Re:An Invisible Tax on the Web: Video Codecs (2018)
by zerocrates on Sunday January 10, 2021 @12:46AM
(#25710929)
I believe Firefox will support H.264 for videos only using the operating system's own support (so on Linux, if you have it supported in gstreamer and/or ffmpeg then it's supported in Firefox).
Re:An Invisible Tax on the Web: Video Codecs (2018)
by labawi on Sunday January 10, 2021 @08:21AM
(#25714416)
Linux firefox Plugins tab, though I'm not sure if it's used beyond webrtc:
> OpenH264 Video Codec provided by Cisco Systems, Inc.
> This plugin is automatically installed by Mozilla to comply with the WebRTC specification and to enable WebRTC calls with devices that require the H.264 video codec. Visit https://www.openh264.org/ to view the codec source code and learn more about the implementation.
Re:An Invisible Tax on the Web: Video Codecs (2018)
by zinekeller on Sunday January 10, 2021 @11:04AM
(#25715986)
Nope, it isn't used beyond WebRTC, and in Windows it even autodetects if the computer has a capable enough hardware encoder and use that instead (and decoding through native Windows libraries if there isn't a suitable hardware decoder).
Re:An Invisible Tax on the Web: Video Codecs (2018)
by colejohnson66 on Saturday January 09, 2021 @11:41PM
(#25710172)
If you’re using YouTube, it supports other formats than just H.264. So, in that instance, lack of H.264 isn’t noticeable.
Re:An Invisible Tax on the Web: Video Codecs (2018)
by Narishma on Sunday January 10, 2021 @04:18AM
(#25712710)
Unless you don't have hardware accelerated decoding for VP8/9. Then it is very noticeable, especially on a laptop.
Re:An Invisible Tax on the Web: Video Codecs (2018)
by KozmoNau7 on Sunday January 10, 2021 @05:42AM
(#25713281)
This completely killed my Tegra K1-based chromebook. What good is a Google laptop with a full HD display, if it can't play Youtube videos in any resolution higher than 480p?
Re:An Invisible Tax on the Web: Video Codecs (2018)
by basilgohar on Sunday January 10, 2021 @09:11AM
(#25714751)
That would be very odd because YouTube definitely supports H.264 videos in higher than 480p resolutions. VP9 is only exclusively used for some formats/resolutions (e.g., HDR is VP9-only, I think).
That's interesting, I never missed it and use both Chromium and Firefox. Apparently we can do without this tax. Or might a nonfree codec package in Debian have something to do with it? I did hear someone complain once about my sending a nonfree video format (in a jovial manner), not sure about the details anymore but it played out of the box for me (in Chromium).