7 ms·

We have a format for something like that — WebP. As a bonus, it's less processor-intensive, which makes it suited for things like tiling backgrounds, or embeddi

We have a format for something like that — WebP. As a bonus, it's less processor-intensive, which makes it suited for things like tiling backgrounds, or embedding many of them on a page — a huge problem for MP4s that anyone who's enabled the on their services has no doubt already discovered.

EvilTrout 12y ago
But MP4s will play using low power on virtually every touch device today. That is a huge advantage.
- TD-Linux 12y ago
  Hardware decoding makes MP4 decoding lower power than decoding on the CPU. That does not make it "low power" in general, compared to simpler formats.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
Pxtl 12y ago
Indeed. I'm disappointed that the new generation of codecs (h264/webM) has won out for small internet videos because they seem to be processing-power beasts. Full-screen mpeg-2 (DVDs) was doable with a $40 device over a decade ago. Video compression is definitely a worse-is-better space.
- dtech 12y ago
  The heavier use of CPU allows the files to be smaller while retaining quality (or vice-versa). As all current platforms, including mobile because of dedicated hardware, have absolutely no problem with playing H.264 video while bandwidth is still a scarce resource I think it is logical and wise that H.264 won over MPEG-2 or other older codecs. Don't forget that larger file size also might mean more power consumption (storage and radio need to be active longer) even if less CPU is consumed.