Hello all,
We are getting some questions from JW Player users that HTML5 video is quite
wasteful on bandwidth for longer videos (think 10min+). This because browsers
download the entire movie once playback starts, regardless of whether a user
pauses the player. If throttling is used, it seems
downloadBufferTarget in seconds is not that good. Think about a movie
that takes more to load than to see. Depending on the settings the
developer done, you might have to pause the video at some point to load
the rest of the movie.
On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 17:41:13 +0100, Jeroen Wijering wrote:
On 1/17/11 11:41 AM, Jeroen Wijering wrote:
This because browsers download the entire movie once playback starts,
regardless of whether a user pauses the player.
Interesting. Isn't that what Flash does as well? I know that I will
often start playing a Flash movie, then pause it and go do
Am 17.01.2011 17:41 schrieb Jeroen Wijering:
Hello all,
We are getting some questions from JW Player users that HTML5 video is quite
wasteful on bandwidth for longer videos (think 10min+). This because browsers
download the entire movie once playback starts, regardless of whether a user
On 2011-01-17 18:36, Markus Ernst wrote:
Am 17.01.2011 17:41 schrieb Jeroen Wijering:
We are getting some questions from JW Player users that HTML5 video
is quite wasteful on bandwidth for longer videos (think 10min+). This
because browsers download the entire movie once playback starts,
What no one has mentioned so far is that the real issue isn't the
network utilization or the memory capacity of the devices, it's
bandwidth cost.
The big issue for publishers is that they're incurring higher costs
when using the video tag, which is a disincentive for adoption.
Since there are
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 7:19 PM, Roger Hågensen resca...@emsai.net wrote:
On 2011-01-17 18:36, Markus Ernst wrote:
Am 17.01.2011 17:41 schrieb Jeroen Wijering:
We are getting some questions from JW Player users that HTML5 video is
quite wasteful on bandwidth for longer videos (think 10min+).
On 18/01/2011 8:05 a.m., Zachary Ozer wrote:
What no one has mentioned so far is that the real issue isn't the
network utilization or the memory capacity of the devices, it's
bandwidth cost.
The big issue for publishers is that they're incurring higher costs
when using thevideo tag, which is a
On 1/17/11 4:05 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
Assuming a browser is able to play back video in realtime, i.e. their
CPU and download bandwidth are sufficient to download video data at or
above the speed it is required in to provide continuous playback
... and that both conditions will continue
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 10:15 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 1/17/11 4:05 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
Assuming a browser is able to play back video in realtime, i.e. their
CPU and download bandwidth are sufficient to download video data at or
above the speed it is required in to
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 4:15 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
If nothing else, I'm thinking things like I would like to buffer up this
3-hour-long-video so I can watch it on the plane, where my network bandwidth
will be precisely 0. Definitely as use case I've had.
That's an
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 10:15 PM, Chris Pearce ch...@pearce.org.nz wrote:
On 18/01/2011 10:05 a.m., Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
If instead the bandwidth is the limiting factor, we do want to allow
buffering ahead a fair bit such that we don't end up in a buffering
state for the user too often. In
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 1:25 PM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 4:15 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
If nothing else, I'm thinking things like I would like to buffer up this
3-hour-long-video so I can watch it on the plane, where my network
bandwidth
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Chris Pearce ch...@pearce.org.nz wrote:
Can this not be implemented on the server side? If you know the media has
an average playback rate of X KB/s, can the server reliably throttle its
transmission at 1.5X?
Yes, it seems to me that if you simply throttle
One solution that could work here is to honour dynamic changes to 'preload',
so switching preload to 'none' would stop buffering. Then a script could do
that, for example, after the user has paused the video for ten seconds. The
script could also look at 'buffered' to make its decision.
Rob
--
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 4:34 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@webkit.org wrote:
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 1:25 PM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 4:15 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
If nothing else, I'm thinking things like I would like to buffer up
this
On 1/17/2011 1:47 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 12:05 PM, carol.sz...@nokia.com
mailto:carol.sz...@nokia.com wrote:
Given the statements above I no longer think that changing the
spec in this regard is a good thing, but I still believe that the
disappearance
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 9:08 PM, Chris Pearce ch...@pearce.org.nz wrote:
On 18/01/2011 8:05 a.m., Zachary Ozer wrote:
What no one has mentioned so far is that the real issue isn't the
network utilization or the memory capacity of the devices, it's
bandwidth cost.
The big issue for
On 1/17/11 4:25 PM, Glenn Maynard wrote:
That's an important use case, but it feels like a very different one.
From a user's point of view it's really not.
If you want to download hours of video for playing offline, you don't
want to store that in a transient read-ahead buffer--you want to
On 1/17/11 6:04 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
From a user's perspective (which is what I'm speaking as here), it
doesn't matter what the technology is. The point is that there is
prevalent UI out there right now where pausing a moving will keep
buffering it up and then you can watch it later. This
On 2011-01-18 01:30, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 1/17/11 6:04 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
From a user's perspective (which is what I'm speaking as here), it
doesn't matter what the technology is. The point is that there is
prevalent UI out there right now where pausing a moving will keep
buffering it
On 18/01/2011 4:59 p.m., Roger Hågensen wrote:
Unbuffering:
It may sound odd but in low storage space situations, it may be
necessary to unbuffer what has been played. Is this supported at all
currently?
Firefox caches media data locally on disk, and will evict data which is
unlikely to be
22 matches
Mail list logo
