Static Webm thread

Hello Sup Forums you may have seen my posts compressing large images of OPs or other anons in threads to static Webms, that was me.

Anyway the point was to show how good VP8 compression is and how we missed out big time not adopting WebP. Sadly Sup Forums likes staying in the past and catering to icucks so Webp support will probably never arrive here.

I want to share with you all the scripts I have been using, just save them as .BAT, put them in the directory of images, and run them. You must have FFMpeg to run them ofc.

PNG:
for %%f IN (*.png) do (
ffmpeg -loop 1 -i "%%~nf.png" -an -c:v libvpx -qmin 16 -qmax 16 -quality best -threads 4 -t 2 -r 1 "%%~nf.webm"
)

JPG:
for %%f IN (*.jpg) do (
ffmpeg -loop 1 -i "%%~nf.jpg" -an -c:v libvpx -qmin 16 -qmax 16 -quality best -threads 4 -t 2 -r 1 "%%~nf.webm"
)

These scripts will generate a static 2 second Webm which will have reduced file sizes and nearly the same visual quality. VP8 is a lossy codec so you will lose some quality but it won't be much. You can change the -qmin and -qmax values to 4 if you want as close to lossless as possible (not recommended).

pic related is first static Webm example.

Other urls found in this thread:

screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/174956
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Now here is the JPG from which the static Webm was extracted from. This JPG was saved in 100% quality

And i was thinking why always one retard would repost the fucking pictures.

But actually thanks OP for showing me how shit Sup Forums is. That Webm loaded really fast even tough im in eu. It's really quick compared to jpg and png.

>using windows
Fuck off newfag

I believe that pics on Sup Forums shouldn't have to x-box huge, there's no need to upload 2-3MB JPG/PNG images when you can upload a static Webm with a file size of 1MB or less.

VP8 seems to compress images of real people/places the most with file size reduction ranging from 10-15X. It also does an amazing job of compressing PNGs of chinese cartoons/vectors as well with file size reduction ranging from 5-10X.

I will keep posting more Static Webms and the source pics from which they were extracted from thereafter. All JPGs were saved with a quality of 100% and PNGs compressed to level 9 in Gimp.

>Am I fitting in now?

...

Let's just skip to the conclusion of these threads.

>.BAT

How cucked are you?

I apologize but I do not know how to write the scripts in linux. I actually dual-boot ubuntu Linux and windows 7 but I am still new to Linux in general.

haha yeah these kinds of Webms are pretty bad. icucks who have less than 2GB of RAM on their pissphone may suffer crashes or severe lag playing these.

...

Looks like shit compared to
Please stop trying to ruin the images on the imageboard.

What's the point in a webm that doesn't move?

...

Reduced file size basically see

...

I don't see any RAM hogging but I see high CPU usage. What does that webm do, 1000 fps or something?

...

Some of the leaf spots are missing

Why didn't you just tell us what you were doing as you were doing it? Was about to report you for spam, lucky my VPN blocked it.

>those conditions
lol what a gay

There's no clover support (at least not on 1.12) for zooming in on webm, that's an argument against.

And as smaller file sizes are especially useful for mobile users (at least in Europe) Floens got some work to do.

They look very similar actually. Yes VP8 is lossy, water is wet, what else is new? The point is despite the large resolutions VP8 will give you a small file size image that looks pretty much the same as a JPG 10-15X the file size. Yes, you will notice the artifacts if you zoom in at 100% on both images and closely inspect them otherwise you won't.

seems like it lol.

I was bored I guess.

>And as smaller file sizes are especially useful for mobile users (at least in Europe) Floens got some work to do.
Indeed. Maybe if enough people participate in creating and sharing static Webms floens might add support for zooming in and panning static Webms. That would be pretty nice. You can already do this in Opera.

>What does that webm do, 1000 fps or something?
65536fps

Here is an excellent example of how aggressive VP8 compression can get

This static Webm is ~23X smaller than the PNG

...

Lossy vs. lossless.
Apples and oranges.

You should consider optimizing your source files instead of converting them to videos.

...

Too bad FLIF beats webp for quality/size.

Obviously a lossless PNG will be bigger.

You should be comparing VP8 to a JPG at the same file size.

Okay family then try optimizing good fucking luck.

...

WebM transparency support WHEN

In case you all have not noticed, VP8 supports transparency as well.

Well then

There is a catch (for now). Mobile browsers including Sup Forums clients like Clover do not support displaying alpha channels on Webms. Hopefully this will change soon.

>I just had a thought: you can program pause-delays into Webms, right?
I'm not sure. I haven't tinkered enough with FFMpeg or VP8 parameters to know that.

>Would Webm be better for presentation slide-shows than picture format?
If the above was possible then I think so yeah. Better to show the slides on a video that pauses itself than to have to open up microshaft office praying it won't crash or glitch.

WebP had some troubles in support when I implemented it on the chan I ran. It was great for thumbnails when people ran Chrome (I had dynamic support in the nginx config to select format from the headers), but strangely would not render when people opened them directly - which is why I only used them for thumbnails.

Incidentally, FLIF seems to be quite seriously superior to WebP, beats JPEG2000 as well - it's right up there with BPG but without the dreadful H.265 patent problem that has.

Maybe we'll see in two decades if browsers ever want to implement it. Seriously, Mozilla would rather die than ship new image formats, ever. Google only did because of the YouTube team.

can anyone give me a good CPU burner webm?, preferable not anime picture, because of reasons.

I have noticed mobile users posting screenshots of transparent PNGs that have unreadable text because of the applications image viewer overlaying it over the text posts. If the dev just put it on a white or the boards color, it would solve that issue.

100% on all 8 cores
11/10 thanks user

Huh, I'm not getting to 100% on my 2 core potato

VP8 also loves line art for some reason.

Static Webm is ~13X smaller than the PNG

...

You don't have to transform them into webms.
This is a 180kb jpg that looks better than your 125 wemb and way closer to the 1.21 MB original, without the pants on head retarded method of turning it into a 0 length video.

This one looks pretty crap desu

oh wait 150 kb lmao
and looks considerably better than the 125 kb webm

Also webms are utter shit for smooth patterns, see the pic on the OP.

Main problem is the edges of the lines are blurred slightly. If the edges were sharp png could compress that image down to basically nothing with zero quality loss

...

That picture is not a problem for JPG either.

Thanks, Is there a way to convert it back?

>CPU spike.

But JPG makes them look twice as shitty as VP8. You can clearly tell the JPG versions apart by how blocky and blurry they lock along with all the artifacts without having to look at them much.

>zooming in on webm
I doubt most video players even have.

Stop this cancer

...

It handles lines quite nicely but it eats up more details than jpg and it's even worse for smooth gradients

How autistic do you need to be to make static webms to make smaller pictures, or care about picture size in 2016 anyway?

Go look at the leaves, the jpg one has a few spots the VP8 one doesn't

Aaaalsoo
Even according to their developers, WebP is about 25-34% smaller than a comparable jpg. You're either a retard, delusional, a faggot or all the former if you believe you can get pictures 1000% (or more) smaller like you're claiming.

Go away, go post more 2-3MB images of frogs with your pissphone

Here have this one, it's on the house.

...

>Go look at the leaves, the jpg one has a few spots the VP8 one doesn't
Fine, I'll do a comparison. Be prepared to be disappointed by JPG.

Given how shit Sup Forums servers are, the difference between 3 MB PNG and 150 KB is noticeable even if you're not on mobile, so people who post video screenshots as PNGs are cancer.
But using CPU-hogging and inconvenient WebMs to save a couple dozen kilobytes versus a JPG is autism.

Well then, have a shell version:

JPG+PNG:
for i in *jpg *png; do ffmpeg -loop 1 -i "$i" -an -c:v libvpx -qmin 16 -qmax 16 -quality best -threads 4 -t 2 -r 1 "${i}.webm"; done

...

what's with the black bars?

It's a nice idea but the execution is poor, you're degraining images and introducing color errors for no reason at all.

...

This. It's also stupidly clumsy to view and interact with them because the browser will treat them as video clips instead of images.

You can shill WebP as much as you want, but for the love of god please just actually use WebP, not WebM.

Why 2 seconds?

...

These all have clearly visible artifacts, though.
You shouldn't use webm or jpeg on pictures that have not much high-frequency details or simple color patches next to each other with high contrast.

Also get a better connection, poorfags.
VP9 when?

Thanks.

I'm not sure. The static Webm shows as transparent when I open it.

Lossless.

...

that the real question

Because converting a single image into a webm will cause unnecessary cpu utilization especially on phones as the Webm infinitely loops a single frame. Thus the 2-second duration prevents that from happening.

...

I meant as in a mass way?
I'm thinking of utilizing this to compress volumes of manga.
And see how this goes.
If it's feasible who knows, maybe Sup Forums would be regarded for creating manga standard format that Sup Forums will use.

VP8 vs JPG comparison: screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/174956

As you can tell at the same file size JPG looks more noise and blocky, it only gets worse as JPG tries to compete with smaller and smaller file sizes. Admittedly it's a little hard to tell the difference.

is an excellent example of when JPG tries to compete with VP8 at small file sizes.

...

Clever.

>people who post video screenshots as PNGs are cancer
That's mpv default.
What do you use then?

Im still trying to do it. I made a folder, put there a png and a bat with the code you said, run it but got nothing.
I'm sure is pretty easy to use, but I'm retarded and can't into basics.

JPG version looks better there

>not wanting lossless picture quality
back to imgur faggot

delet this

JPG, obviously.

The source is already lossy; nobody's going to see a difference.

>screenshot from a video
>lossless

coalgirls pls go

...

Wow you're so cool. Are you a hacker?

Look at the details and noise, JPEG keeps a lot more details.

The choice of picture is reserved for those with the ability to make them

You're probably using the libvpx decoder.

>unoptimized lossess PNG vs lossy
lad..

H.265 at 125 KB

(PNG was too large to attach, this is JPG at 95% quality)

>comparing 34kb to 125

your PNG is full of artifacts, fuck off