
>>24744732
>>24744746
Chromium supports HEVC/h.265 as long as your hardware has a decoder. Which seemingly avoids patent issues.
Firefox/Mozilla on the other hand is a planned obsolescence piece of shit company so they only finally started adding it in the latest release as an experimental flag, which seemingly exists in the latest Tor Browser since it's now on a new major ESR version.
media.wmf.hevc.enabled set to seemingly 2, don't know if 1 works in about:config should support HEVC as long as your hardware does. However, the video you sent and maybe any HEVC video does not currently play for some reason even on the latest Firefox version. But does in Chromium browsers just fine. I could have sworn I played test h265 just recently when I discovered this flag existed.
https://old.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/183x8mo/hevc_is_here_kinda_can_somebody_explain_me/
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1332136
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1889731
Last one mentions the flag...
This video here is encoded with NVENC AV1 in about 10 seconds with the slowest encoder preset at 13000kbps to stay just under 100MB site file limit from the original 228MB file. AV1 video is supported by even the older Tor Browser for the past year. At 5000kbps it's 40MBs and 1500kbps it's 14MB.
>>24744733
This just isn't really true for video. Though I think that one could look a lot better. The reason the originals are encoded so big is that they're trying to actually be visually lossless. Which you kind of disprove your own point here
>>24744697 Though I think that video could be better resolution and quality. It's not going to be near visually lossless at all.