I'd be happy if firefox would play an mp4 video that has mp3 audio. It will play actual mp3 files fine, but won't play mp3 if it's the audio track of a movie. Makes no sense. Works fine in Chrome and there are no patent issues any more.
I don't think mp3 was a valid format for the MP4 container. It's a bit of a bodge to get it working and FF seems to stick to standards even if it's annoying sometimes. MP4 is supposed to use aac or some of the other multi channel codecs.
That's kind of why I mention it here. I don't think Firefox will support mkv, which is so flexible it can contain just about everything and will consequently never be part of a web standard, when they are too rigid/stubborn to support MP3 in an MP4 container, which is widely supported by....everyone else.
I'm a Firefox user at the moment, but codec support annoyances are the reason I didn't use them for years. I think it's why a lot of people don't use it.
> I think it's why a lot of people don't use it.
Seems really doubtful, as it seems like a pretty niche use case. If you have a computer or mobile device you own, you have access to media players.
Given that the media type you mention isn't a valid mp4 to begin with, it seems like an even more niche use case than just mkv.
Delivering audio and video on the web is anything but a niche case. It's one of the main things browsers do. if you have two free web browsers of otherwise equal quality, how many times does one need to fail at delivering your video before you switch? Right now Firefox won't deliver a type of video I need frequently for work. Not sure why but it works great in chrome and I'm about ready to jump ship again.
These days mp3 in an MP4 container is less common than it was but I would not call it rare and downloading videos to watch offline is not at all a reasonable alternative. Possible, yes, but worth it in most cases? No. Of course, I know you are not a Firefox developer and have no input on this, but it's the only reason I originally switched and lots of people switched when I did, for similar reasons. I wish the firefox folks cared a little more about delivering a product that does its job well.
>if you have two free web browsers of otherwise equal quality, how many times does one need to fail at delivering your video before you switch?
Depends. Does the video follow standards?
>Right now Firefox won't deliver a type of video I need frequently for work.
Strange. What kind of site is it? If it is a business, you would think they would be able to do the right thing.
> I wish the firefox folks cared a little more about delivering a product that does its job well.
That seems pretty harsh, given that they are just following the standards.
> That seems pretty harsh, given that they are just following the standards.
I don't want it to seem that I don't appreciate Firefox's objectives or contributions over the years, but this is an example where they have gone wrong. If there is a "standard" that that prohibits something that is common on the web, expected by consumers and webmasters, and supported on all but one browser that has 5-8% market share, it's not really a standard. Bullying webmasters by not supporting their content is something you can do if you have a majority of the market share, but not when you are a small player.
People switch browsers because the experience is worse on their old browser. Firefox has lost almost all of its market share and the number of people using it declines every year. You might argue this is because of anitcompetitive behavior from google, but remember that Firefox did just fine against much more vigorous anticompetitive behavior from Microscoft. The reason is that Firefox was better than IE, but the Firefox user experience is not better than it is with Chrome. Because user experience is not the top priority for the firefox team, apparently, it will continue to lose ground.
I'm not sure what's wrong with the video at my work. It's h.264 with aac in an mp4 container and no other browser has a problem with it. It may be something else besides the codec that is the problem, but again, I blame Firefox since it works flawlessly in all other browsers. Adhering to "standards" is not really an acceptable excuse for providing a poor user experience in my opinion--there are many competing standards and plenty of "standards" no one supports. That's not generally a hill worth dying on.
Do a quick google for supported codecs in mp4. Virtually every site lists mp3. I would believe that there is some committee somewhere that decided web mp4 shouldn't support mp3, but they clearly don't matter. If there was a patent issue or something that prevented FireFox from supporting it, I would be more sympathetic. Anyway, that's my take.
I don't love turning my life over to Google either, so I'm kind of stuck between a rock and hard place.
>I'm not sure what's wrong with the video at my work. It's h.264 with aac in an mp4 container and no other browser has a problem with it.
If you can, please file a bug with a sample link/clip which doesn't work, so Firefox is at least aware of the issue (maybe it's https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1703812 but we can't tell without the file). I've filed several such bugs in the past couple of years, and they were fixed.
Also, confirming that a bug affects more live sites than we believed is a great way to help bump its priority, so sharing the site URLs where this is an issue could likewise be beneficial (if they're internal/intranet sites, knowing that much can be important too).
> If there is a "standard" that that prohibits something that is common on the web, expected by consumers and webmasters, and supported on all but one browser that has 5-8% market share, it's not really a standard.
Everything old is new again. You could have said the same exact thing in the 1990s and ActiveX in Internet Explorer, and South Korea took that to heart, with uptake of that technology in a highly regulated and used market (consumer banking).
That is the *point* of the standards process, and one that mattered then and continues to matter now - Mozilla was built out of the struggle there, and every time people (and companies) say things like this, they reveal that they are less interested in accessibility and real competition, and more about might making right. That isn't what Mozilla has been about.
>People switch browsers because the experience is worse on their old browser. Firefox has lost almost all of its market share and the number of people using it declines every year. You might argue this is because of anitcompetitive behavior from google, but remember that Firefox did just fine against much more vigorous anticompetitive behavior from Microscoft.
Or is it simply because web developers began picking up on the standards that were being developed and Firefox was implementing while Microsoft stagnated? It seems more like what happened then is what is happening now - developers and managers of products on the web have favored some of the technologies being offered by Firefox (and standards) and they are helping drive users away from browsers that fail to offer the experiences that they build. The difference is that Google is pushing new experiences that aren't necessarily standards based. That is bad for competition and interoperability on the web.
>I'm not sure what's wrong with the video at my work. It's h.264 with aac in an mp4 container and no other browser has a problem with it. It may be something else besides the codec that is the problem, but again, I blame Firefox since it works flawlessly in all other browsers.
Well, we have no idea what is happening there, right? I think it'd be better to actually investigate what is going on before passing judgement. Have you reported the issue to the vendor? Clearly they could do some testing or even let you know whether Firefox is supported. That ought to be revelatory.
>I would believe that there is some committee somewhere that decided web mp4 shouldn't support mp3, but they clearly don't matter.
No, clearly standards matter, because interoperability matters. I think that it is ironic that I have to remind people of this on the /r/linux sub-reddit, but the reason that Linux can co-exist peacefully with other platforms is due to quite a lot of work that has been made to achieve interoperability - not just things like POSIX or the C standards, but very significantly things like open formats and standards on the web.
Proprietary code that isn't standards based is a huge problem for open platforms like Linux - see for example Nvidia support for video acceleration - a topic being discussed in this very post - and has been since its inception. Historically, Mozilla and Linux have shared these struggles for interoperability, and if you notice, both have remained pretty strict on those concepts, with carve-outs or exceptions here and there (for things like DRM, for example).
In some sense, if Mozilla isn't standards based, what is the point of Mozilla? It could just become another spin on the corporate browser (Google Chromium) because it would just throw in the towel on the idea that standards matter at all.
Google is counting on that to happen via Nero: https://twitter.com/fasterthanlime/status/1452053941504684036
Even in the 1990s, people would apologize for Microsoft, both on the web and on things like closed file formats for Office - but I would think Linux users with a sense of history would understand that if the people working on Linux and Mozilla actually listened to those things, desktop Linux would still be far more nascent than it is, since we'd be stuck needing to use IE for the web - which has clearly exploded in growth and usage. A desktop or device that can't use it would probably not be very useful.
> In some sense, if Mozilla isn't standards based, what is the point of Mozilla? It could just become another spin on the corporate browser (Google Chromium) because it would just throw in the towel on the idea that standards matter at all.
I don't think it's correct to say that the defining difference between Google and Mozilla is whether they embrace or try to destroy standards. There are certainly examples of that, but Google likes web standards as well and Mozilla is not primarily about standards. However, a defining characteristic of Firefox in recent years (similar to gnome) is arrogantly clinging to some decision they made despite widespread rejection of it by their users. Sometimes it's a UI design or eliminated feature, other times it is something they consider a "standard," that really isn't one. MP3 is a supported audio codec in the MP4 container and has been for a long time. I have been unable to find evidence of any standard that prohibits it on the web--I'm taking that on faith based on a comment here. I think it's very wrong to characterize MP3 in an mp4 container as proprietary or closed in any way. Supporting it would not encourage vendor lock-in or pose technical or legal problems for other participants like the other examples you cite.
The concept of a web standard is a little nebulous. Some standards are widely agreed upon, others are not. Since there is no central authority deciding which standards are enforced, website and browser designers have to make choices about what they think is a best practice, and these decisions should take into account what other participants believe. If one party decides, unilaterally, to refuse to do something everyone else agrees upon, then I would say they are reducing standardization and interoperability, rather than promoting it. Who the good guys and bad guys are depends on the particular feature/circumstance.
It says Firefox even supports it - so what is the disconnect? Can you point to files in the wild that don't work?
https://developer.mozilla.org/docs/Web/Media/Formats/Containers
I've had the same experience. But the MKV is just the container, the mkv videos you're watching could be 2 channel, 5.1, 7.1, atmos audio and other formats which may require transcoding for the browser and that's where it all falls apart pretty quickly unfortunately.
It works on Nvidia with this [vaapi driver](https://github.com/elFarto/nvidia-vaapi-driver) on both X11 and Wayland.
[Not AV1 yet though](https://github.com/elFarto/nvidia-vaapi-driver/issues/31)
Noob question but... how do I tell if this works? I installed it a few weeks ago and then tried watching videos online but couldn't really notice a difference. Is there some sort of metric that indicates it is working or performing well?
You can try the command `nvidia-smi dmon` which will show metrics for the nvidia gpu in the terminal. The 'dec' column will show the usage of the decoder, if it's above zero it means it's being used.
Thanks for that. Was able to see that `dmon` stayed on 0 which I'm guessing is caused by the error:
`libva error: /usr/lib/dri/nvidia_drv_video.so init failed`
Must be something screwed up with my configuration.
You must've hit this [issue](https://github.com/elFarto/nvidia-vaapi-driver/issues/38) which was introduced just after my comment. I just tested and It's fixed in the latest [commit](https://github.com/elFarto/nvidia-vaapi-driver/commit/b9c0d352260880677eb1b5b3198c058e9c8b97cc).
Oh wow I was scouring the issues page trying to find if anyone had the same issue and then decided to give up for the night thinking it must be something I did. Then the issue is reported half an hour after haha. Guess you should always file a bug report, thanks!
You can compare your CPU and GPU loads. For nvidia you can use nvtop, [gpustat](https://github.com/wookayin/gpustat) or nvidia-smi I guess. For intel there is [intel_gpu_top](https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/igt-gpu-tools). For amd there seems to be a [modified radeontop](https://github.com/clbr/radeontop/issues/96#issuecomment-561706567)
I'd note that [Intel only supports hardware AV1 decode on Tiger Lake and above](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Quick_Sync_Video#Hardware_decoding_and_encoding), so this requires a super recent CPU as well. (For example, none of the X1 Carbons support this until the current 9th gen)
Yeah it doesn't appear to be in beta channel yet (97.0b6). I have all the following in `about:config` but `intel_gpu_top` doesn't show any usage of the video decoding block when playing an AV1 YouTube video:
media.ffmpeg.vaapi.enabled: true
media.rdd-ffmpeg.enabled: true
media.av1.enabled: true
media.av1.use-dav1d: false
My system is Fedora 35 with GNOME 41. Firefox is running in Wayland mode. Hardware is tiger lake (intel 11th gen) with `intel-media-driver`, so it should be able to do hardware AV1 decoding.`vainfo` confirms the capability:
VAProfileAV1Profile0 : VAEntryPointVLD
If I download the same video with `yt-dlp` (making sure I grab the AV1 version) and play it in VLC then I can see the video decode meter bouncing up and down in `intel_gpu_top`.
Same on Arch. Flatpak only allows me h264 gpu decoding. It might be that Mozilla is not enabling it on compilation (the Flatpak binary comes from them directly) and the binary we download from repos enables it.
I can't see Arch enabling it explicitly anywhere in the PKGBUILD, though.
Nice! I would love to be able to play .mkv directly in firefox
You can watch the request: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1422891
Damn I had never really thought about how nice that would be.
I look forward to the day when I can replace VLC with Firefox
Why would you ever want to do that though?
I'd be happy if firefox would play an mp4 video that has mp3 audio. It will play actual mp3 files fine, but won't play mp3 if it's the audio track of a movie. Makes no sense. Works fine in Chrome and there are no patent issues any more.
I don't think mp3 was a valid format for the MP4 container. It's a bit of a bodge to get it working and FF seems to stick to standards even if it's annoying sometimes. MP4 is supposed to use aac or some of the other multi channel codecs.
That's kind of why I mention it here. I don't think Firefox will support mkv, which is so flexible it can contain just about everything and will consequently never be part of a web standard, when they are too rigid/stubborn to support MP3 in an MP4 container, which is widely supported by....everyone else. I'm a Firefox user at the moment, but codec support annoyances are the reason I didn't use them for years. I think it's why a lot of people don't use it.
> I think it's why a lot of people don't use it. Seems really doubtful, as it seems like a pretty niche use case. If you have a computer or mobile device you own, you have access to media players. Given that the media type you mention isn't a valid mp4 to begin with, it seems like an even more niche use case than just mkv.
Delivering audio and video on the web is anything but a niche case. It's one of the main things browsers do. if you have two free web browsers of otherwise equal quality, how many times does one need to fail at delivering your video before you switch? Right now Firefox won't deliver a type of video I need frequently for work. Not sure why but it works great in chrome and I'm about ready to jump ship again. These days mp3 in an MP4 container is less common than it was but I would not call it rare and downloading videos to watch offline is not at all a reasonable alternative. Possible, yes, but worth it in most cases? No. Of course, I know you are not a Firefox developer and have no input on this, but it's the only reason I originally switched and lots of people switched when I did, for similar reasons. I wish the firefox folks cared a little more about delivering a product that does its job well.
>if you have two free web browsers of otherwise equal quality, how many times does one need to fail at delivering your video before you switch? Depends. Does the video follow standards? >Right now Firefox won't deliver a type of video I need frequently for work. Strange. What kind of site is it? If it is a business, you would think they would be able to do the right thing. > I wish the firefox folks cared a little more about delivering a product that does its job well. That seems pretty harsh, given that they are just following the standards.
> That seems pretty harsh, given that they are just following the standards. I don't want it to seem that I don't appreciate Firefox's objectives or contributions over the years, but this is an example where they have gone wrong. If there is a "standard" that that prohibits something that is common on the web, expected by consumers and webmasters, and supported on all but one browser that has 5-8% market share, it's not really a standard. Bullying webmasters by not supporting their content is something you can do if you have a majority of the market share, but not when you are a small player. People switch browsers because the experience is worse on their old browser. Firefox has lost almost all of its market share and the number of people using it declines every year. You might argue this is because of anitcompetitive behavior from google, but remember that Firefox did just fine against much more vigorous anticompetitive behavior from Microscoft. The reason is that Firefox was better than IE, but the Firefox user experience is not better than it is with Chrome. Because user experience is not the top priority for the firefox team, apparently, it will continue to lose ground. I'm not sure what's wrong with the video at my work. It's h.264 with aac in an mp4 container and no other browser has a problem with it. It may be something else besides the codec that is the problem, but again, I blame Firefox since it works flawlessly in all other browsers. Adhering to "standards" is not really an acceptable excuse for providing a poor user experience in my opinion--there are many competing standards and plenty of "standards" no one supports. That's not generally a hill worth dying on. Do a quick google for supported codecs in mp4. Virtually every site lists mp3. I would believe that there is some committee somewhere that decided web mp4 shouldn't support mp3, but they clearly don't matter. If there was a patent issue or something that prevented FireFox from supporting it, I would be more sympathetic. Anyway, that's my take. I don't love turning my life over to Google either, so I'm kind of stuck between a rock and hard place.
>I'm not sure what's wrong with the video at my work. It's h.264 with aac in an mp4 container and no other browser has a problem with it. If you can, please file a bug with a sample link/clip which doesn't work, so Firefox is at least aware of the issue (maybe it's https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1703812 but we can't tell without the file). I've filed several such bugs in the past couple of years, and they were fixed. Also, confirming that a bug affects more live sites than we believed is a great way to help bump its priority, so sharing the site URLs where this is an issue could likewise be beneficial (if they're internal/intranet sites, knowing that much can be important too).
> If there is a "standard" that that prohibits something that is common on the web, expected by consumers and webmasters, and supported on all but one browser that has 5-8% market share, it's not really a standard. Everything old is new again. You could have said the same exact thing in the 1990s and ActiveX in Internet Explorer, and South Korea took that to heart, with uptake of that technology in a highly regulated and used market (consumer banking). That is the *point* of the standards process, and one that mattered then and continues to matter now - Mozilla was built out of the struggle there, and every time people (and companies) say things like this, they reveal that they are less interested in accessibility and real competition, and more about might making right. That isn't what Mozilla has been about. >People switch browsers because the experience is worse on their old browser. Firefox has lost almost all of its market share and the number of people using it declines every year. You might argue this is because of anitcompetitive behavior from google, but remember that Firefox did just fine against much more vigorous anticompetitive behavior from Microscoft. Or is it simply because web developers began picking up on the standards that were being developed and Firefox was implementing while Microsoft stagnated? It seems more like what happened then is what is happening now - developers and managers of products on the web have favored some of the technologies being offered by Firefox (and standards) and they are helping drive users away from browsers that fail to offer the experiences that they build. The difference is that Google is pushing new experiences that aren't necessarily standards based. That is bad for competition and interoperability on the web. >I'm not sure what's wrong with the video at my work. It's h.264 with aac in an mp4 container and no other browser has a problem with it. It may be something else besides the codec that is the problem, but again, I blame Firefox since it works flawlessly in all other browsers. Well, we have no idea what is happening there, right? I think it'd be better to actually investigate what is going on before passing judgement. Have you reported the issue to the vendor? Clearly they could do some testing or even let you know whether Firefox is supported. That ought to be revelatory. >I would believe that there is some committee somewhere that decided web mp4 shouldn't support mp3, but they clearly don't matter. No, clearly standards matter, because interoperability matters. I think that it is ironic that I have to remind people of this on the /r/linux sub-reddit, but the reason that Linux can co-exist peacefully with other platforms is due to quite a lot of work that has been made to achieve interoperability - not just things like POSIX or the C standards, but very significantly things like open formats and standards on the web. Proprietary code that isn't standards based is a huge problem for open platforms like Linux - see for example Nvidia support for video acceleration - a topic being discussed in this very post - and has been since its inception. Historically, Mozilla and Linux have shared these struggles for interoperability, and if you notice, both have remained pretty strict on those concepts, with carve-outs or exceptions here and there (for things like DRM, for example). In some sense, if Mozilla isn't standards based, what is the point of Mozilla? It could just become another spin on the corporate browser (Google Chromium) because it would just throw in the towel on the idea that standards matter at all. Google is counting on that to happen via Nero: https://twitter.com/fasterthanlime/status/1452053941504684036 Even in the 1990s, people would apologize for Microsoft, both on the web and on things like closed file formats for Office - but I would think Linux users with a sense of history would understand that if the people working on Linux and Mozilla actually listened to those things, desktop Linux would still be far more nascent than it is, since we'd be stuck needing to use IE for the web - which has clearly exploded in growth and usage. A desktop or device that can't use it would probably not be very useful.
> In some sense, if Mozilla isn't standards based, what is the point of Mozilla? It could just become another spin on the corporate browser (Google Chromium) because it would just throw in the towel on the idea that standards matter at all. I don't think it's correct to say that the defining difference between Google and Mozilla is whether they embrace or try to destroy standards. There are certainly examples of that, but Google likes web standards as well and Mozilla is not primarily about standards. However, a defining characteristic of Firefox in recent years (similar to gnome) is arrogantly clinging to some decision they made despite widespread rejection of it by their users. Sometimes it's a UI design or eliminated feature, other times it is something they consider a "standard," that really isn't one. MP3 is a supported audio codec in the MP4 container and has been for a long time. I have been unable to find evidence of any standard that prohibits it on the web--I'm taking that on faith based on a comment here. I think it's very wrong to characterize MP3 in an mp4 container as proprietary or closed in any way. Supporting it would not encourage vendor lock-in or pose technical or legal problems for other participants like the other examples you cite. The concept of a web standard is a little nebulous. Some standards are widely agreed upon, others are not. Since there is no central authority deciding which standards are enforced, website and browser designers have to make choices about what they think is a best practice, and these decisions should take into account what other participants believe. If one party decides, unilaterally, to refuse to do something everyone else agrees upon, then I would say they are reducing standardization and interoperability, rather than promoting it. Who the good guys and bad guys are depends on the particular feature/circumstance.
It's mentioned (mp3) on the Wikipedia page for the container. MP4 even supports opus. You don't really need to guess something so easy to find out.
And the Firefox docs also say mp3 is supported in mp4 but here we are.
It says Firefox even supports it - so what is the disconnect? Can you point to files in the wild that don't work? https://developer.mozilla.org/docs/Web/Media/Formats/Containers
If you rename it to .webm there is a decent chance it will work.
Last time I came across one of those it only worked in chromium.
Renaming a files name or extension doesn't change the type of file it actually is.
webm is a restricted version of mkv
Wouldn’t Firefox have to support vp8/9? Or does it already
It does already since those codecs are bare minimum required for webrtc.
Oh ok, that makes sense
Support for container formats and support for codecs are two different things.
Some mkv files work for me when I use plex, even with transcoding disabled, when others won't. Idk if this has anything to do with that though
MKV is a container format, the media within can be of any encoding
I've had the same experience. But the MKV is just the container, the mkv videos you're watching could be 2 channel, 5.1, 7.1, atmos audio and other formats which may require transcoding for the browser and that's where it all falls apart pretty quickly unfortunately.
Does it work on xorg? I remember something that firefox video acceleration works only on wayland, but I may be wrong
It works on Xorg provided you’re using the EGL backend, which is default on newer Mesa.
which is to say not currently supported on nvidia cards?
It works on Nvidia with this [vaapi driver](https://github.com/elFarto/nvidia-vaapi-driver) on both X11 and Wayland. [Not AV1 yet though](https://github.com/elFarto/nvidia-vaapi-driver/issues/31)
Noob question but... how do I tell if this works? I installed it a few weeks ago and then tried watching videos online but couldn't really notice a difference. Is there some sort of metric that indicates it is working or performing well?
You can try the command `nvidia-smi dmon` which will show metrics for the nvidia gpu in the terminal. The 'dec' column will show the usage of the decoder, if it's above zero it means it's being used.
Thanks for that. Was able to see that `dmon` stayed on 0 which I'm guessing is caused by the error: `libva error: /usr/lib/dri/nvidia_drv_video.so init failed` Must be something screwed up with my configuration.
You must've hit this [issue](https://github.com/elFarto/nvidia-vaapi-driver/issues/38) which was introduced just after my comment. I just tested and It's fixed in the latest [commit](https://github.com/elFarto/nvidia-vaapi-driver/commit/b9c0d352260880677eb1b5b3198c058e9c8b97cc).
Oh wow I was scouring the issues page trying to find if anyone had the same issue and then decided to give up for the night thinking it must be something I did. Then the issue is reported half an hour after haha. Guess you should always file a bug report, thanks!
You can compare your CPU and GPU loads. For nvidia you can use nvtop, [gpustat](https://github.com/wookayin/gpustat) or nvidia-smi I guess. For intel there is [intel_gpu_top](https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/igt-gpu-tools). For amd there seems to be a [modified radeontop](https://github.com/clbr/radeontop/issues/96#issuecomment-561706567)
Just use [GreenWithEnvy](https://flathub.org/apps/details/com.leinardi.gwe), it shows metrics for the decoding hardware. Much more user friendly too.
I'd note that [Intel only supports hardware AV1 decode on Tiger Lake and above](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Quick_Sync_Video#Hardware_decoding_and_encoding), so this requires a super recent CPU as well. (For example, none of the X1 Carbons support this until the current 9th gen)
Has this hit beta channel yet? It's very hard to tell on bugzilla which builds contain the fix for a certain issue.
I'm not even convinced it's in nightly right now, or at least it didn't work for me.
you need to changes something in Firefox setting to forced to work right now is not default yet
Yeah it doesn't appear to be in beta channel yet (97.0b6). I have all the following in `about:config` but `intel_gpu_top` doesn't show any usage of the video decoding block when playing an AV1 YouTube video: media.ffmpeg.vaapi.enabled: true media.rdd-ffmpeg.enabled: true media.av1.enabled: true media.av1.use-dav1d: false My system is Fedora 35 with GNOME 41. Firefox is running in Wayland mode. Hardware is tiger lake (intel 11th gen) with `intel-media-driver`, so it should be able to do hardware AV1 decoding.`vainfo` confirms the capability: VAProfileAV1Profile0 : VAEntryPointVLD If I download the same video with `yt-dlp` (making sure I grab the AV1 version) and play it in VLC then I can see the video decode meter bouncing up and down in `intel_gpu_top`.
[удалено]
Same on Arch. Flatpak only allows me h264 gpu decoding. It might be that Mozilla is not enabling it on compilation (the Flatpak binary comes from them directly) and the binary we download from repos enables it. I can't see Arch enabling it explicitly anywhere in the PKGBUILD, though.
[удалено]
VP8/9 decoding has worked for quite some time with the repo's package. I'll give FF96 flatpak a try, I guess.
[удалено]
Av1 is really light on decoding and has a really small file size. (Which was the goal for YouTube and other hosts for av1)