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

[pyrojoe34]

4 hours ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

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.

What is his deal? Even if he can’t see the difference, why does it matter so much to him? For the rest of us the difference is night and day. I can instantly tell the difference between 1080p and 4k YouTube no matter what resolution the monitor is. The bitrate difference is massive and the artifacting at 1080p is relatively massive. But at this point that’s not what this is even about anymore he’s adamant to the point of bigotry... it’s almost funny to watch the conversation from the outside. Oh well, he’s convinced himself that we’re all delusional and he’s the only one who can see through it. Que sera, sera.

[Hellion]

On 12/3/2017 at 1:42 PM, Ryan_Vickers said:

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.

Why did you edit your post?

 

Why do you claim "not to care" and then prove the exact opposite by continuing to partake in this argument?

 

I'm still waiting for:

 

-Another example in actual video format

-Your OD certificate proving that you have an accreditation to place judgments on the eye sight of others

 

Just to clarify, I work as a commercial driver. This means I hold a class 1 license. In order to obtain said license I have to, by law, be tested and pass a vision test on a regular basis by a certified optometrist. Clearly you have no idea what the hell you are talking about in this regard.

 

So are you going to continue to dodge or provide evidence of your claim that can be validated in a real world scenario?

[vanished]

2 minutes ago, Hellion said:

Why did you edit your post?

 

Why do you claim "not to care" and then prove the exact opposite by continuing to partake in this argument?

 

I'm still waiting for:

 

-Another example in actual video format

 

-Your OD certificate proving that you have an accreditation to place judgments on the eye sight of others

 

Just to clarify, I work as a commercial driver. This means I hold a class 1 license. In order to obtain said license I have to, by law, be tested and pass a vision test on a regular basis by a certified optometrist. Clearly you have no idea what the hell you are talking about in this regard.

 

So are you going to continue to dodge or provide evidence of your claim that can be validated in a real world scenario?

I have provided evidence.  You can go look up the videos I took those samples from or any other one for that matter.  I am not continuing this any further.

[Hellion]

On 12/3/2017 at 4:42 PM, dalekphalm said:

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.

Looks like the cavalry has arrived...

 

See my previous post to vickers about my eye sight. I'm willing to bet it's better then yours.

 

I never denied a difference can be determined in unconventional lab type environments. I'm talking while the video is playing. I also never said there isn't a different between 1080p and 4k. I said there isn't a noticeable difference when  4k is downscaled to 1080p on a 1080p monitor while he claims it's "significant".

 

Might want to read and understand what the argument is fully about before joining the peanut gallery.

 

[Hellion]

4 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

I have provided evidence.  You can go look up the videos I took those samples from or any other one for that matter.  I am not continuing this any further.

That's what I thought. Big dodge.

[Guest]

Ghh, I though the 4k YouTube war ended Sunday

[vanished]

3 minutes ago, Hellion said:

That's what I thought. Big dodge.

What would it take for someone to actually prove it to you?  If we provide clear analytical evidence, you dismiss it as "too technical" or "not realistic".  If we tell you to just watch samples, you say you can't see it.  Obviously you have your mind made up already so there's no point in wasting any more time on this.

[Tieox]

I did give FF-Q a go, however noticed it was using over 80% GPU load in task manager when watching YouTube! this was with about 40% CPU, however this was before my SSD corrupted so may give it another run.  For now I'm back on Chrome. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Kierax said:

I did give FF-Q a go, however noticed it was using over 80% GPU load in task manager when watching YouTube! this was with about 40% CPU, however this was before my SSD corrupted so may give it another run.  For now I'm back on Chrome. 

Did you see if the VP9 codex was being used through Stats for Nerds? It seems like AMD GPUs don't support VP9 well or at all.

[Tieox]

Just now, tjcater said:

Did you see if the VP9 codex was being used through Stats for Nerds? It seems like AMD GPUs don't support VP9 well or at all.

Sorry no I did not, will give it a look though when I've time to give FF another run.

[pyrojoe34]

1 minute ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

What would it take for someone to actually prove it to you?  If we provide clear analytical evidence, you dismiss it as "too technical" or "not realistic".  If we tell you to just watch samples, you say you can't see it.  Obviously you have your mind made up already so there's no point in wasting any more time on this.

Just let it go. He has no intention of ever admitting that the difference exists even if he cannot see it. For the rest of us the difference is huge and we choose the setting that works best for us. He can use whatever works best for him. There's a reason I upscale of my YT-bound videos to 4k, for the extra bitrate and decreased artifacting (especially true on my videos which are skiing/mountain biking and the rapid motion leads to terrible artifacts). Almost any other video editor (and likely the majority of consumers) will benefit from the decreased compression of using the 4k setting.

 

At a certain point continuing to argue starts to reflect poorly on both parties, just let it go.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Kierax said:

Sorry no I did not, will give it a look though when I've time to give FF another run.

I would imagine that Firefox is trying to offload the VP9 decoding to the GPU while Chrome recognizes the issue and does something different for AMD GPUs. Just a hypothesis with no data though

[Tieox]

Just now, tjcater said:

I would imagine that Firefox is trying to offload the VP9 decoding to the GPU while Chrome recognizes the issue and does something different for AMD GPUs. Just a hypothesis with no data though

Nice to have a plausible theory rather than confusion and year old threads found on Google though! thanks. 

[Hellion]

21 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

What would it take for someone to actually prove it to you?  If we provide clear analytical evidence, you dismiss it as "too technical" or "not realistic".  If we tell you to just watch samples, you say you can't see it.  Obviously you have your mind made up already so there's no point in wasting any more time on this.

A streaming video that shows a "significant" difference.

 

I've made that clear from the beginning.

[Drak3]

Someone want to call mr. Perfect Eyesight out on the fact that minimum eye sight requirements for a class 1 is worse than 20/20 or 6/6. Anything under 20/100 is acceptable.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Someone want to call mr. Perfect Eyesight out on the fact that minimum eye sight requirements for a class 1 is worse than 20/20 or 6/6. Anything under 20/100 is acceptable.

Dang those are some low requirements, from what I read, some states require you to have 20/40 vision for a regular unrestricted license. Most doctors have given me a rating of around 20/18 (Though I think they need to have a more thorough testing since some places have rated my vision as 20/16, however minor a difference it may be )

[Drak3]

6 minutes ago, tjcater said:

Dang those are some low requirements, from what I read, some states require you to have 20/40 vision for a regular unrestricted license. Most doctors have given me a rating of around 20/18 (Though I think they need to have a more thorough testing since some places have rated my vision as 20/16, however minor a difference it may be )

Corrective lenses are a thing.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Corrective lenses are a thing.

Isn't 20/20 and below considered a good thing and no need for corrective lenses at those ratings?

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, tjcater said:

Isn't 20/20 and below considered a good thing and no need for corrective lenses for those ratings?

20/20 is considered "normal".

 

It means the average person can read a predetermined sign at 20 feet away, and you match it.

 

When someone has better sight, the second number becomes smaller.

Eg: 20/10 means that you can read something 20 feet away that a typical person would need to be 10 feet away from to read.

 

If you have worse vision, the second number is larger. Eg:

20/40 means that you can read something 20 feet away that a typical person could make out 40 feet away.

 

Any number over 20/20 is considered impaired to some degree, but the point at which someone gets corrective lenses will vary.

 

So having a requirement of 20/100 is a very wide range for vision. People who need glasses to read or drive could easily fall within 20/200. But as long as you wear your glasses when you need to, it's not really an issue.

[Guest]

Just now, dalekphalm said:

So having a requirement of 20/100 is a very wide range for vision. People who need glasses to read or drive could easily fall within 20/200. But as long as you wear your glasses when you need to, it's not really an issue.

Ah, I misinterpreted what he/she said as meaning corrective lenses for 20/18(16?) vision.

[Guest]

I'm not really following so sorry if this is off topic. I'm using Nightly (so V59) and I can stream Youtube and Netflix in 4k just fine with little CPU usage.

I'm not sure how a thread of a web browser got to a debate about a forklift licence haha.

[dalekphalm]

Just now, tjcater said:

Ah, I misinterpreted what he/she said as meaning corrective lenses for 20/18(16?) vision.

If you have 20/18, you don't need corrective lenses. In fact, when your eyesight is that good, typically corrective lenses won't even work, or will give negligible gains.

[Hellion]

20 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Someone want to call mr. Perfect Eyesight out on the fact that minimum eye sight requirements for a class 1 is worse than 20/20 or 6/6. Anything under 20/100 is acceptable.

Yeah, let's over exaggerate and put words in my mouth. I never stated anything relating to "perfect".

 

The point I'm making is that when tested by an actual qualified optometrist, my vision is above average. So vickers and co's claims are both ignorant and unfounded. For reference, the average unaided vision in Canada is below 20/20.

 

But rather then admitting the difference is so minimal it's not discernable in a real world environment they continue to argue that it's "significant" and make excuses that my vision is bad.

[Drak3]

11 minutes ago, tjcater said:

Isn't 20/20 and below considered a good thing and no need for corrective lenses at those ratings?

You focused on the wrong part. The US requirements are after corrective lenses. I don't know if it is like that in other countries.

[Hellion]

5 minutes ago, RorzNZ said:

forklift licence

Clearly reading isn't your strong point.

 

A class 1 is the top license available here and the operator is held to much higher standards in every aspect.

 

A forklift ticket is not at all related and issued by a third party.