3 ms·
I assume Facebook has this requirement for usability reasons. They don’t want a user to receive a video through one of its many share features and then not be a
by vbsteven 5y ago
I assume Facebook has this requirement for usability reasons. They don’t want a user to receive a video through one of its many share features and then not be able to view it.
- mappu 5y agoYou need baseline codecs for baseline visibility, sure. But the article is about selectively choosing which videos to encode with more advanced parameters, and there's no reason to hold back delivering your 1080p VP9 just because the 720p VP9 isn't ready yet - just serve something else.
- aledalgrande 5y agoWhat if you were streaming 1080 VP9 and then your player decides to downgrade to 720 because your connection became slower? At that point the missing 720 would make you unable to watch the video.
- yaur 5y agoIn MPEG-DASH codec is specified at the representation level so with a compliant packager and a compliant player the player should be able to switch down to the "fast h.264" rendition that exists before they start trying to create VP9 renditions.
- aarongolliver 5y agoThis is (was?) a big problem with google photos. If you upload a video and immediately share it with someone they'll just see a black screen. A few minutes later they might be able to watch a super-low res encoded version, and only much later does a HD version become available. I started waiting 10 minutes between generating a "share" link before sending it to my family because of all the confusion it was causing.