I exported the file using Filmora, so there was no previous version of it, it is webm with all the proper requirements. Why is it telling me I can't upload it?

"error: ActiveRecord::RecordInvalid - Validation failed: File ext application/x-matroska is invalid (only jpg, gif, png, and webm files are allowed"

Are you telling me that even though it is exported correctly, that it's still incorrect? I saw in some other forums about ffmpeg. or something

What is the file name with the extension? If you are on Windows, in File Explorer you should do View -> Show/Hide group -> file extensions checkbox.From the error (I haven't checked this myself) it sounds like the file might be named xxxx.mkv instead of xxxx.webm.Renaming it might fix the issue. Wikipedia says webm is based on Matroška so who knows?

e621:supported filetypes

VP9 with Opus for audio preferred, VP8 and Vorbis supported. Matroska container (.mkv) not supported.
Should be YUV420 8bit, audio either mono or stereo and 48KHz/44.1KHz, shouldn't be anamorphic. Files other than this are subject for deletion as broken/corrupted.

See also topic #33390

matrixmash said:
Renaming it might fix the issue. Wikipedia says webm is based on Matroška so who knows?

Renaming it won't change anything, the site just strips the filename and reads the file header instead.

At least you (probably) don't have to reencode it, but just remux it. Is the codec confirmed to be VP9/etc. in the metadata (Like, in VLC's info tabs)? Try just changing the container format with 'copy' option, I guess.

matrixmash said:
Wikipedia says webm is based on Matroška so who knows?

Yes, it's based on it, but these are still two entirely seperate containers and MKV is not HTML5 standard, so it can and will have issues playing back in browsers using standards up to specs.
Renaming extensions is rarely if ever good idea, if the file wasn't proper to begin with it won't be even with change, especially in context of e621 uploader which ignores the extension anyway.

There are few cases where this can be done. One is .apng to .png as one valid extension for APNG file is .png even in their specification. Another is .jfif to .jpg as it's technically handled identically with the software as JPEG file, altough there can be some incompatibility with some aspects of the file.

alphamule said:
At least you (probably) don't have to reencode it, but just remux it. Is the codec confirmed to be VP9/etc. in the metadata (Like, in VLC's info tabs)? Try just changing the container format with 'copy' option, I guess.

Yes, basically this, because MKV can contain fuckload of differend codecs which includes all codecs that WebM does.
If the file is VP8 or VP9 and Vorbis or Opus, then ffmpeg -i video.mkv -c:v copy -c:a copy output.webm should do it in milliseconds.
ffprobe video.mkv should tell you what codecs the video is using, if e.g. audio is AAC instead (which it could be in these kind of cases), then simply replace -c:a copy with -b:a 160k or similar and it transcodes it while simply copying the video.

mairo said:
Another is .jfif to .jpg as it's technically handled identically with the software as JPEG file, altough there can be some incompatibility with some aspects of the file.

Serious question: has anyone ever seen a file with a .jfif extension in the wild? It's beginning to feel like one of those fake facts somebody added to a Wikipedia article and has now been "cited" so many times it's become real.

wat8548 said:
Serious question: has anyone ever seen a file with a .jfif extension in the wild? It's beginning to feel like one of those fake facts somebody added to a Wikipedia article and has now been "cited" so many times it's become real.

At least Twitters default format for the image files is .jfif and with chrome you basically have to save it as such and rename it later.
But uploading those to e621 they just change into regular .jpg after the site assigns proper file extension from the file header. Also saving that with firefox changes it into .jpg and the saving format is ".jpg, .jpeg, .jfif, .pjpeg, .pjp"

It's messy, but in general, renaming file extensions manually is bad, bad idea unless you are aware of what you are doing. That's why modern windows hides the extension by default as it's not important for end user and then they cannot accidentally change or remove it, making file unopenable as windows relies on that really heavily.

mairo said:
It's messy, but in general, renaming file extensions manually is bad, bad idea unless you are aware of what you are doing. That's why modern windows hides the extension by default as it's not important for end user and then they cannot accidentally change or remove it, making file unopenable as windows relies on that really heavily.

It's really not. You can rename it back to what it was and it will work again. It's mostly helpful when some websites decides to give you a html file as a png file and other horrors alike.

Also on Linux, filenames are redundant.

wolfmanfur said:
It's really not. You can rename it back to what it was and it will work again. It's mostly helpful when some websites decides to give you a html file as a png file and other horrors alike.

Also on Linux, filenames are redundant.

I was literally talking about avarage end user, if they accidentally remove file extension, they have no idea what they did or how to fix it - and I know this because it has happened in past several times. I also am aware that Linux doesn't care, that's why I said "windows relies".
Yes, as more advanced computer user you know to write it back or even just CTRL-Z quickly.

I just ended up using a website to convert the mp4 to the webm and it worked just fine.

I followed all the instructions, exported using the proper parameters and it still didn't like it, but that's fine, I know for the future to just convert using a website.

jackiethedemon said:
I just ended up using a website to convert the mp4 to the webm and it worked just fine.

I followed all the instructions, exported using the proper parameters and it still didn't like it, but that's fine, I know for the future to just convert using a website.

In before Fiery Mario I mean Mairo rages. Websites are black boxes among other things. It's likely that your original settings were vastly wrong.

A funny story about hiding extensions: People get used to knowing that changing them is useless, and it even warns you, but people had extensions hidden, anyways (default, buried behind menues). Of COURSE some EXE file had the bitmap icon as a resource. Guess why!
XD

What I really like is file renaming selects JUST the filename in some file managers. You have to manually select the extension to change the entire filename. This prevents accidentally making copy/paste errors.

This does actually remind me we used to have problem where users could only do MKV files, so they would rename and upload them - then comment sections filled full with people complaining how it says the file is corrupted and doesn't play back.
Nowdays the uploader checks the container and if it's anything else than webm it gets denied like this, so even if this worked and played for some users, ultimately it would've been replaced with version where I literally run FFmpeg commant that takes literal second.

jackiethedemon said:
I just ended up using a website to convert the mp4 to the webm and it worked just fine.

I followed all the instructions, exported using the proper parameters and it still didn't like it, but that's fine, I know for the future to just convert using a website.

If you are the author, having end user lossy fileformat to convert is the worst idea, you should be using lossless intermediary format if your creation software doesn't support directly exporting to VP9 WebM... MagicYUV in AVI is what I use as that's supported with Vegas and FFmpeg if I need to throw the video either way.
Codec is seperate from the container like mentioned already several times. If you export as VP9, the containers it can be on is MKV or WebM, so there should be setting somewhere to change that. Similarly MP4 is just container, it's usually h264 and that can also be inside MKV container, actually most anime scene releases use this because MP4 doesn't support subtitle files inside it while MKV does, even though it's ""MP4"" video.

Also the upload is pretty compressed with visual blocking and color banding. Either the website used really fast presets, your MP4 was already heavily compressed so compression artifacts are now stacking and/or something else.

If you do keep using websites for conversion I will haunt your dreams. I constantly and consistantly waste my time on user conversions like this as majority of them are straight up bad and need to be remade, especially if someone did it to some rule34 website and it drips here.

alphamule said:
In before Fiery Mario I mean Mairo rages.

My main issues with these cases is that artists who create animations, should sooner or later become aware of the basics video encoding and settings with them.
It's really technical, but crusial, that's why there's fuckload of youtube videos even from furry artists who explain these things and most modern codecs use similar stuff, so if you learn h264, it usually translates mostly to stuff like VP9.

Another one is that fileformats aren't just "I want JPG", even if end users only want that. Even JPG you do have settings and one setting you should at the very least know is quality slider. Only difference between that and h264 and VP9 CRF is that instead of going from 0-100 and 100 being best, CRF goes from 0-64 and 0 is the best. That's why so many GIF uploads on the site are so bad, because people think of GIFs as just GIFs and do them with single button solutions, but they have no idea what 256 color limitation and palette is or what I mean when I say they should disable dithering or that 10ms frame times aren't proper.

mairo said:
If you are the author, having end user lossy fileformat to convert is the worst idea, you should be using lossless intermediary format if your creation software doesn't support directly exporting to VP9 WebM... MagicYUV in AVI is what I use as that's supported with Vegas and FFmpeg if I need to throw the video either way.
Codec is seperate from the container like mentioned already several times. If you export as VP9, the containers it can be on is MKV or WebM, so there should be setting somewhere to change that. Similarly MP4 is just container, it's usually h264 and that can also be inside MKV container, actually most anime scene releases use this because MP4 doesn't support subtitle files inside it while MKV does, even though it's ""MP4"" video.

Also the upload is pretty compressed with visual blocking and color banding. Either the website used really fast presets, your MP4 was already heavily compressed so compression artifacts are now stacking and/or something else.

If you do keep using websites for conversion I will haunt your dreams. I constantly and consistantly waste my time on user conversions like this as majority of them are straight up bad and need to be remade, especially if someone did it to some rule34 website and it drips here.

My main issues with these cases is that artists who create animations, should sooner or later become aware of the basics video encoding and settings with them.
It's really technical, but crusial, that's why there's fuckload of youtube videos even from furry artists who explain these things and most modern codecs use similar stuff, so if you learn h264, it usually translates mostly to stuff like VP9.

But I literally selected everything I was supposed to, I saw all the settings that this site told me to use and I used them, and it still didn't work. There are no other settings I could have changed. I guess Filmora just doesn't output proper webm files.

The conversion looks fine, comparing it to the file it came from, the converter didn't lose any of the quality. I didn't render it at anything crazy anyway. I am the author, I created the work.

jackiethedemon said:

But I literally selected everything I was supposed to, I saw all the settings that this site told me to use and I used them, and it still didn't work. There are no other settings I could have changed. I guess Filmora just doesn't output proper webm files.

The conversion looks fine, comparing it to the file it came from, the converter didn't lose any of the quality. I didn't render it at anything crazy anyway. I am the author, I created the work.

Ah, THAT's what we needed to know. Right, it's the tool. Like I suspected, it's a bogus conversion. Either wrong settings or it doesn't support it.

We appreciate your work, and want to help everyone improve. Sorry for all the stress with the technical side of things, but it's one-time effort since you can then just reuse the same method. I make batch files with the most common options I use for command-line tools, so I don't have to remember what to type, and can just drag a file on it to run it automatically. Advanced trick: Send-To shortcuts in Explorer :D

https://filmora.wondershare.com/video-editing/iphone-video-format.html This tool? Reading through that and yeah, iPhone not supporting VP9 is kind of lame. It's not like it's Flash or other battery-intensive nonsense.