Post static Webms and discuss stuff about Static Webms.
PNG script:
for %%f IN (*.png) do (
ffmpeg -loop 1 -i "%%~nf.png" -an -c:v libvpx -qmin 16 -qmax 16 -crf 16 -quality best -threads 4 -t 2 -r 1 "%%~nf.webm"
)
JPG script:
for %%f IN (*.jpg) do (
ffmpeg -loop 1 -i "%%~nf.jpg" -an -c:v libvpx -qmin 16 -qmax 16 -crf 16 -quality best -threads 4 -t 2 -r 1 "%%~nf.webm"
)
Just change both the -qmin and -qmax values to fine tune the quality, 63 is the worst and 4 is the best.
Pointless shit. Just use webp.
Here's the original PNG the static Webm was extracted from.
Sup Forums doesn't allow us to upload Webp pics for some retarded reason so this is the best we got.
Bitch at moot.
I have, no word back yet. In fact I think they just stopped responding to the feedback thing altogether, last time they answered a request was like a year ago.
Sup Forums.org/feedback
Considering you answered seriously, they will never do it, because webp does not have browser support aside from Chrome & co. If you actually want webp implemented on Sup Forums, go bitch at Mozilla, which is futile, because buthurt freetards abd SJWs too busy removing features. See:
bugzilla.mozilla.org
bugzilla.mozilla.org
bugzilla.mozilla.org
tl;dr: You're fucked.
Who?
>moot
Literally who?
>only 40kb
>looks similar
kelw
Over 60% of desktop users use Chrome, why should we miss out on a superior image format just to cater to a few mozilla SJW cucks?
What's wrong with jpeg?
webm inline scaling is fucked up and a 5 second looping static image is incredibly obnoxious. how important is it that you save a few hundred kilobytes per image?
is the motivation even about saving space? i'm sure you can find other places to shave off whole megabytes in your local storage. if this is just about being edgy and unique, please fuck off and die.
jew conspiracy
That makes a valid point, but 15% is quite a lot still.
JPG uses twice the space as a static Webm to achieve the same visual quality and therefore JPG looks like shit at the same file size of a static Webm.
I will post a Static Webm first then a JPG to show you what I mean, both will be the same file sizes.
Here is the god awful JPG
>Click on thumbnail
>Wait for it to fade in
>Right click -> play
>Wonder why nothing's happening
>Look at thread title
>Static Webm thread
>mfw I got trolled
every single fucking time. stop this shit
Are you that guy that keeps clicking through pop-up ads for hours until your PC gets a boot virus and has to send it to a repair shop? If so, thanks for being a dumbass, I get to eat like a king every day because of people like you.
>implying pop-up ads would infect a gentoo hardened system
wbeM a shit
Uses more space than Gif
>moot
?????
original
...
Not our fault you don't know how to encode Webms.
Have you tried the parameters: -c:v libvpx -qmin 0 -qmax 50 -crf 20 -b:v 800k ?
When I download the image I get 140KB JPG file. Holy shit, did you hack Sup Forums?
>225KB
>too much for fewer graphical artifacts
>KB
>too much
>windows 95
No, Sup Forums just silently recompressed it for compatibility with shit browsers
(It's using arithmetic coding, which not all browsers support)
>ITT shilling for Google in autismo form
That is such a long way, who came up with the idea for this thread? Pajeet?
>comparing the size of 4:2:0 images with obvious chroma artifacts to 4:4:4 images
please stop
the anti-freedom shill task force will go to any length it can to come up with bullshit "convincing" people to use proprietary browsers
You do realize Webp and VP8 are both free and open source right?
That shit still looks better though. JPG needs to fuck off and die already, that shit was made in like the 80s and is still being used for some retarded reason. Webp isn't the only candidate to replace it, we also have BPG but I think you have to pay royalties to use it though...
It's not like firecuck is any better, you realize mozilla is not infested with SJWs and fat feminists right? They fired one of their own CEOs for having an opinion.
Chrome isn't the only alternative to Firefox though, we have Brave, Pale Moon, and Opera which all still support Webp but aren't part of the google botnet.
>Opera
Reskinned chrome, proprietary
>Brave
barely a browser (yet), mostly a scam to make ad money
>Pale Moon
Just an outdated Firefox used by hardcore technoluddites and furfags who don't like technological improvements
None of these are really viable browsers, and none of them have e.g. an addon system even remotely as powerful as Firefox's. Until that changes, I don't expect there to be a viable alternative to Firefox any time soon.
*you realize mozilla is infested
whoops lmao
cuck
Damn that's some useless shit. And I've seen quite a lot of useless shit around.
>reduces file size by 50% compared to JPG images at the same visual quality
>3MB JPGs become 1.5MB JPGs
>6MB un-uploadable JPGs become 3MB JPGs
>useless shit
k
You do realize plenty of people will let you suck their dick for free right?