Submitting a review for consideration is easy; please first read Slashdot's book review guidelines. Updated: 2008114 by samzenpus
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.
Eyes wide shut (Score:2, Insightful)
The last time Mozilla added support for a tag that had some automatic animated behavior, the browser was still called Netscape and the tag was universally reviled. I hope they don't blink again.
But that said, does anyone really think video is a good idea? It's hard enough to get users to install the correct codecs to play back movies now. At least with FLV you've got a pretty standard platform which almost everyone already has installed. Adobe, for all their fuckups, has done a good job with Flash. Quicktim
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Eyes wide shut (Score:5, Informative)
So are we going to require browsers to install with codec packs?
No. The idea is to include the codec in the browser. But to allow that at reasonable conditions, the codec should be Free. The codec proposed for this purpose is Ogg Theora/Vorbis, an OSS codec build specifically trying not to use any patented technology. As you can imagine, Apple, MS and Adobe are not really happy about this, as they obviously would like their patented technology to be used in HTML 5, and because Apple and MS are not only video-codec-makers but browser-makers too, and not small ones, we can not just ignore them and go ahead with Theora. Implement the HTML 5 video tag in Mozilla with Theora looked like a good chance to get the open codec though, but this Javascript stuff post by Mozilla now makes it look like they have other plans.
Parent
The key is Google/Youtube (Score:2, Interesting)
If we can get Google to go along with Theora, we'd be all set.
Youtube is the only reason I have Flash. I avoid "Porntube" type sites because of the security vulnerabilities found in Flash.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If we can get Google to go along with Theora, we'd be all set.
Google is going along with Theora. Chrome will (does in test builds) support Theora+Vorbis in Ogg.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Check out http://youtube.com/html5
I'm pretty sure that's vorbis/theora.
Re:When bandwidth costs more than MPEG royalties (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The situation you describe isn't what's actually happening. Theora isn't close to H.264.
Re:When bandwidth costs more than MPEG royalties (Score:5, Informative)
"Unfortunately, Theora still needs twice the bitrate as H.264 to deliver the same quality, even with the "Thusnelda" rewrite of the encoder."
Except that statement is provably false if by no other facts than that neither Theora nor H264 quality scales linearly with bitrate.
Beyond the obvious fail in your claim, you're also just wrong.
See this comparison [xiph.org] and this comparison [xiph.org] to see how Theora compares to the most popular real-world implementations of H264 on the Web.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not to mention even the cheapest bottom of the line GPUs nowadays comes with H.264 hardware acceleration by default. I paid a grand total of $50 for my HD4650 and it gives me H.264, DivX, and WMV hardware acceleration out of the box. Does Theora even have hardware acceleration for the big three (AMD Intel Nvidia) GPUs yet? With the rise of Netbooks/Nettops and green computing hardware decoding of video is obviously where the market is headed.
Even with my nice AMD dual the experience is simply more pleasa
H.264 > H.263 (Score:5, Insightful)
Thusnelda is noticeably better than H.263 (which is what YouTube used to use)
Exactly: used to use. Since then, YouTube serves HQ and HD videos in H.264.
Parent
Re:H.264 H.263 (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Theora is over a decade old; it definately can beat H.264 in software decoding.
But if you didn't see this:
http://cid-bee3c9ac9541c85b.skydrive.live.com/browse.aspx/.Public/BBB%7C_Compare [live.com]
As for "if it was good enough in the past..." rule, most web video gets reecoded every 18-24 months to take advantage of more efficient codecs to improve qulaity or reduce bitrates. For real businesses counting.
I recommend people don't focus on YouTube too much as an example of the web video industry. It's very much an ano
Re:Eyes wide shut (Score:5, Informative)
Flash Video is unbelievably processor intensive (especially given it's pretty crappy quality), surely you've noticed that? Even on modern dual processor machines it can stutter and slow down other processes. If video could settle down like image formats, the web would be a better place for it.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If I download an .flv and play it in mplayer the problems disappear.
Well what I do is start the stream and then pause it. Go to the dir where firefox saves its current streamed content (/tmp) and play the stream in mplayer there. Works perfectly even as the file is streaming . . . no jumps, no jitters, no CPU overload.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Eyes wide shut (Score:5, Informative)
Nope, OS X (10.5) on a dual 2.8Ghz iMac. There's no excuse for Flash video's failures.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, is not need, is already there.
But I like the idea that not loading Abode is good thing one less thing to do. I like the idea that browser will "bring" in the "accepted" codecs, maybe just import some of VLC. This will make installations easier and standardized, versus the load from here, then go here and download some more, and do not forget the PTFs on top of all of this. Last Window box I did - brand new system with system already preloaded [xp sp3], 7 1/2 hours to get it working will all t
Re: (Score:2)
Err, <script>? Still going strong today. Essential, even. Don't pretend this is a revolutionary change when in reality we're taking about an evolutionary tweak.
Re: (Score:2)
What about <img src="animated.gif"> ?
Re:Eyes wide shut (Score:4, Insightful)
The point of the video tag is that it should contain some (as yet undecided thanks to infighting) standard codec, in the same way as an img tag should always contain jpeg, png or gif data, a video tag should always contain xyz, abc or nml data. Exactly what xyz, abc or nml should be is yet to be figured out.
Google and apple would like them to be h264/aac, because everyone uses that already, even more recent people using flash.
Mozilla would like them to be ogg theora/vorbis, because they're open, even though nothing actually supports them.
Neither side can agree.
Parent
Re:Eyes wide shut (Score:4, Insightful)
As opposed to Flash, which is pretty much the ultimate untrusted codec? It's a huge binary blob that has had numerous security problems [adobe.com], and which has a huge attack surface. Even ignoring declared vulnerabilities, Flash allows web pages to do things like access the clipboard and bypass XMLHttpRequest same-origin restrictions. In short, installing flash makes a web browser demonstrably less secure.
It's remarkable, then, that an administrator would be comfortable installing this Trojan octopus of a plugin while ignoring a far simpler open source video codec that he can verify and compile himself.
Really, it just shows that people will trust the familiar without seriously questioning it, at least until a crisis shows up.
Parent
Re:Eyes wide shut (Score:5, Informative)
Clipboard.getData() [adobe.com].
Only IE, actually.
Flash allows you to request content from sites that would be blocked by XMLHttpRequest. Can you refuse that statement or not?
You inadvertently make a good point. If Linus or RMS had developed flash, its source would have been open sourced, and by now, its capabilities would have been integrated into the browser. We wouldn't talk about what "Flash" can do as distinct from something else, but simply about the abilities of browsers.
That's what the rich media part of HTML5 is all about: doing what Flash can do in a browser.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
So your corporate locked-down machine came with Flash installed on it? Or does someone with an admin password come and install or update it for you as required and permitted by your company's acceptable use policy? If the latter, why not install the Ogg Theora/Vorbis codec mentioned above instead?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Can you imagine going to a web site from a corporate locked down machine and attempting to install some untrusted codec?
All browsers that support <video> package the codecs they support in the default download. No user downloads are necessary. In the worst case, Flash can still be used as a fallback until all common browsers support <video>. After then, the author will just have to provide video in as many formats as necessary (hopefully, one) to ensure it will play in all browsers.
Sorry, no plug-in for you (Score:3, Informative)
If the tag supports the ability to specify where the codec can be acquired from
The pluginspage attribute of the <embed> element already supports this, as does the classid attribute of the <object> element. But whenever I try to follow the link, all I get is "Sorry, we don't make a plug-in for your combination of CPU, operating system, and web browser."
HTML is dead... Didn't you notice? (Score:2, Interesting)
Our browsers are javascript virtual machines. The web is now being delivered through javascript and not in any meaningful way through HTML.
Re:HTML is dead... Didn't you notice? (Score:5, Informative)
That would be the entire point of HTML 5. To bring HTML back to the forefront.
Parent
No it's not; quite the opposite, actually (Score:2)
Try using those HTLM5 features w/o JS:
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
HTML is the content, CSS is the way to display the HTML content and Javascript is the way to interact with it all.
Video tag (Score:5, Insightful)
A lot of video producers like to rely on the fact that Flash makes it difficult to download videos to your hard drive. I wonder how they'd react if a major online video provider were to provide its content through a less restrictive method such as the video tag.
Re:Video tag (Score:5, Interesting)
A lot of video producers like to rely on the fact that Flash makes it difficult to download videos to your hard drive. I wonder how they'd react if a major online video provider were to provide its content through a less restrictive method such as the video tag.
I think that's rather simple. The video tag would only be popular with free and amateur content. Flash (or Silverlight) solutions will continue to dominate the more popular commercial comment that needs to be protected. If videos were trapped behind theora playlists with commercials in-between, advocates would make solutions to circumvent the commercials and demonetize the model of the very companies who took the risk to support it.
Basically, any major media company that buys into HTML 5 video tag will be strangled by the advocates who pushed it on them in the first place, monetarily. When the production studios offering the content find out that a free video application that plays their content without commercials (hypothetically) exists, they will pull out and said video site will collapse. Colloquially, it's a trap. Commercial content needs protection because those watching it on the web do not own it.
Furthermore, there will be a minor codec war. Firefox will probably only support theora, Safari will only use h.264 (Apple will flatly refuse to use theora), same for google chrome, perhaps. Then, Microsoft will support the tag in IE, but provide support for WMV in the video tag (and possibly h.264 if we're lucky, since it's now licensed in Windows 7). So, the video tag will slowly become just as crazy as the plugin-based video players of Web 1.0... except they will be written in slow javascript instead of the fast native code of the past. Primarily, because no one has agreed on how to do it so it isn't a standard.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
A lot of video producers like to rely on the fact that Flash makes it difficult to download videos to your hard drive.
A lot of video producers don't know about FlashGot [flashgot.net].
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A lot of video producers like to rely on the fact that Flash makes it difficult to download videos to your hard drive.
They aren't relying on this and if they are, they're just plain silly. You can either grab a Firefox extension to download Flash files or you can just do a Tools->Page Info and Save from the Media tab.
I thought DRM was the issue (Score:2)
I am unclear on how the video tag is going to make things better. It seems I can already play most codecs in my browser, using, for instance, quicktime. Alternatively I can download the file and play it trough VLC, an open source solution.Of cour
Re:I thought DRM was the issue (Score:4, Interesting)
My understanding is that the reason that people use flash and silverlight for video is so that people cannot save, reuse, and redistribute the content.
I've run across very few streamed videos that can't be downloaded. In the olden days I'd use something like WireShark or Network Monitor to get the URL of the content. Nowadays it's much easier with various Firefox extensions.
As far as I know, the reason most sites use Flash or whatnot is because they want the video to be streamable and start more or less instantly. In modern Western society, if you can't start watching the video immediately, how likely are you going to be to remember to watch it after it's downloaded 15-30 minutes (or more) later? The whole (business) idea is to keep peoples' attention, like with television. If they "switch channels", you've lost your advertising opportunity.
Parent
Somebody help me on this (Score:3, Insightful)
Some random Mozilla Hacks (note the word Hacks) blogger posts some code that web developers can use to implement HTML5 video (which does not use javascript, contrary to the implications in this article and summary?) and also provide a fallback path for non-HTML5 Video browsers (IE, Opera, etc). Their particular method of providing the fallback code uses javascript to determine browser capability, and uses Flash if HTML5 Video is not there.
Why is this upsetting to anyone? The implication from the summary is this is a less "open" way to do it, but last I checked Javascript/ECMAScript is a standard that all browsers implement already.
I cannot fathom why anyone would be so upset by some blogger providing JS-implemented video fallback implementations.
Plugins are Still the Answer (Score:2, Insightful)
The video tag should be run by plugins, they would need to conform to a single standard interface. PLay/Stop/Pause/etc. The key would be having two mechanisms for display, a method which returns a pixmap (so that it would work with X Forwarding) and a version that was accelerated.
the PLay/Stop/Pause interface would be entirely part of the DOM.
Everyone using Firefox 3.5, see this (Score:3, Informative)
Demo of video and SVG support in Firefox 3.5 [mozilla.com]. That's why video being built-in to HTML5 is important.
Is this what you really want? (Score:2, Insightful)
this could provide the perfect opportunity to further open up and standardize the web.
Innovation and standards often pull in opposite directions.
There are always cracks in the façade. Opportunities for the entrepreneur. The committee moves too damn slow.
I don't think the geek imagined the web evolving as it has - into communities like MySpace, Twitter, and so on.
It would be easy to imagine Windows media and gaming coalescing around portals like Windows Live! and Steam.
By the time the geek standardizes
Misinterpretation (Score:4, Interesting)
and actually advocates the use of JavaScript to implement it.
The writer of that linked piece makes it pretty obvious his goal is for the video to work for everyone - and the javascript code is therefore used to basically find a method the current user's browser can support without it being obvious to the user (e.g. not forcing the end user to download the video and view it in a separate player, which the OSNews letter seems to want to push on the user).
In other words, he's thinking about the user's experience first.
The author of the submitted story, on the other hand - as with the one from a few days ago that lamented Chrome's lack of purity regarding HTML5 video support - is more interested in Ogg zealotry. That's fine, if it floats your boat - but let's not dance around and obfuscate this. Make it very clear you want the Ogg format used - and ONLY the Ogg format used. Then the rest of the world (outside of Slashdot) can choose to continue ignoring you, just like it's been doing for the past few years.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Javascript is a cool language. I've written more than a couple of browser extensions and intranet apps with it in my time and I'm one of those people that disables javascript for browsing the public internet. I consider running random 3rd party code to be an outright security hole, some people are willing to sacrifice security for the bells and whistles but only a complete moron disagrees with the premise.
You can probably guess that I personally am going to disable the HTML5 A/V elements and continue down
Re:Waiting (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This has nothing to do with HTML 5 or the video tag. The javascript is used to create a fallback path for users who don't have a particular codec installed. It is not compulsory. Most linux machines install ogg theora with a media player package anyway, it's the rest of the world that need to download it.
<video> support in all browsers is cross-platform (except Chrome, which AFAIK doesn't support audio/video yet except on Windows, but that's an omission they're working on fixing). The browser doesn't have to rely on system libraries for decoding Theora any more than for decoding JPEG. Firefox 3.5 or recent Chrome supports Theora on Windows just as well as Linux. Better in Chrome's case for now, as noted.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You can probably guess that I personally am going to disable the HTML5 A/V elements and continue downloading video manually. That aside, browser based audio/video should provide basic playback functionality for the user without javascript enabled. The functionality should also be easily disabled or switched into "prompt to download" mode
All of this is already the case. Try out Chrome on Windows, or Firefox 3.5 on (AFAIK) any platform. You don't need JavaScript enabled (unless the page author is a jerk, but that's always true), and you can download from the context menu as you'd expect.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Javascript is MISUSED a lot, but hell, so is C.
Re:Really... (Score:4, Interesting)
What you're saying is HTML is going to add the ability to do what people have been doing for 5 yrs with Flash.
No, what we're saying is that video is going to become a first-class Web citizen that can interact with the rest of Web content in ways that Web developers want. Flash's video is locked inside the plug-in prison and cannot be well integrated with non-flash (real Web) content. Bringing video (and audio) to HTML means that real Web content like other HTML, JavaScript, SVG, CSS, etc. can interact with video and improve on what people have been doing for 5 years with Flash.
Parent