Thread 105846185

>H.264
>JPEG
>AAC
>PNG
>FLAC
God's chosen codecs

h264 is mp4 right?
jpeg is cool :D
idk what aac is -ACK
png is cool :D
i was told flac is high quality so i always download the flac version in sovl seek

what is all that? cant i just download and watch/listen without having to worry about what the 3 letters at the end of the filename are?

>>105846195
>h264 is mp4
mp4 is a container, son. It can (and commonly does contain h.264 video)

>>105846195
h264 is a codec. mp4 is a container. You can use av1 or h264 or h265 in mp4 or mkv. Containers just contain.

>>105846228
AFAIK webm can only contain VP8, VP9 and AV1
MKV is a gigachad container though and can contain practically anything

>>105846185 (OP)
All supported

>>105846249
>AFAIK webm can only contain VP8, VP9 and AV1
...well it can contain vorbis and opus audio too but yes, just like a lot of codecs aren't supported in mp4
btw the person you were replying too never implied every container can contain every codec so YTA

I dunno about JPG. Could the new jpegli encoder really replace the old turbo-shit one?

>>105846185 (OP)
H.265 is just way better H.264, and you'd have to just have a really shitty computer to not want to prefer it

>>105848665
mozjpeg already replaced it 15 years ago kys

>>105848911
No, mozjpeg failed to get any significant adoption otherwise people wouldn't be using Webp at all right now. I'm wondering how it will pan out for jpegli.

>>105848897
>just way better
eslfag opinion discarded

>>105848968
>mozjpeg failed to get any significant adoption
what the fuck does that even mean, how do you know which encoder sites are using
>I'm wondering how it will pan out for jpegli.
why would jpegli fare any better when it only beats mozjpeg on high resolution high quality images? for low res/low quality (webpiss target) it's pretty much the same as mozjpeg, if mozjpeg isn't enough for the jews jpegli won't be either
of course, since you still don't have a working brain, you couldn't reach this conclusion by yourself.

>>105849320
Easy, mozjpeg is able to get JPG images down to 1 BPP with great quality yet we still have a large amount of them use 3+ BPP. Pretty huge clue that shit JPG encoders are still being used today.

>>105846185 (OP)
Trvthnvke
>>105848897
Stuck in patent hell unlike H.264 which managed to escape it

128kbps MP3
Saved for Web JPEGs, Quality: 5
YIFY rips

Yep, it's kino time.

>>105846228
mp4 can contain h264 + opus but yt-dlp always choses mkv for this combinaton, always pisses me off

>>105849669
but a website serving 7bpp images clearly gives no shit about bandwidth costs or anything like that, so why would they decide to switch to jpegli while targeting a similar size?
very unlikely, if they do realize "we should save bandwidth" then mozjpeg is already good enough at that
jpegli is only relevant for a very small quantity of use cases, I don't expect it to become widely adopted at all

>>105850434
why would you prefer it to be mp4 tho?
h264+aac makes sense in mp4 container for compatibility reasons
but with opus, sure it's supported in mp4, but no video player that can decode opus doesn't also support mkv, which has lower overhead and is a less jewish format
so yeah it makes sense to use mkv for anything that isn't h264/h265+aac/pcm imo

>>105850727
Maybe idk but having websites use 2GB of RAM and 1GB of local storage space for temp files is retarded imho. It's annoying and causes so many electronics that could still be usable to have to go in a landfill.

They probably DO care but maybe they're too stupid to update shit just like 4chan.

>>105850743
I see, thanks

Opus instead of AAC