Why doesn't Sup Forums support gifv when it does webm?

Why doesn't Sup Forums support gifv when it does webm?

Why would Sup Forums need to support gifv when you can just post webm?

gifv is wider available so it's easier to embed in other sites

bump

Why do webms have a button for mute, but none of them have any audio?

magic, summerfag

GIFV isn't an actual format. The videos are encoded as either MP4 or WEBM.

Not to mention it's much easier to just encode something as a WEBM right out. You can't upload WEBMs to sites like Imgur despite obvious support for them which is fucking retarded.

Also the GIF format is fucking awful, bloated, and outdated. GIFV is a temporary fix at best.

Shit! Sauce nao!

look at the title, dipshit

OP here, I genuinely didn't know this.

Is there any change in image quality?

...

????

Mah bad

GIF is a bloated format with support for only 256 colors. This causes significant loss in quality as videos are converted to GIF. The images are also significantly larger than WEBMs converted from the same source despite being lower in detail.

Image is from Imgur's own announcement of the GIFV "project". You can see the loss in color variety and significant banding caused by the required conversion to GIF.

...

is that firefox

Also here's an example of what color banding is if you don't know.

WEBM is technically a video format, thus the support for audio and a mute button. Check /gif/ and /wsg/ they support WEBMs with audio.

Look, I don't use chrome, because I'm on to google's bullshit, ok?

but you have a mute button on non-audio webms :/

gifv isn't a real format, it's just a video player that supports multiple formats. Including webm. It's just a retarded "technology" developed by imgur.

Tinfoil hat on a little tight today, user?

Well, I didn't put it there.

I'll remember that when I'm the only man who isn't on the grid.

>Implying Firefox isn't controlled by the NSA and logging everything you do as well as Chrome.

Nigger why haven't you made your own browser yet?

Man, I've been wondering what that's called for ages. So many digitally-shot movies have bad colour banding, why is that?

I guess firefox is the lesser evil.

Google is starting to spread its tentacles all over the place. I am apprehensive.

Different user, but it's because of the way they do their lossy compression. It's the same reason JPEGs get more artifacts than other formats

The part I like the least about what Google has turned into is way anything you do affects your searches, so you really don't know if there's search results you're not seeing because they decided not to show them to you.

And also back when they got rid of safe-search was a bad sign. If I want my results to have adult content filtered I should decide that for myself

are you autistic?

Most banding is caused by compression. GIF is a technically lossless format, but its 256 color palette limitation causes a significant loss in quality. Other formats of compression remove color detail in order to reduce file sizes. This causes banding as there's fewer colors used to form gradients in the image.

Agreed. When I am looking up information online, I want to see exactly what everyone else sees. Instead, my searches are tailor made for me, which I think is a bad idea.

And not to mention that in Europe countries are starting to require Google to remove search results that lead to information people don't want other people to see. Because for some reason they've gotten the idea that it's Google's job to control the information, not the websites that actually contain it

I predict that at some point a new, unbiased search enginge will show up, in opposition to googles constant manipulations.

I hope so, but with everything trending more and more toward social media and mobile devices I think it's unlikely

As long as there are competitors out there, it's bound to happen.

That's also why I am uncomfortable with googles expansion. If they end up controling the entire market, and eliminate any sort of competition, namely, when they are the only game in town, that's when we really have to start worrying.

The only problem is that competitors need an unsatisfied demand, and the vast majority of people don't care about the way Google controls the flow of information.

It's pretty damn close to that, Google owns YouTube and AdSense, plus Google Analytics. They are pretty much the de facto controllers of information on the internet right now. They've also got all those robotics and AI companies they've bought.

>The only problem is that competitors need an unsatisfied demand, and the vast majority of people don't care about the way Google controls the flow of information.

True. I imagine people will only start to pay attention when it gets really bad. Might already be too late by then.

I'm no expert, but my uninformed opinion is that google will probably continue to expand its influence for quite some time, and is likely to become a far more considerable power that it is today.

They are just so controlling that it's creepy.

There just isn't audio support on Sup Forums