Hacker News Reader

Comment by shanselman | Hacker News Reader

It says "Spot the differences? :) There’s none."

Really? The BPG is WAY worse, IMHO. It's immediately apparent. I noticed it with my eyes before I parsed the text.

I don't even get to spot the difference. For some reason on my box chrome pegs the cpu at 25% for about 30 seconds then asks me to kill the page. Stripping out the alternate format, the other one plays instantly and with minimal cpu usage.

Read further down: "Current example is around 8-10s"

If you let it run for awhile it eventually decodes.

If you let it run for awhile it eventually decodes.

I let it run past the "do you want to kill it" dialog for about 45 seconds more, then it hard crashed the tab.

They also mention this, in the downsides: "Main thread blocking while decompiling large files"

MP4 to BPG conversion. What else did you expect?

We're essentially converting from one frequency-domain format to another in order to accommodate an entirely new inter-frame compression format. There definitely needs to be a frequency-domain to spatial-domain conversion, which that, in itself, is lossy, then it goes back to frequency-domain when re-encoding.

Give OP a break.

Not trying to not give them a break, but I'm pointing out they said clearly there's no difference in quality. There surely is.

To your excellent point about MP4 to BPG conversion, I'd say that OP should have used (did they? I don't know) the source material to avoid a "copy of a copy."

Are you the same guy from the article comments?

Granted, the Author should have been clearer about it, but BPG's is not mean to replace MP4 even though he juxtaposed them, it's about BPG's potential replacement for GIF.

You can't "be clearer" about making a blunt statement that's completely wrong and untrue.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com