On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 5:01 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoe...@gmx.net> wrote: > * Gregg Tavares (wrk) wrote: >>There is plenty of flash content that has a lower than 60hz (or fast as >>possible) refresh rate. When something is instead implementing in HTML5 >>instead of Flash what should they do to get the similar results? Checking >>cnn.com, time.com, arstechnica.com, wired.com and msnbc.com I found that 7 >>ads were set to run at 18hz, 3 were set to run at 24hz, 2 were set to run at >>30hz. I used SWF >>Info<https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/45361/>to check >>the fps setting. I have no idea why they don't choose "run as fast >>as possible." I could be laziness, it could be that it makes the pages too >>slow and unresponsive to set them to "as fast as possible", it could be that >>rendering 3 times more then necessary, 60hz vs 18hz would eat battery >>life, it could be an artistic choice, it could be just that flash makes you >>pick one vs defaulting to "fast as possible". > > The frame rate is a number in the swf header that cannot be set to a "as > fast as possible" value.
Ah, so that also means that different animations can't run with different frame rates? Maybe having a global property which defines the maximum frame rate for all animations on the page would be enough then? Though it'll give ads and their embedders a fun property to fight over. / Jonas
