1. Shitty video codec, flash might be the most used delivery system for streaming but certainly inferior.
2. Every link to YT without extra parameters starts up the video with worst possible video quality.
3. Videos start playing immediately instead of allowing me to adjust some things first.
4. Awkward means to manage and categorise your favourite videos.
5. Retarded way of rating videos: Like/Dislike
6. Localisation censorship.
7. Awkward means to search for videos.
8. No means of keeping track of newly uploaded videos in certain categories.
9. YT is a commercial whore.
10. MePukes
I prefer Vimeo much more, but their cash milking strategy is retardedly bad, and the lack of videos makes any YouTube competitor worthless.
Thanks for that link and yes the best products often don't become market leader, the best marketing strategy creates the winner.
Nalo wrote:
Number 3 isn't a problem for me as i have noscript installed. The video doesn't start playing until I click on it. I agree with you on everything else though. Pretty annoying how youtube always manages to fuck up the quality of vids i upload...
Even with H264 codec, I guess the recoding spoils the quality.
The problem is they use shoddy settings (they are actually using x264, so we know the encoder is good), but they have to cater to shit like AppleTV, so they have to disable stuff like CABAC, use low level profiles (3.1 or 3.2 last time I checked).
so whats the alternative to 1? HTML5, non-standardised codecs and client-side transcoding, yeah fuck that. The fact that flash plays h264 makes your first point useless.
Cohen wrote:
I'm a troll! well done, you caught me lying my ass off on a forum. I post pictures so that it makes you angry and that you wish you could have my awesome material things
Actually, if H264 is used for the HTML5 video tag, same files can be used for YouTube flash player and HTML5. The problem is, idiot Mozilla won't support an H264 decoder.
Anyway, here is a 1080p video:
Doesn't look bad at all if you consider it's a dark scene, which is difficult to encode with the settings they use.
the issue here is no-one can seem to get their arse into gear to decide on a standard format for HTML5 video.
I stand by my belief that HTML5 is not the flash-killer everyone makes it out to be.
Cohen wrote:
I'm a troll! well done, you caught me lying my ass off on a forum. I post pictures so that it makes you angry and that you wish you could have my awesome material things
The original flash player came with own video and audio codecs that were really inferior compared to other codecs, codecs that did not have a streaming option (yet), basically streaming means that the container allows streaming.
Other good example of a bad container is divx, all these divx streaming videos A/V desynchronise.
Well Natan stated that flash has incorporated H264 (or x264) but sorry can't see that back in their 1080p videos so far.
If I had a say I would encourage the use of the free Matroska container.
What does container has to do with quality, though? DivX, MP4 or Matroska, if the encode is good, they can all contain the same H264 stream and it will look the same. Out of the three I mentioned, MP4 only allows for AAC as its audio stream. Another good thing about MP4 is any player who claims to support it fully gives a guarantee that it supports H264 decoding (albeit at various profiles) and AAC decoding. YouTube uses MP4 because it can use the same file for their Flash player, their HTML5 test pages, AppleTV, mobile devices, etc.
@KaiKo
The problem with using H264 as standard, and that is why Mozilla is childish about it, is there is a very remote possibility that MPEGLA (holder of MPEG patents) could decide to charge license fees for the web players. It is very unlikely, and they have already promised to keep it license free up until at least 2016, but no, Mozilla is playing the feet stomping child and won't support it, a support which will actually guarantee the codec going free of fees for the web.
I know what Matroska allows, but it is not a widely supported container outside of computers and HD media streamers, so why would Google keep multiple copies of files with exactly the same streams?
Also, do you really need the features that Matroska supports? Do you need multiple subtitle tracks with custom fonts? Do you need seamless branching in 10 minute videos? Do you need DTS audio in there? MP4 is just enough for simple tasks as streaming.
I know what Matroska allows, but it is not a widely supported container outside of computers and HD media streamers, so why would Google keep multiple copies of files with exactly the same streams?
Also, do you really need the features that Matroska supports? Do you need multiple subtitle tracks with custom fonts? Do you need seamless branching in 10 minute videos? Do you need DTS audio in there? MP4 is just enough for simple tasks as streaming.
I see more and more Anime fansub release groups switching to mkv these days.
Point I wanted to make here that a good copyright free container and codecs is preferable over any commercial solution.
Back to the container, mkv allows for a load of options but still muxes more efficiently than many others, haven't seen a recent comparison with mp4 but well if you don't need the option you just don't use it.
And yes some of the features are nice, just release 1 video with several sub tracks in them instead of several and let the consumer choose what track he wants to read.
Same with the dubs and mkv is one of the few containers (if not only) that allows for multiple video tracks as well.
Container has nothing to do with quality. I do agree with you that is is a better container for what it allows, but it is unnecessary for Google to use it because nothing supports it.
As for open source, H264 is not free, not in the least. But it is the best lossy codec available. Would you prefer they use Theora? That thing is hideous, but it is completely free, and is what Mozilla supports for HTML5. If you support it, then you can't complain about about quality, because that crap is worse than MPEG4 ASP (Xvid, Divx, etc.).
Container has nothing to do with quality. I do agree with you that is is a better container for what it allows, but it is unnecessary for Google to use it because nothing supports it.
As for open source, H264 is not free, not in the least. But it is the best lossy codec available. Would you prefer they use Theora? That thing is hideous, but it is completely free, and is what Mozilla supports for HTML5. If you support it, then you can't complain about about quality, because that crap is worse than MPEG4 ASP (Xvid, Divx, etc.).
Anyway there are open source x264 projects out there, power to the Internet users!
Edit: Looking at your picture, I take a couple of extra bytes any day if I support a better and open platform.
Yeah, but they are only free if you use them for non-profit and still limited. You can't just put libavcodec in your stand-alone player and sell it cheap.
As it is now, the only free commercial license is freely streamed web videos. Sites like Hulu, which use H264, already pay for license on a yearly basis.
iconized wrote:
Edit: Looking at your picture, I take a couple of extra bytes any day if I support a better and open platform.
You can take anything you want, when you make a YouTube competitor with 10 copies of each video to suit capricious users.
Man, that script is EPIC. No more fucking around with YT vids, it really does help browsing a lot. Not to mention the ability to download and also auto-view in certain formats. GREAT STUFF.
Is it just me, or does changing the quality with that script not work? Neither video nor sound quality changes one bit when I pick the different qualities.
Is it just me, or does changing the quality with that script not work? Neither video nor sound quality changes one bit when I pick the different qualities.
The same happens to me too.
edit: ok thanks, I'll use the second script instead. =)
On2 VP6 is whats used for most flv encoding at the moment, that is if you use flv and not m4v/mp4.
Cohen wrote:
I'm a troll! well done, you caught me lying my ass off on a forum. I post pictures so that it makes you angry and that you wish you could have my awesome material things
not planning to make a new thread but here goes my question
i use the extension called easy youtube downloader on firefox
the above is the trailer for BF vietnam expansion, when i click the HD link i get the 720p mp4 as it should, but for many videos there isnt a HD option so the best is 480p, but if i click "mp4" which is supposed to download the best non HD version aka 480p the resolution for the mp4 i get is only 480*270. Is 480 not the vertical resolution or is my addon not downloading the proper version? thanks
Signature/Avatar nuking: none (can be changed in your profile)
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
