Firefox 57 (aka Quantum) out now. Huge performance improvements.

[vanished]

Just now, Dabombinable said:

It doesn't actually work-its broken.

oh.  Well then we have even more in common... what is wrong with my system?

[Dabombinable]

Just now, Ryan_Vickers said:

oh.  Well then we have even more in common... what is wrong with my system?

Windows rot? Its what made me not bother reinstalling Windows 10 and just go back to 7 Pro.

[8uhbbhu8]

1 minute ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

oh.  Well then we have even more in common... what is wrong with my system?

Everything.

[vanished]

7 hours ago, Dabombinable said:

Windows rot? Its what made me not bother reinstalling Windows 10 and just go back to 7 Pro.

that would be very strange indeed, but I think I will try these tests again on Ubuntu out of curiosity.

 

Update: ...so I tried it and everything up to and including 4K60 plays flawlessly, not a single dropped frame. (Also FF57).  So now I think we're really narrowing this down I guess I can't blame firefox for the issue, so that's good to know.  Question is what is going on with my Windows install...

At this point though since I know it's not firefox I'll take my issue elsewhere if I decide to continue perusing it since it's no longer relevant to this thread.

Edited December 3, 2017 by Ryan_Vickers

[Spork829]

Rather late to the thread but *cough* Vivaldiisuperiortoallotherbrowsers *cough*

[Hellion]

18 hours ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

I don't even know what to say to this.  Why don't we retrace the conversation so far?

• I said I was having trouble getting 4K video to play smoothly
• You demonstrated you didn't know why anyone would bother doing that on a 1080p monitor
• Even though it's irrelevant, I decided to explain why it makes sense to do this just for the sake of helping you learn something new
• You denied my claim and asserted that the reason I can't play 4K video is somehow my fault
• I provided samples that prove beyond question that 4K youtube look significantly better, even when scaled down to 1080p
• You again deny it, and suggested I buy a 4K monitor, and that there was never a video playback issue to begin with

 

The issue is that video is not playing smoothly.  What resolution of monitor I have is entirely irrelevant, and if I were to take your advice and get a 4K one, I would still need to solve the original problem regardless.

 

Frankly, to continue this discussion further would just pollute the thread with nonsense, so unless you have an actual solution, I'm not particularly interested in reading more on this topic.

You have proven nothing. Never mind "without question". All that's been proven is that you are delusional.

 

What you are doing is impractical and over analyzing to the point of actually convincing yourself that there's a "significant" difference that's not noticeable in real use cases. I'm not denying a downscaled 4k video has a higher bit rate. The point I have made which you fail to understand is that it's not noticeable unless you waste significant time in a  magnifying glass, still image type situation. The fact that you then complain mentioning that this is a valid downside to a browser lacks all logic.

 

I have wasted my time both on my 1440p IPS monitor at 1080p and my 1080p TN monitor in attempt to verify your claim and have not noticed any difference other then a vast increase in bandwidth usage. To top it off you are trying to claim this is the case with streaming video which, as mentioned and has been proven in multiple instances of having decreased quality to begin with.

 

It’s no wonder some ISP’s choose to throttle bandwidth. It’s guys like you that watch 4k video on a smart phone just because “4k is awesome quality bro” when you can’t even tell the difference over 1080p on a screen of that size.

 

Get back to me if you actually try this with a 4k UHD blue ray. Then you might have a leg to stand on. Streaming youtube video is a very poor example to base an argument around.

[Drak3]

@Hellion Multiple people, including @Ryan_Vickers, have posted screenshots of YouTube videos of 4K and 1080p resolutions, with clear artifacting only on the 1080p screenshots but not the 4K. Half of their 1080p screenshots look like dog shit.

[Hellion]

3 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

@Hellion Multiple people, including @Ryan_Vickers, have posted screenshots of YouTube videos of 4K and 1080p resolutions, with clear artifacting only on the 1080p screenshots but not the 4K. Half of their 1080p screenshots look like dog shit.

This is not a real use case scenario. Last I checked, you didn't watch a video from still images.

[Drak3]

Just now, Hellion said:

This is not a real use case scenario. Last I checked, you didn't watch a video from still images.

Those screenshots are from actual youtube videos. Those are what happens in the real world.

[vanished]

3 minutes ago, Hellion said:

You have proven nothing. Never mind "without question". All that's been proven is that you are delusional.

The only thing I haven't yet done is run a comparison algorithm on the images to show objectively how different they are, but to anyone who can see clearly, yes, I have proven it.

3 minutes ago, Hellion said:

What you are doing is impractical and over analyzing to the point of actually convincing yourself that there's a "significant" difference that's not noticeable in real use cases. I'm not denying a downscaled 4k video has a higher bit rate. The point I have made which you fail to understand is that it's not noticeable unless you waste significant time in a  magnifying glass, still image type situation. The fact that you then complain mentioning that this is a valid downside to a browser lacks all logic.

I can actually see the difference while watching the video.  The images were provided for the sake of making it easier to see.

 

The issue I was having with the browser was that it was not playing video smoothly.  If you read the thread, you will not only see that this issue persists at all quality levels from 720p30 up to 4K60, thus rendering your "4K is unnecessary so why bother" argument completely invalid, but you will also see that I eventually discovered that the issue was with Windows on my system and not the browser at all.  How one quality of video compares to another is so completely irrelevant to my initial problem we may as well be talking about car superchargers at this point.

3 minutes ago, Hellion said:

I have wasted my time both on my 1440p IPS monitor at 1080p and my 1080p TN monitor in attempt to verify your claim and have not noticed any difference other then a vast increase in bandwidth usage. To top it off you are trying to claim this is the case with streaming video which, as mentioned and has been proven in multiple instances of having decreased quality to begin with.

That's fine, save yourself some bandwidth and watch in 1080p then.  I have shown the reasons one might want to turn it up, but if you see no benefit, then by all means save yourself the bandwidth and don't bother.  Don't try to deny that there is a visible difference though when a) it has been proven and b) you can't know what others are seeing.

 

Moreover, whether or not all qualities have been reduces in clarity is again, completely irrelevant; they are still rank-able from best to worst against each other.

3 minutes ago, Hellion said:

It’s no wonder some ISP’s choose to throttle bandwidth. It’s guys like you that watch 4k video on a smart phone just because “4k is awesome quality bro” when you can’t even tell the difference over 1080p on a screen of that size.

"when I can't even tell the difference?"  Really, now you're going to tell me what I can and can't see?  Alright then.

3 minutes ago, Hellion said:

Get back to me if you actually try this with a 4k UHD blue ray. Then you might have a leg to stand on. Streaming youtube video is a very poor example to base an argument around.

I lack the words to properly convey my utter and complete bafflement at your inability to follow the topic.  We were discussing how youtube was not playing smoothly, and you've somehow drifted into wanting me to check out a 4K blueray ???

[Hellion]

1 hour ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

 

Quote

The only thing I haven't yet done is run a comparison algorithm on the images to show objectively how different they are, but to anyone who can see clearly, yes, I have proven it.

 

I can actually see the difference while watching the video.  The images were provided for the sake of making it easier to see.

 

Proof of your profession as an optometrist is needed for you to make such a claim. Otherwise this is baseless comment.

 

 

Quote

That's fine, save yourself some bandwidth and watch in 1080p then.  I have shown the reasons one might want to turn it up, but if you see no benefit, then by all means save yourself the bandwidth and don't bother.  Don't try to deny that there is a visible difference though when a) it has been proven and b) you can't know what others are seeing.

 

 

 

 



Moreover, whether or not all qualities have been reduces in clarity is again, completely irrelevant; they are still rank-able from best to worst against each other.

 

 

 

You still haven’t proven anything to any reasonable standard. I’m sure we’ve all been watching youtube for years and this “artifacting” you speak of almost never occurs and certainly not to any promonent extent that you would need to play undistinguishable 4k streaming video on a 1080p monitor.

 

 

Quote

"when

I can't even tell the difference?"  Really, now you're going to tell me what I can and can't see?  Alright then.

You mean like you’ve already done for me at the start of your reply?

 

 

Quote

I lack the words to properly convey my utter and complete bafflement at your inability to follow the topic.  We were discussing how youtube was not playing smoothly, and you've somehow drifted into wanting me to check out a 4K blueray ???

This has everything to do with where this topic has gone. I’m stating (as have others) that youtube and streaming video is already downgraded based on many factors. You continue to cite these examples as valid proof of concept when they aren’t. The point being made is that if you were basing your argument on a reasonable medium you might have a leg to stand on. Currently you don’t.

 

 

By the way, I thought you were done with this argument yesterday? You're just as successful at following your word then you are in this discussion so far

[vanished]

1 minute ago, Hellion said:

Proof of your profession as an optometrist is needed for you to make such a claim. Otherwise this is baseless comment.

No, I don't need to give that to be able to claim that I can see a difference.

1 minute ago, Hellion said:

You still haven’t proven anything to any reasonable standard. I’m sure we’ve all been watching youtube for years and this “artifacting” you speak of almost never occurs and certainly not to any promonent extent that you would need to play undistinguishable 4k streaming video on a 1080p monitor.

I've shown images taken from both settings that are objectively very different in terms of detail and overall quality.  That's called proof.

1 minute ago, Hellion said:

You mean like you’ve already done for me at the start of your reply?

I don't know what you can see, and I'm not now, nor have I ever, going to try to claim I do.  You've made it clear you can't see the difference.  Fine.  But, a difference exists.  That is undeniable because it's objectively measurable.

1 minute ago, Hellion said:

This has everything to do with where this topic has gone. I’m stating (as have others) that youtube and streaming video is already downgraded based on many factors. You continue to cite these examples as valid proof of concept when they aren’t. The point being made is that if you were basing your argument on a reasonable medium you might have a leg to stand on. Currently you don’t.

I'm not making an argument.  I was asking for help with a problem, and got side tracked into explaining that 4K youtube is higher quality than 1080p even when they are both scaled down to 1080p.

[Hellion]

9 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

No, I don't need to give that to be able to claim that I can see a difference.

I've shown images taken from both settings that are objectively very different in terms of detail and overall quality.  That's called proof.

I don't know what you can see, and I'm not now, nor have I ever, going to try to claim I do.  You've made it clear you can't see the difference.  Fine.  But, a difference exists.  That is undeniable because it's objectively measurable.

I'm not making an argument.  I was asking for help with a problem, and got side tracked into explaining that 4K youtube is higher quality than 1080p even when they are both scaled down to 1080p.

Seeing a difference and imagining a difference are two very different things.

 

You've taken still images of a consistent frame rate video that are very much cherry picked and there's still no discernable difference. Never mind when actually playing the video like a regular person would.

 

You already made the claim that "working eyes" can see what you see. If you aren't an optometrist how can you do so? You have no standard or training to base this claim around. Hypocrisy at it's finest.

 

I was calling out bullshit to your complaining since you were making a problem out of nothing regaridng the 4k video playback on a 1080p monitor.. I thought that was pretty clear from my original post. Apparently not in the world of some.

[vanished]

Just now, Hellion said:

Seeing a difference and imagining a difference are two very different things.

 

You've taken still images of a consistent frame rate video that are very much cherry picked and there's still no discernable difference. Never mind when actually playing the video like a regular person would.

Still no discernible difference between my images?  No, that is objectively false, there is a significant difference.

Just now, Hellion said:

You already made the claim that "working eyes" can see what you see. If you aren't an optometrist how can you do so? You have no standard or training to base this claim around. Hypocrisy at it's finest.

I can say that because there is a significant objective difference, and therefore it should be (and is) visible to anyone who can see clearly.

Just now, Hellion said:

I was calling out bullshit to your complaining since you were making a problem out of nothing. I thought that was pretty clear from my original post. Apparently not in the world of some.

This really illustrates the ridiculousness of this whole "discussion".  I will repeat for the umpteenth time, I was complaining that I could not get video to play smoothly.  In what way is this making a problem out of nothing?  It literally is a real problem that did (and still does) exist for me.  If I hadn't mentioned that I have a 1080p monitor I'm rather sure this whole thing never would have even happened because from post one, your point has been that there's no point to what I'm trying to do, and therefore I should ignore the problem and just watch 1080p.  Well here's a list of flaws with that thinking for your consideration:

• The problem persists at 1080p and even at 720p.  Unless you're gonna tell me to watch everything at 480p because it's just as good, you "don't have a leg to stand on"
• You have recommended that I get a 4K monitor if I want to watch 4K video.  Well that would still require solving this problem that you've provided zero assistance with, wouldn't it?
• You continue to say that there's no difference when objectively, there is, and therefore there is a valid reason for me to want to do this.

[Likwid]

I tried using it for almost a month and all I can say is it's better than chrome , but page loading is slow so I will change back

 

[Hellion]

29 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Still no discernible difference between my images?  No, that is objectively false, there is a significant difference.

I can say that because there is a significant objective difference, and therefore it should be (and is) visible to anyone who can see clearly.

This really illustrates the ridiculousness of this whole "discussion".  I will repeat for the umpteenth time, I was complaining that I could not get video to play smoothly.  In what way is this making a problem out of nothing?  It literally is a real problem that did (and still does) exist for me.  If I hadn't mentioned that I have a 1080p monitor I'm rather sure this whole thing never would have even happened because from post one, your point has been that there's no point to what I'm trying to do, and therefore I should ignore the problem and just watch 1080p.  Well here's a list of flaws with that thinking for your consideration:

• The problem persists at 1080p and even at 720p.  Unless you're gonna tell me to watch everything at 480p because it's just as good, you "don't have a leg to stand on"
• You have recommended that I get a 4K monitor if I want to watch 4K video.  Well that would still require solving this problem that you've provided zero assistance with, wouldn't it?
• You continue to say that there's no difference when objectively, there is, and therefore there is a valid reason for me to want to do this.

I will give you one last chance to validate your argument. Since I don't have time to sit on an internet forum all day, I will request that you upload another set of "images" or better yet, link to a video where you claim there's a "significant" difference for a real world example.

 

Your use of the term "objective" is flawed. I'm arguing practical, real world scenario and you want to go as far as to mention placing video algorithms side by side. Where do you draw the line between fantasy and reality? Anything can be twisted to fit a narrative in a lab like environment under a microscope. I'm a realist that draws the line at practicality.

 

We're talking streaming youtube video. Not game play, not 4k UHD blue ray. Why is that so hard to understand for you?

 

I don't care about your general video playback issue. I don't work for mozilla and don't have a solution for that.  What I have an issue with is making bullshit claims that streaming 4k video downscaled to 1080p on a 1080p monitor shows "significant" quality improvements. Why you continue to bring up other issues that I have never commented on is unknown. All your assumptions about how I would recommend you handle any other issues I haven't specifically mentioned are illusions you created.

 

Still waiting for your OD certificate to validate that you have a basis to make claims on "working eyes".

[Guest]

I run Nightly (before it was known as Aurora) - its version 59 atm - its a beast. Way quicker than Chrome on my MacBook Pro 2016.

[Dabombinable]

Just now, RorzNZ said:

I run Nightly (before it was known as Aurora) - its version 59 atm - its a beast. Way quicker than Chrome on my MacBook Pro 2016.

Funny story, my Mum could only install Firefox Nightly on her laptop (and she won't let me re-install Windows/replace the slow HDD with a fast SSD), and its been far more stable than Chrome and Edge (she won't use IE unless she is forced to).

[vanished]

2 hours ago, Hellion said:

I will give you one last chance to validate your argument. Since I don't have time to sit on an internet forum all day, I will request that you upload another set of "images" or better yet, link to a video where you claim there's a "significant" difference for a real world example.

 

Your use of the term "objective" is flawed. I'm arguing practical, real world scenario and you want to go as far as to mention placing video algorithms side by side. Where do you draw the line between fantasy and reality? Anything can be twisted to fit a narrative in a lab like environment under a microscope. I'm a realist that draws the line at practicality.

 

We're talking streaming youtube video. Not game play, not 4k UHD blue ray. Why is that so hard to understand for you?

 

I don't care about your general video playback issue. I don't work for mozilla and don't have a solution for that.  What I have an issue with is making bullshit claims that streaming 4k video downscaled to 1080p on a 1080p monitor shows "significant" quality improvements. Why you continue to bring up other issues that I have never commented on is unknown. All your assumptions about how I would recommend you handle any other issues I haven't specifically mentioned are illusions you created.

 

Still waiting for your OD certificate to validate that you have a basis to make claims on "working eyes".

I could go through this point by point picking it apart but I don't think that would bring this any closer to conclusion, so I'll try something else.

 

It's clear you have no intention of providing feedback on the actual issue and instead are intently focused on making sure people don't watch streamed video at resolutions higher than you deem necessary.  I'm not sure why you care so much and frankly I don't care.  I have nothing more of value to add to this, and since it's obvious you don't either, I think we're done here.

[Guest]

Just now, Dabombinable said:

its been far more stable than Chrome and Edge

I've been surprised at how stable Nightly has been through the years (Used it shortly after FF Developer Edition was announced), though maybe my expectations for beta/alpha software is low due to using Windows 10 from day one. (October 1, 2014 anyone Gosh, that makes the OS feel older than it is, though its basically one big beta run marketed as a finished product.)

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

Funny story, my Mum could only install Firefox Nightly on her laptop (and she won't let me re-install Windows/replace the slow HDD with a fast SSD), and its been far more stable than Chrome and Edge (she won't use IE unless she is forced to).

Theres a lot of people having problems with Quantum, but its probably more to do with their systems than anything else - its not FireFox's responsibility to ensure compatability with 15 year old computers (for example - but maybe their are bugs, sadly for my AMD Athlon)

[Dabombinable]

9 minutes ago, RorzNZ said:

Theres a lot of people having problems with Quantum, but its probably more to do with their systems than anything else - its not FireFox's responsibility to ensure compatability with 15 year old computers (for example - but maybe their are bugs, sadly for my AMD Athlon)

With my Mum's laptop, its just Windows 10 being screwed up. It point blank refuses to install the standard and beta versions of Firefox, and has a significant delay when typing in Word (despite having an i5 2540M, not thermal+power issues and 12GB of RAM).

[Guest]

Just now, Dabombinable said:

With my Mum's laptop, its just Windows 10 being screwed up. It point blank refuses to install the standard and beta versions of Firefox, and has a significant delay when typing in Word (despite having an i5 2540M, not thermal+power issues and 12GB of RAM).

If I had a penny for every time Windows 10 screwed up I'd be Bill Gates.

[Drak3]

After a decent bit of playing around, LTT is now the only site not playing nicely with FF57 on my main machine.

[dalekphalm]

5 hours ago, Hellion said:

You have proven nothing. Never mind "without question". All that's been proven is that you are delusional.

 

What you are doing is impractical and over analyzing to the point of actually convincing yourself that there's a "significant" difference that's not noticeable in real use cases. I'm not denying a downscaled 4k video has a higher bit rate. The point I have made which you fail to understand is that it's not noticeable unless you waste significant time in a  magnifying glass, still image type situation. The fact that you then complain mentioning that this is a valid downside to a browser lacks all logic.

 

I have wasted my time both on my 1440p IPS monitor at 1080p and my 1080p TN monitor in attempt to verify your claim and have not noticed any difference other then a vast increase in bandwidth usage. To top it off you are trying to claim this is the case with streaming video which, as mentioned and has been proven in multiple instances of having decreased quality to begin with.

 

It’s no wonder some ISP’s choose to throttle bandwidth. It’s guys like you that watch 4k video on a smart phone just because “4k is awesome quality bro” when you can’t even tell the difference over 1080p on a screen of that size.

 

Get back to me if you actually try this with a 4k UHD blue ray. Then you might have a leg to stand on. Streaming youtube video is a very poor example to base an argument around.

I can only conclude that you simply have bad eye sight, and cannot perceive the differences very well.

 

Because that's the only explanation that makes sense. The difference in all of the screenshots are obvious.

 

It would be like me showing you a picture of a waterfall, and you saying "Yeah but we don't see it MOTION, therefore that's not proof that water falls with gravity, and I'm not convinced".

 

Like, sure, yes, a screenshot will look different when watching in actual motion. DIFFERENT, though. Not gone, or unnoticeable.

 

I can easily and clearly notice the difference between 1080p and 4K, without having to pause and scrutinize the video.

 

If you can't? Sure that's fine. Don't upscale, just watch at 1080p. But you dismissing empirical evidence and telling other people they're wrong or delusional is quite laughable, at best. If you want to save your bandwidth, cool. But don't tell others to do the same simply because you refuse to accept the evidence that multiple people have posted.