mkv is not a file archive format.
It's a media container format. Like mp4.
Both can include [file] resources, but that's different from a file archive having and extracting to files.
Kissaki
joined 1 year ago
No prebuilt binary releases?
Any form of audio and video uses codecs. It applies to streaming websites as well. It's usually technological details that is not obviously disclosed to users for simplicity/convenience.
It's possible to inspect the stream and media, and find out what is being used. It may offer alternative streams, to support more efficient modern and less efficient older platforms.
Streaming can provide decent quality, but not high quality. That's simply too costly on scale.
Bit rate alone doesn't necessarily tell you quality either.
I suggest you look for downloads and look for
- Release Groups that match your intentions (once you found favorites you may want to stick to them)
- Screenshots on releases/info pages
- Encoding information
To assess encoding information, you look at file type, video codec, and encoding bit-ness.
From high to low compatibility, and low to high compression ratio:
- mp4 file, AVC/x264/h.264
- mkv file, HEVC/x265/h.265
- mkv file, HEVC, 10-bit
- mkv file, AV1 [10-bit]
You can consider the triplets of the codec to be different names for the same thing.
You'll be able to play all file and codec types on a PC, but not necessarily on other devices. If you're streaming from PC to something else, that's fine too.
I'm usually looking for 10-bit HEVC releases because of their vastly superior size for quality. If that's not available, HEVC or AVC. In most cases, it doesn't matter too much to me.
A video with a lot of movement or visual detail will have bigger sizes.
If you compare an AVC release and bitrate with a HEVC 10-bit release and bitrate, they are vastly different. You can get the same quality for a fraction of file size and bitrate. More bitrate is often a waste of bandwidth and storage space.
From the article it sounded like they were doing reviews, not let's plays. Reviews are inherently and substantially more transformative. They're not merely appending the content as it is played. They're supporting their assessments and reasoning with footage and proof.
The price this is referring to is not monetary. It's the loss of access and goods.
Governments won't see your friend's private messages and thus not request IPs. They're fine.
I don't get your argument. FreeTube is nowhere near as big as Wikipedia or GitHub. Are you not using any free software?
LibreOffice, Gimp, System Informer, Nushell, Thunderbird, Firefox, Steam, this Lemmy instance, Matrix, … I don't know what to tell you. I can go through all the applications and websites I use and I'll have a hard time finding some that sell my user data.
The executable being packed in an executable format means it has to be decompressed on each launch. If it doesn't it means it's not saving any space anyway.
I don't know what packing you're looking for, but Windows applications are typically installed with installers. An executable compressed executable goes against this; unless you want to pack installers.
Traditional file compression works well enough. People know to launch an msi or exe or read a README. Introducing non-standard tools is not necessarily a good idea, and certainly is not intuitive to users not already familiar with it.
I imagine it is free because FreeTube collect data on you.
It doesn't have to sell user data if it doesn't have to make money if it is run by volunteers.
You can disable watch history in your Google/YouTube account as well. It's not like you're forced to have it on native YouTube either.
view more: next ›
So very ironic when it's the opposite between them.