.moe/dpgpth.webm

File: NOOSE_1498822720185_23317(...).jpg (77 KB, 1280x960)

77 KB JPG

>>103246582
>mfw google interns are paid to beg fucking 4chan to keep google subtly relevant because they know they can't SEO themselves to a better search engine and destroyed the public's trust too much to change names to a new AI product and survive

is av1 actually that much better than vp9?

File: file.png (9 KB, 329x119)

9 KB PNG

>>103249938

>>103246780
>>>/gif/

File: sneyers.jpg (1.25 MB, 4096x3492)

1.25 MB JPG

>>103249960

>>103249955
>This guide focuses on the encoder libx265 which can offer around 25–50% bitrate savings compared to H.264 video encoded with libx264, while retaining the same visual quality. These gains will be most pronounced at resolutions of 1080p and higher.

>libvpx-vp9 is the VP9 video encoder for WebM, an open, royalty-free media file format. libvpx-vp9 can save about 20–50% bitrate compared to libx264 (the default H.264 encoder), while retaining the same visual quality.

>Depending on the use case, AV1 can achieve about 30% higher compression efficiency than VP9, and about 50% higher efficiency than H.264.

>>103249769
Don't see how 4chin couldn't just reject any video file with a huge 100dB spike on an audio spectrogram.

File: Sophia_dance_na.webm (3.77 MB, 1072x1920)

3.77 MB WEBM

av1 is hot garbage
>why yes hello sir you have a low bitrate source?
>allow me to dnr it until it's a series of occluding blobs
>then apply a blur filter to it
Perfection.

>>103249915

ffmpeg -i Sophia_dance.webm -c copy -an Sophia_dance_na.webm

>>103250023
Because a lot of normal audio would match that.
For example any clip with a modern song starting later on in the video, or something loud happening suddenly without being scary/frightening (an explosion or someone screaming for whatever reason).
The false positives would be unbelievably annoying.

>>103250139
The best one is going to be *hand or something brushing the microphone pop filter for a whole nanosecond*

File: 1726454625269.gif (2.04 MB, 287x262)

2.04 MB GIF

>>103249292
top kek

>>103250023
They could simply be flagged and show a warning next to the video.

>>103250593
this. just needs a little more tax dollars and I am sure it could get done. Asked Elon to pick this place up and modernize it. Half the time he takes days to get back to me.

kek did they really add mp4 but only if it has no audio
what's the fucking point

>>103250139
The other way of handling it would be to normalize audio so it never goes past a decibel threshold but I'm not sure how feasible it would be on a website we're on.

File: standing meme guy [sound=(...).jpg (125 KB, 776x1000)

125 KB JPG

Soundposts are actually better than webms (and now mp4s) with sound, for two simple reasons:
1. hosting sounds externally means you don't need to worry about the file size of your image
2. slightly higher barrier of entry filters retards from using them

>>103250988
Cool, so now if there's something that reaches the threshold it will be lowered to a comfortable level, and everything else will basically be turned to silence.
Literally the worst solution you could implement.

>>103251032
You're just coping about this site being shit and having artificial limitations.

>>103251049
>and everything else will basically be turned to silence.
That's not how normalization works.

File: w2.mp4 (1.21 MB, 720x406)

1.21 MB MP4

>>103248178
WOMM

>>103251070
Well yeah.
But at least the alternative we have has its own benefits despite not being as easy as just uploading a file.

>>103246582
Illiterate here.
So what's the FFmpeg command to convert my epic .mp4s into compatible .mp4s for 4chink (best quality)?

File: 1578112242996.webm (2.94 MB, 608x1080)

2.94 MB WEBM

>>103246582
Why the fuck does 4chan make changes without telling anyone. No other website does this

>>103251049
No, it makes loud things quieter and quieter things louder, normalizing the volume to a smaller range.
Everyone should have it turned on in their sound driver anyway to 'fix' all the shitty audio mixing in modern movies and videos.

>>103249769
That's a complete nonissue that's used as an excuse to be a lazy fuck. Yes, once it's enabled everywhere there would be a lot of screamers and in two weeks nobody's gonna bother.

>>103248203
>so I don't really see the point

One benefit is that you can save a mp4 from another site and share it here without needing to convert it.

How do I make this work for WebM for Lazys? It only has VP8/VP9 support. How do I convert normal .mp4s to encode in h264?

File: 1636865394549.webm (2.88 MB, 5x480)

2.88 MB WEBM

>>103248772

>>103251074
It's exactly how it works dumbass.
The file is analyzed to find the highest peak (or in this case any sudden burst that's louder than a threshold and longer than a certain amount), then the volume of the entire thing gets lowered so that the aforementioned peak has the desired loudness level, and everything else (including the stuff that was already quiet) gets lowered by the same amount, resulting in a lot of things becoming inaudible.

>>103251220
That's not normalization you vantablack gorilla. That's dynamic range compression, and it's going to fuck up the sound of almost every clip because:
1- You may not realize it but the relative difference between the loud and quiet parts is a big part of how you perceive sound
2- compressors have various parameters such as attack, release, threshold, ratio, knee, etc, as well as compressor type. All of these have to be set to the right values or they will drastically change tge end result will sound.
If you're doing this for the (extremely dumb and pointless) goal of avoiding jumpscares, you're going to need an extremely fast attack with a decent ratio, which I guarantee you it's going to absolutely destroy the sound of most videos.

I'm not going to continue this discussion, as you both clearly love wasting time arguing about things you know fuck all about and I'm not going to sit here explaining basic audio processing to a mentally handicapped cunt.
Now please stop posting.

>>103251202
Without sound I have to insert my own things into her mouth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Xl0Qr0uXuY

>>103251202
To surprise (You).

File: stock_old_man.jpg (92 KB, 735x938)

92 KB JPG

>>103246582
>supported webm for 10 years
you said this just to hurt me, didn't you?

File: Untitled.png (15 KB, 397x451)

15 KB PNG

>>103251334
>words words words
It sounds fine to me, faggot.

>>103246582
Is there any meta data that gets stored and exposed?

File: ssstik.io_1731965781457 (1).mp4 (2.49 MB, 576x1024)

2.49 MB MP4

>>103246582
Testing

>>103251417
Lowest IQ possible response.

>loudness equalization
That's a third thing, entirely separate from normalization or compression.
Just stop dude.

>>103251488
Oh fuck it works

>>103251494
same shit, you pedantic cock pocket

>>103251513
It wasn't the same shit when you decided to correct me (by saying something completely stupid) you backpedaling monkey.

>>103246780
if 4chan was fancy instead of being an ancient shitty site it could just limit the file's audio if it passes a threshold, but since the fag admins can only make new captchas then the next best thing would be to allow audio but make it so the first time you play any file it'll start at 0 volume so you have to increase it yourself, it would solve the earrape problem

>>103251562
write another novel about it

>>103251566
Yeah let's make it so that when you upload a video the audio is always fucked

>the next best thing would be to allow audio but make it so the first time you play any file it'll start at 0 volume so you have to increase it yourself, it would solve the earrape problem
People would just put the jumpscare a few seconds in, after people already manually increased the volume to be able to hear the quiet part in the beginning.

>>103251572
Acting like this doesn't change the fact that you embarrassed and continue to embarrass yourself by acting in a way that no one with a functioning brain would.
I know this, you know this, and everyone who's read the conversation knows it.
There's no point in continuing the charade. Just admit that you're a retard and leave with a tiny bit of dignity.

This will be my last response to you.
I genuinely hope you kill yourself as soon as possible.
Bye.

>muh jumpscares
How many visual jumpscares are posted? Fucking none. There was that one spider one that was posted when webms were first enabled, but that died off real quick. Shit you could've posted gif jumpscares forever and yet no one has done that since like 2010. Way overblown non-issue.

>>103249114
>4.2 MB
How is the file size over the limit?

>>103251656
boy, ur sure mad

>>103251602
>the audio is always fucked
ALL big platforms limit audio and the vast majority don't complain

>>103251666
It's 3.96 MB.

File: safe.mp4 (1.34 MB, 640x480)

1.34 MB MP4

>>103251658

>>103251666
>anon can't read

>>103248707
Why wouldn't the same countermeasures that deal with spamming/flooding not also apply here? Moreover the file upload is essentially none of the overhead for operating cost, it's almost entirely the download. The process of uploading happens once, the process of downloading probably happens dozens of times per file, which itself averages around 500kb. To think "50 bytes" carries any weight when considering the cost to benefit ratio is dumb. Moreover the potential for spam should also be countered by the same measures for all others.

>>103251697
>right click
>save video

I'm a simple man

>>103251674
They do normalization, not limiting, which is the most extreme form of dynamic range compression and sounds like utter shit if it's not set to the parameters appropriate for the specific audio it's used on.
The idea of applying it to every video, no matter the type, is utterly retarded and I'm sure you don't really mean limiting.

Also, they only do a little bit of normalization to keep the volume even between videos/tracks, and it's never as extreme as it would need to be in order to counteract jumpscares.

I don't get it. why now? why so late? is it really because of >>103248876? wtf?

>>103251738
>They do normalization
for the semantics fagging sake, 4chan doesn't need normalization, it needs limiting because the issue is people trolling while the issue on YT is volume difference throughout various videos. if you're posting a "normal" file and somehow it's as loud as earrape then I think it deserves to get limited

>>103251705
>Why wouldn't the same countermeasures that deal with spamming/flooding not also apply here?
Nobody is saying they're mutually exclusive, but they're not mutual either. They're independent websites owned by independent people. If you want 1 to mirror the other you should speak to the owners about that.

>The process of uploading happens once
Frequency doesn't matter that much. You're ignoring the idea that processing files could be expensive. It doesn't matter if you only have to process 1 file if it takes you infinitely long to do so. Encoding video is not free even when done once so I'm not going to humor this idea without further inquery.


>To think "50 bytes" carries any weight when considering the cost to benefit ratio is dumb.
I'm specifically referencing this >>103248473 which shows actual metrics from the site's owner. This isn't hypothetical, those 50 bytes actually resulted in a 46TB difference. Those small things apparently add up despite the entire world saying it's negligible. I guess it's not actually negligible after all, you know, after you measure it and find out instead of just saying "it probably won't be a big deal, who knows?!".

>>103251856
It doesn't matter what you think. You clearly know nothing about audio and don't understand how implementing that would result in every single video having its audio ruined.
If I upload a video with audio I want people to hear it the same way I heard it before uploading it. I don't want it to be different with quiet stuff suddenly being made louder, loud stuff being made quieter, everything with music will sound like shit, anything where you need to listen carefully to something will be degraded, etc.
It's not just going to affect jumpscares. It will affect almost every video, and it's going to be significantly negative in virtually every case.

>semantics
If we're having a discussion make sure you're proposing what you have in mind, and not something else entirely because you don't know the first thing about the topic and can't tell the two apart.
Not that it makes any difference, since both are stupid and neither is going to be implemented.

I'm leaving now. Please stop talking about shit you know nothing about.

If they enable audio for all boards, then /gif/ and /wsg/ will no longer have any reason to exist.

>>103251990
Larger filesizes.

>>103251996
You kinda need larger filesizes if you allow audio, to account for the added weight of tge audio track.
Allowing audio but keeping the filesize limit the same effectively means lowering the filesize limit for webms/mp4s with audio (or at least for their video tracks)

so if I make stupid little videos should I stick with webmvp9 or is some mp4 encoding better for performance/loadtime/filesize?

>>103251977
I make music and use limiters every day, your exaggeration is cringe. Take videos from /wsg/ and /gif/ and limit them to hear if they're "ruined". Also, you don't have to limit on those 2 boards, so if you want to share music it's not an issue, and for posting purposes you don't need pristine quality either, I don't see 4chan accepting .wav or .flac files
You must be from some audiophile general sperging about quality on a site that already forces you to limit length and compress everything to shit before posting. Go back to your audiofool cave, please

File: 1727689186203738.jpg (345 KB, 1215x785)

345 KB JPG

>>103248309
>x is dead
huh...it got updated today????
in fact my version is newer than this
but mp4 posts still don't work

>>103252027
You only need ~1MB for a 2m long stereo opus track, leaving 3MB for video like we originally had. Add in AV1 support and that's enough for now.

so I have to re-encode my webms to mp4 now.
oh great :x

>>103252084
>huh...it got updated today????
Before today it hadn't been updated for ~11 months.

File: This Is The Complete Vers(...).mp4 (3.5 MB, 1440x1080)

3.5 MB MP4

>>103251697
>>103251737
>>103251771
least obvious federal agents

>>103251697
heh

>>103252115
um you don't have to do that

>>103251181
>no one responded
Don't you fucks have any brothers???

on each board where do you look to see the Max file limits each allow

>>103252160
I like this song but
>m-muh feds
Boring!

>>103252241
You don't need to convert, just strip out the audio track if there is one
ffmpeg -i in.mp4 -c copy -an out.mp4

File: 4942812F94F3F8D34B5E55FB2(...).webm (1.82 MB, 1080x1920)

1.82 MB WEBM

>>103251390

no HEVC?
whats the point?

only SHEVC is allowed

File: kong_nosound.mp4 (3.37 MB, 1280x720)

3.37 MB MP4

>>103248604
Thanks

is h264 or h265 allowed? is aac allowed?

>>103252551
aac yes not sure about 265

>>103252551
yes for h.264 and aac
no for h.265

>>103251494
How is loudness equalization different from compression if it
>reduce(s) perceived volume differences
? I don't see how the differences are "perceived", and if it limits the maximum loudness and turns up the quiet parts like the documentation says... that's DRC, isn't it?
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/drivers/audio/loudness-equalization-dsp

>>103252709
where is her penis

File: Yeah.jpg (309 KB, 635x635)

309 KB JPG

>>103246780
>>103246584
these
I wouldn't care as much except for the fact that the discrepancy between boards makes managing webms a bitch. Whoops gotta keep track of which webms can be uploaded to which board instead of just going "6MB audio webm across the board". The only boards that should have special limits are the ones where it actually makes sense (/wsg/ & /gif/ can only have gifs/webms, /hr/ /w/ /wg/ have a minimum resolution requirement, etc.).
The fact that people have all sorts of retard ways of working around it (catbox, posting to /wsg/ or /gif/ and crosslinking, that shitty userscript where you embed the audio URL in the filename, etc.) shows how much of a pointless pain-in-the-ass limitation it is.

>>103252709
Come on bro don't post porn to blue boards.

>>103252749
I was gonna post french kino but this shithole said 2048 high mp4 is 2049 pixels high

File: 1683812783996681.jpg (31 KB, 400x400)

31 KB JPG

>>103246879
good

File: 1732154620478.webm (282 KB, 490x476)

282 KB WEBM

test

They should enable sound for one day to see how it goes.

>>103253216
>.webm

@.@

File: 1732154620478.gif (1.91 MB, 490x476)

1.91 MB GIF

>>103253216
still no transparency...

>>103253359
itoddlers ruined that for everyone

Genuinely can't believe it.
I won't be seeing many webms on 4chan now
itoddlers get to see all the memes everyone else can now

it's progress but it's also bittersweet

>>103253404
android?

>>103253429
Android could always play webm

>>103253437
Both working fine here via brave browser
Maybe clearing cache cookies could help

So which codecs are supported in MP4?
Are we still limited to VP9 in webm?
Is the file size limit still 4MB?
Still can't include audio?

>>103248473
why can't I find this blog anymore
did he rekt it

>>103246829
just mute them retard the volume is in your control

>>103252551
>mp4
>is h264 allowed? is aac allowed?
nah it only accepts h263 and raw pcm audio

>>103252043
vp9 is way more efficient than h264, yes.

>>103248600
what is DRM?

>>103253359
Last time i checked webm had transparency.

>>103253647
I know

not on 4chins >>103253216

File: They're Evolving [1055409(...).mp4 (3.84 MB, 1024x576)

3.84 MB MP4

>>103248178

File: 1732155746731462.webm (383 KB, 490x476)

383 KB WEBM

>>103253647
test.

>>103253657
Huh it used to work before, i remember posting long gif animations on /v/ webm threads.

>>103246582
But why? We already have webm and the next one is AV1. We have been asking for webp and jpegxl for years. Nobody ever in the history of 4chan asked for mp4. Who is this for?

>>103254085
probably so people can post twitter and onlyfans videos direct
something like 90% of all video encoded is in mp4

>>103254149
so mods have targeted me for being a phonefag and now that i no longer use a phone to browse they go ahead and try to make this website boomer friendly?

>>103254149
most videos will be over 4mb and with sound, that makes no sense

>>103249796
SVT-AV1 preset 7 is faster than libvpx cpu-used 3 and achieves better results.

File: 1707910709270497.jpg (36 KB, 285x256)

36 KB JPG

does that mean we'll get viruses from mp4 now

>>103254186
go ahead let's see what comes out

>>103252049
I'm not exaggerating anything.
Imagine having one limiter with one setting on everything.
It will sound ok on certain videos whose audio works well with those settings, and will sound like shit on everything else because it's basically a limiter with random settings.

>I don't see 4chan accepting .wav or .flac files
It's not a matter of making it less hi-fidelity. It's a matter of altering how it sounds like in a way that will ruin a decent portion of videos.
Remember tgat this will apply to EVERY video no matter if it's something that makes sense to limit or if it's something that's completely ruined by it, and you won't be able to fine-tune it for either.

>I make music and use limiters every day
>You must be from some audiophile general sperging about quality
I make music and sound design too so your appeal to authority is completely ineffective here, especially considering how you think distinguishing between limiting and normalizing is "semantics" lmao.

>Also, you don't have to limit on those 2 boards, so if you want to share music it's not an issue,
So which boards are you going to limit? And for what purpose?

File: scaling.png (143 KB, 403x431)

143 KB PNG

>>103248036
"We" need "audio."

>>103252716
It says it right in your link.
Normally it uses what is essentially just a regular single-band/full-spectrum compressor, but here it uses a multi-band compressor with each band, and crossover frequency between each band, set based on the properties of human hearing, to achieve a different effect based on the frequency content it's being fed.
It is technically dynamic range compression in the same way equalizers are technically just delays lol. It sounds different and achieves a different effect.

File: pixar_4chan.mp4 (1.98 MB, 848x464)

1.98 MB MP4

Testing my script for clips without audio.