Re: [videoblogging] Re: Youtube supports HTML5 (No more Flash?)
There's an interesting discussion about Flash, .h264, iPad, etc. on a recent TWIT: http://aolradio.podcast.aol.com/twit/twit0233.mp3 Jan Jan McLaughlin Production Sound Mixer air = 862-571-5334 aim = janofsound skype = janmclaughlin On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 8:59 PM, proctorjen proctor...@yahoo.com wrote: Vimeo has also added an HTML5 player (though they intend to keep it as a companion to Flash): http://vimeo.com/blog:268 Jen --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman jay.ded...@... wrote: We've mentioned rumors before, but here it is: http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/youtube_begins_to_support_html5.php An HTML5 video player will allow videos to be viewed without Adobe's Flashplayer plug-in, videos will load faster and developers will be able to build all kinds of other intriguing features into a media delivery scheme based on the next version of HTML. For now users will need to sign-up the HTML5 preview on Test Tube and they'll need to be using either Chrome, Safari or the Chrome frame in IE. The biggest benefit of HTML5 support is that it frees users from the need to use proprietary plug-ins like Flash player or Microsoft's Silverlight by using a simple bit of code to render video. (Note this caveat regarding the lack of codec consensus, however.) If you've used Google's Chrome much, you've probably seen how often Flash player crashes in that browser. Firefox doesn't deal with Flash well, either. Here's how I understand it: If Google does it right, you wont notice the difference. Video will be beautiful and lovely online. But for developers and creators, the options will multiply because we wont be stuck fucking with the constraints of Flash players. Flash has helped make watching online video easy. Its done its job, thanks. Now go sit in the corner with Real Audio. Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://momentshowing.net http://twitter.com/jaydedman 917 371 6790 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Youtube supports HTML5 (No more Flash?)
Flash is under some threat in most of the areas its been strong at in the past. Canvas tag, css transitions, downloadable fonts, and various other things mean it can be gradually replaced. I welcome this, not least because of the cost of flash development tools. But it will take a long time whatever happens, and for flash to be beaten on most fronts these various wonderful web standards must actually work properly in all major browsers. Flash could be largely gone from the web in 3-10 years depending on how all this stuff plays out, or it may be around for a very long time, I guess what happens with multitouch and mobile web will also have bearing on flashes health in years to come, these could be areas where it will eaither struggle or conquer new territory. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, sull sullele...@... wrote: I still have high hopes for the future of Ogg. Will be interesting to see what the next phase entails and if Google will even contribute to Ogg or put out it's own project (typical). Regarding Flash... We should frame this properly Flash obviously has infinite uses beyond the standard web video player and will continue to be heavily used by developers and consumers. What I welcome is the ability to not depend on Flash for the standard web video player and let it be supported by native browser/html standards and get consensus on codecs and/or let web browser users configure it (prompt). Sull On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 8:58 AM, Jay dedman jay.ded...@... wrote: I'm really bummed that Google and Apple are doing this with h264 and Mozilla is using Ogg. The more I look into ogg the more that I see that for most cases it can be just as good as h264. It would really help if someone made a fucking compression app (with a GUI) for it. Firefogg is pretty darn good though. Holy shit! Verdi this is a breakthrough! This summer I know you were pretty down on Ogg/Theora because it would never be as good as H264. Just as good wasnt good enough. Because Google and Apple are now separating ways and competing head to head, Id be interested to see if Google doesnt put out a version of Ogg/Theora that kicks ass because they have a team of engineers working on it. There would be profit in the investment because they'd no longer have to pay a codec license fee for their phones or websites. Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://momentshowing.net http://twitter.com/jaydedman 917 371 6790 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Youtube supports HTML5 (No more Flash?)
There's a lot of legacy flash content - youtube included. j On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 4:54 PM, elbowsofdeath st...@dvmachine.com wrote: Flash could be largely gone from the web in 3-10 years -- --- Joly MacFie 917 442 8665 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com --- [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Youtube supports HTML5 (No more Flash?)
As for the Youtube HTML5 experiment, I like it, it uses less CPU on my macbook pro, although the saving is not hugely dramatic because of flash becoming more efficient in that regard not so long ago. It is missing quite a few features compared to the youtube flash version, and Ive no idea what Googles future plans are regarding ogg, I doubt converting all the videos to another format will be fun for them but on the otherhand they might be able to make ogg encoding less energy cost intensive than h264. Even so, as long as they have to provide h264 version to work with certain browsers, I cant see them being too keen to have all youtube videos in many different formats. As with posts in the past I still question how ogg will ever dominate video if its only advantage is to do with licensing, as licensing issues with h264 dont affect many of us so what is the point really? Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, elbowsofdeath st...@... wrote: Flash is under some threat in most of the areas its been strong at in the past. Canvas tag, css transitions, downloadable fonts, and various other things mean it can be gradually replaced. I welcome this, not least because of the cost of flash development tools. But it will take a long time whatever happens, and for flash to be beaten on most fronts these various wonderful web standards must actually work properly in all major browsers. Flash could be largely gone from the web in 3-10 years depending on how all this stuff plays out, or it may be around for a very long time, I guess what happens with multitouch and mobile web will also have bearing on flashes health in years to come, these could be areas where it will eaither struggle or conquer new territory. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, sull sulleleven@ wrote: I still have high hopes for the future of Ogg. Will be interesting to see what the next phase entails and if Google will even contribute to Ogg or put out it's own project (typical). Regarding Flash... We should frame this properly Flash obviously has infinite uses beyond the standard web video player and will continue to be heavily used by developers and consumers. What I welcome is the ability to not depend on Flash for the standard web video player and let it be supported by native browser/html standards and get consensus on codecs and/or let web browser users configure it (prompt). Sull On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 8:58 AM, Jay dedman jay.dedman@ wrote: I'm really bummed that Google and Apple are doing this with h264 and Mozilla is using Ogg. The more I look into ogg the more that I see that for most cases it can be just as good as h264. It would really help if someone made a fucking compression app (with a GUI) for it. Firefogg is pretty darn good though. Holy shit! Verdi this is a breakthrough! This summer I know you were pretty down on Ogg/Theora because it would never be as good as H264. Just as good wasnt good enough. Because Google and Apple are now separating ways and competing head to head, Id be interested to see if Google doesnt put out a version of Ogg/Theora that kicks ass because they have a team of engineers working on it. There would be profit in the investment because they'd no longer have to pay a codec license fee for their phones or websites. Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://momentshowing.net http://twitter.com/jaydedman 917 371 6790 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Youtube supports HTML5 (No more Flash?)
As with posts in the past I still question how ogg will ever dominate video if its only advantage is to do with licensing, as licensing issues with h264 dont affect many of us so what is the point really? This is a good question. Not sure I know the answer. But why did Firefox gain so much traction, and open up to other free browers? Explorer was a free to us users. I guess the creative class wanted more control and ability to customize/play. Feels the same way now. Developers are excited by HTML5 and ogg/theora because they are no profit-based restrictions based. We want logic. But future versions of ogg/theora must be useful and helpful in order to be succeed. Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://momentshowing.net http://twitter.com/jaydedman 917 371 6790
[videoblogging] Re: Youtube supports HTML5 (No more Flash?)
Well there are likely quite a lot of developers who are excited about various things in html5, including the video tag. They may be excited about it because it is potentially elegant and flexible and a standard that will work on a variety of browsers platforms one day, and you dont need to buy flash, learn actionscript or use someone elses flash video player. They may enjoy the development process more if everything is done in css, html javascript rather than having to use something else when dealing with video. These things have real practical implications for how and what they create, and so the principals and beliefs about standards, openness, profit, control have many important consequences for developers in practice. But interest in html5 video tag is not exactly the same as interest in ogg, because there are browsers using h264 with html5 video tag, and at this point in time using ogg rather than h264 does not offer any technical advantage beyond firefox compatibility. Lots of developers love firefox so its going to be messy, especially for developers who want to use the myriad of h264 videos that already exist on the web in their application - they can do it if their users are on safari or chrome (or even chrome frame on IE), but firefox and normal IE will spoil the party. Throw in the presently hideous realities when it comes to creators of video having nice workflows for encoding their stuff to ogg, and the ever increasing use of h264 in hardware and software that can play, edit or record video, and you can probably see why I question the practical consequences of pushing for greater ogg use. Unless google create a megaogg with various practical advantages, or weird things happen in the world of browsers or h2634 licensing terms, its quite possible that all the patents for technologies used by h264 will have expired before ogg comes to dominate, thus eliminating oggs one advantage. I think patents only last 20 years? Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman jay.ded...@... wrote: As with posts in the past I still question how ogg will ever dominate video if its only advantage is to do with licensing, as licensing issues with h264 dont affect many of us so what is the point really? This is a good question. Not sure I know the answer. But why did Firefox gain so much traction, and open up to other free browers? Explorer was a free to us users. I guess the creative class wanted more control and ability to customize/play. Feels the same way now. Developers are excited by HTML5 and ogg/theora because they are no profit-based restrictions based. We want logic. But future versions of ogg/theora must be useful and helpful in order to be succeed. Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://momentshowing.net http://twitter.com/jaydedman 917 371 6790
[videoblogging] Re: Youtube supports HTML5 (No more Flash?)
Vimeo has also added an HTML5 player (though they intend to keep it as a companion to Flash): http://vimeo.com/blog:268 Jen --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman jay.ded...@... wrote: We've mentioned rumors before, but here it is: http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/youtube_begins_to_support_html5.php An HTML5 video player will allow videos to be viewed without Adobe's Flashplayer plug-in, videos will load faster and developers will be able to build all kinds of other intriguing features into a media delivery scheme based on the next version of HTML. For now users will need to sign-up the HTML5 preview on Test Tube and they'll need to be using either Chrome, Safari or the Chrome frame in IE. The biggest benefit of HTML5 support is that it frees users from the need to use proprietary plug-ins like Flash player or Microsoft's Silverlight by using a simple bit of code to render video. (Note this caveat regarding the lack of codec consensus, however.) If you've used Google's Chrome much, you've probably seen how often Flash player crashes in that browser. Firefox doesn't deal with Flash well, either. Here's how I understand it: If Google does it right, you wont notice the difference. Video will be beautiful and lovely online. But for developers and creators, the options will multiply because we wont be stuck fucking with the constraints of Flash players. Flash has helped make watching online video easy. Its done its job, thanks. Now go sit in the corner with Real Audio. Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://momentshowing.net http://twitter.com/jaydedman 917 371 6790 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
