Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Firefox 3.5 Beta Boosts Open Video Standard

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the nothing-flashy dept.

Media 281

bmullan writes "Dailymotion, one of the world's largest video sites, announced support for Open Video. They've put out a press release, a blog post on the new Open Video site, and an HTML 5 demo site where you can see some of the things that you can do with open video and Firefox 3.5. (You can get the Firefox 3.5 beta here.) Dailymotion is automatically transcoding all of the content that their users create, and expect to have around 300,000 videos in the open Ogg Theora and Vorbis formats."

cancel ×

281 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Other sites with support exist as well (4, Informative)

g-to-the-o-to-the-g (705721) | more than 5 years ago | (#28187877)

There are some other sites which have had <video> support for a while now, such as omploader [omploader.org] . It would be nice if some big sites like youtube get rid of flash too, but I'm not holding my breath.

Disclaimer: it's my site

Re:Other sites with support exist as well (0, Flamebait)

harryandthehenderson (1559721) | more than 5 years ago | (#28187913)

It would be nice if some big sites like youtube get rid of flash too, but I'm not holding my breath.

No it wouldn't be nice. The h.264 codec that is used to stream their content is far and away better than that Theora garbage format.

Re:Other sites with support exist as well (1)

TheSunborn (68004) | more than 5 years ago | (#28187971)

Yes, so just use the tag with mpg4(h.264).

Theora has improved (4, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#28188059)

The h.264 codec that is used to stream their content is far and away better than that Theora garbage format.

The version of Theora that was in ffmpeg2theora 0.19 sucked. But Theora has come a long way since then, coming much closer to x264's fidelity [slashdot.org] .

Re:Theora has improved (5, Informative)

harryandthehenderson (1559721) | more than 5 years ago | (#28188107)

But Theora has come a long way since then, coming much closer to x264's fidelity.

You must have missed the retraction that was done when it was shown that they were calculating PSNR wrong for x264. Theora is nowhere near the quality of even a low-range h.264 codec.

'Publishing' the graph like that drew well-deserved scrutiny and unfortunately our own data was also off (although by considerably less). ffmpeg had another bug we didn't know about which caused it to mishandle the colorspace on x264 output, so the x264 PSNR value was too low by 1-4dB. Greg fixed the error in the data collection and immediately set about collecting new measures:

Re:Theora has improved (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28188143)

But Theora has come a long way since then, coming much closer to x264's fidelity.

You must have missed the retraction that was done when it was shown that they were calculating PSNR wrong for x264. Theora is nowhere near the quality of even a low-range h.264 codec.

'Publishing' the graph like that drew well-deserved scrutiny and unfortunately our own data was also off (although by considerably less). ffmpeg had another bug we didn't know about which caused it to mishandle the colorspace on x264 output, so the x264 PSNR value was too low by 1-4dB. Greg fixed the error in the data collection and immediately set about collecting new measures:

You're just pissy because your first post in this discussion was marked Flamebait. So now you just repeat yourself uselessly though you were careful to make it look like a useful reply because you're devious like that. What a sore loser crybaby you are!

Re:Theora has improved (1, Informative)

harryandthehenderson (1559721) | more than 5 years ago | (#28188179)

You're just pissy because your first post in this discussion was marked Flamebait.

No, I hadn't even noticed it was marked as flamebait till you said so and I couldn't care less.

So now you just repeat yourself uselessly though you were careful to make it look like a useful reply because you're devious like that. What a sore loser crybaby you are!

I didn't just repeat myself. I provided the word of the people who did that comparison that the GP's story linked to where they showed that the only way they beat x264 was by calculating the PSNR graph wrong. In fact the only person who is pissy is apparently you.

Re:Theora has improved (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28188233)

You're just pissy because your first post in this discussion was marked Flamebait.

No, I hadn't even noticed it was marked as flamebait till you said so and I couldn't care less.

So now you just repeat yourself uselessly though you were careful to make it look like a useful reply because you're devious like that. What a sore loser crybaby you are!

I didn't just repeat myself. I provided the word of the people who did that comparison that the GP's story linked to where they showed that the only way they beat x264 was by calculating the PSNR graph wrong. In fact the only person who is pissy is apparently you.

Now that I've shown you what flamebait is, since you were so kind as to take the bait, I can say to you - don't feed the trolls, mmmkay?

You're welcome.

Re:Theora has improved (4, Interesting)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#28188305)

You must have missed the retraction that was done when it was shown that they were calculating PSNR wrong for x264. Theora is nowhere near the quality of even a low-range h.264 codec.

I read that part. VP3 was garbage, as was the alpha version of Theora included in ffmpeg2theora 0.19. But even the corrected graph shows that Theora has gone from garbage to only 3 dB behind x264.

Sort of related, because a lot of people have DivX on their PC or in their DVD player: how does Xvid (an MPEG-4 ASP video encoder) compare to recent Theora and x264?

Re:Theora has improved (3, Interesting)

harryandthehenderson (1559721) | more than 4 years ago | (#28188375)

I read that part. VP3 was garbage, as was the alpha version of Theora included in ffmpeg2theora 0.19. But even the corrected graph shows that Theora has gone from garbage to only 3 dB behind x264.

Yeah, on one single clip using the default settings of x264 which hardly give the highest attainable quality.

Sort of related, because a lot of people have DivX on their PC or in their DVD player: how does Xvid (an MPEG-4 ASP video encoder) compare to recent Theora and x264?

Theora can't beat XviD and XviD is inferior to x264.

Re:Theora has improved (4, Interesting)

BikeHelmet (1437881) | more than 4 years ago | (#28189027)

Theora can't beat XviD and XviD is inferior to x264.

Nothing beats Xvid for low bitrates. (The bitrates which create ~350MB videos)

It blurs more details than some other codecs, which lets it save on space and put more detail into important stuff.

h.264 gets quite blocky well before Xvid does; mind you, it does a better job preserving details when a higher bitrate is allowable. h.264 is often the preferred format for raw video footage, since at high bitrates it comes remarkably close to totally uncompressed video. (which is usually too big to do anything with)

For static content, VP7/VP8 are quite impressive, but VP3... not so much.

A presentation with slides occasionally changing works wonderfully in VP7. It'll use a couple hundred kilobytes on the first frame, plus any frame where it suddenly changes, but aside from that it won't use much/any bandwidth. The result is a video that looks like a 32bit gif animation(perfect quality).

On2's algorithms for figuring out which pixels changed are quite advanced; a 10 second video showing a slide was a couple kilobytes smaller than a 4 minute video showing the same slide... with x264 and xvid, I didn't get results like that even after spending a day tweaking everything.

On2's encoder also automatically removes minor jitter/angle abnormalities, so if the camera was being held by a person, the difference in size will be even more pronounced.

Too bad last time I checked, their encoder was single-threaded. I'm also betting "Superior codec for lectures." isn't the kind of endorsement they wanted. :P

3 dB (4, Insightful)

ivoras (455934) | more than 4 years ago | (#28189139)

The meaning of "3 dB" is "twice". Decibels are a logarithmic system, used for two reasons: 1) because for large & weird systems it's easier to say "120 dB" then "a trillion" (of course, this works in certain sciences only), and 2) because our sensitivity to light, sound and probably other sensory input is logarithmic so yes, "3 dB" taken in this context can intentionally be parsed as "small". But for pre-set algorithms (i.e. made to a predefined spec), "two times" is actually a lot of space to fuzz over. You can only do so much before you need to change the very spec that makes Theora - Theora.

Re:Other sites with support exist as well (1)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | more than 4 years ago | (#28188205)

I think apples are much tastier than apple trees.

Re:Other sites with support exist as well (1)

sxpert (139117) | more than 4 years ago | (#28188671)

yes, and no...
h264 will impose moneys to be paid to the MPEG-LA for each second of encoded video after 2010...
and that, my friend, is a big no-no

Re:Other sites with support exist as well (-1, Flamebait)

harryandthehenderson (1559721) | more than 4 years ago | (#28188805)

h264 will impose moneys to be paid to the MPEG-LA for each second of encoded video after 2010...
and that, my friend, is a big no-no

But no end user is going to pay any of the patent royalties and for a company like Google the cost of using h.264 will be pocket change as the patent fees top out at just a few million a year. So since Google is more than able to pay the fees it would be well worth that investment to not drop it in favor of some garbage format like Theora.

Re:Other sites with support exist as well (1)

zolf13 (941799) | more than 4 years ago | (#28189009)

And as any PHB will tell you "The customer ultimately pays the costs, one way or another."

metavid.org (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28188161)

Also has lots of interesting Theora/Vorbis content :)

Re:metavid.org (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28188215)

Also has lots of interesting Theora/Vorbis content :)

It's flash, so no thanks. That and who the fuck wants to watch a bunch of US political BS? Yawn.

Re:metavid.org (1)

Psymin (154718) | more than 4 years ago | (#28188261)

Depends on what you have installed. It can be flash, VLC, java, mplayer .. whatever.

Re:Other sites with support exist as well (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28188355)

http://www.youtube.com/html5

Re:Other sites with support exist as well (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28188699)

Can anybody explain how to do Ogg Theora/Vorbis streaming in the real world?

On a small scale: what streaming server would you use? Darwin Streaming Server? Helix? WMS ;-)?
On a large scale: wich Content Delivery Network can you use to save your internet bandwidth?

What do you use to transcode your existing content? Do you need to hint your file?

Is it really streaming or is it progressive download (HTTP)? If it is streaming then what protocol is in use (RTSP/T? RTSP/U? RTMP? MMS?)?

Are there solution for Ogg Theora/Vorbis LIVE streaming or is it only Video On Demand?

Assuming I know WMV and ISMAv2 streaming what should I read to jumpstart into Open Video Standard?

Re:Other sites with support exist as well (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28189005)

youtube is old news. since they jumped in the pocket of the RIAA, megavideo is where its at!

Re:Other sites with support exist as well (1)

crabboy.com (771982) | more than 4 years ago | (#28189319)

Disclaimer: it's my site

Which, Youtube or Omploader? HAR!

Linux? (4, Insightful)

goldaryn (834427) | more than 5 years ago | (#28187897)

Firefox 3.5 Beta Boosts Open Video Standard

Well, bye bye karma... but..

How is this a Linux story/Firefox story? It's a new HTML standard. All browsers will support it, eventually.

Re:Linux? (1)

Chatterton (228704) | more than 5 years ago | (#28187951)

Linux, yes, there is a problem because Firefox run on windows too. Firefox, the tag is correct, because only Firefox support these part of HTML5 for now.

Re:Linux? (4, Informative)

Bake (2609) | more than 5 years ago | (#28188019)

Really, only Firefox? Because I could SWEAR it was working for me in Safari 4 with Youtube's HTML 5 demo site.

Re:Linux? (1)

Tensor (102132) | more than 4 years ago | (#28188285)

The page that the articel makes reference to (http://www.dailymotion.com/openvideodemo) works in FF 3.5

IE8 tries to download openvideoframe.
FF3, Safari 4 and Chrome 2 say you need FF3.5 (dont have Safari3 to test),

So no, this wont work in Safari 4.

Re:Linux? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28188635)

Try going to http://openvideo.dailymotion.com/ [dailymotion.com] in Safari 4

That landing page requires FireFox, but the actual video pages work fine in Safari.

Re:Linux? (1)

Kippesoep (712796) | more than 4 years ago | (#28188983)

That's just plain Flash though.

Re:Linux? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28189159)

Browser-sniffing for the lose!
It should easily be capable in any other browser.

Firefox 3.5 isn't anything special, Safari 4 and Chrome 2 have <video> support. (not trolling in any way, just stating a fact)
They must be browser-sniffing for some reason. (read: business deal)
I tried checking the source, but i already have a sore head as it is, and they have compressed their JS files by the looks of it...

Re:Linux? (3, Interesting)

RalphBNumbers (655475) | more than 4 years ago | (#28188571)

Safari supports the HTML5 video tag, but doesn't include Theora support because Apple considers it a patent lawsuit magnet.
Thus Safari users are shown better compressed, but definitely patented, h264 streams on those sites.

IIRC some other WebKit browsers use GStreamer as the back end for their video tag support, and thus probably support Theora.

Re:Linux? (0, Flamebait)

sxpert (139117) | more than 4 years ago | (#28188713)

apple is a bunch of loonies that prefer others pay them patent licenses to *them*..
oh. it seems apple has patents related to x264 in the form of the quicktime multiplex format... how practical...

Re:Linux? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28188801)

Safari supports the HTML5 video tag, but doesn't include Theora support because Apple considers it a patent lawsuit magnet.

Ummm... Apple doesn't include it because it REALLY doesn't want a free video/audio codec becoming widely used.

Re:Linux? (1)

TinBromide (921574) | more than 5 years ago | (#28187955)

It looks like firefox is supporting the new standard faster than most other browsers, hence it possibly being a firefox story, but this story doesn't appear to be branded firefox, it looks to be branded linux,/media, which is really weird because firefox probably has more windows installs than linux ones, but it is open source and as we all know "open source = linux". (not really)

Re:Linux? (1)

Dynedain (141758) | more than 5 years ago | (#28187965)

Just like they all support all portions of the previous 4 HTML standards, CSS, XHTML, etc...

Yeah, screw you too (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28187925)

Opera has supported for a while now. Stupid site says I'm not allowed to open it cause I'm not using Firefox.

Hmm, does this seem familiar to anyone?

Re:Yeah, screw you too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28188201)

Did you read the part about needing the latest BETA? Even with Firefox 3.0, the site doesn't work. You need Firefox 3.5 beta.

Who modded this insightful?

Re:Yeah, screw you too (4, Insightful)

yincrash (854885) | more than 4 years ago | (#28188321)

If the site only needs HTML5 support, you should be allowed to view it with any HTML5 browser, rather than constricting it only to work with Firefox 3.5 beta.

Re:Yeah, screw you too (4, Informative)

i.of.the.storm (907783) | more than 4 years ago | (#28188687)

That's kind of misleading, since there is no such thing as an HTML5 browser as of yet. All the upcoming versions of browsers that aren't IE are getting support for parts of HTML5, but it would be incorrect to say that they are all equivalent. Especially in the case of the <video> tag, they seem to do different codecs right now. Firefox does Theora, Safari and I think Chrome does h264, and I have no idea what opera does. I'm honestly not sure how this is a better situation than flash video players, at least until everyone decides to standardize on a common format. I guess the idea is that once all the dust settles, we'll have lower CPU usage and maybe nice things like videos being cached and/or easily downloadable, which flv doesn't do easily, but until then this isn't much of an improvement unless you're stuck on, say, 64 bit linux and can't get the flash plugin to work, but that's a really tiny edge case. Last I checked I could play youtube videos under 64 bit linux, so I'm not really sure what the advantages are.

Re:Yeah, screw you too (0)

mR.bRiGhTsId3 (1196765) | more than 4 years ago | (#28188773)

Oh, thats silly. Its great, it means website video content can be transcoded in 2 formats and have a fallback flash or silverlight implementation. Awesomeness. I wonder if it would be possible for the video implementation of Firefox to use DirectShow on Windows, Quicktime on Mac, and Gstreamer on Linux. That way, there wouldn't be any need to deal with those stupid video player plug-ins that never seem to work properly anyway and adding support for new formats is as simple as installing a new native decoder package.

Re:Yeah, screw you too (1)

EvanED (569694) | more than 4 years ago | (#28189235)

Oh, thats silly. Its great, it means website video content can be transcoded in 2 formats and have a fallback flash or silverlight implementation.

As opposed to just a Flash implementation that works decently well almost everywhere?

Unless you were being facetious, how is having three ways to do the same thing for not a whole lot of benefit a great thing? (I mean, I *am* looking forward to being able to dump Flash, but at the same time I don't see it as a big improvement to stick that in the browser itself.)

Re:Yeah, screw you too (5, Informative)

cha5on (1219926) | more than 4 years ago | (#28188325)

If you actually read TFA, you might have noticed

Do other browsers support this HTML tag? Yes, but our code works best on Firefox 3.5 beta and is not yet optimized for other browsers. We would be happy to work more closely with developers from Webkit and Opera.

Considering that the demo is intended to show what an emerging standard can do better than current ones, it's understandable that they want it to look the best it can, which means they're going to want people to watch it using the optimized platform and not something that's barely going to run their demo.

Re:Yeah, screw you too (1)

harryandthehenderson (1559721) | more than 4 years ago | (#28188339)

Actually their list [opera.com] of support for HTML5 doesn't include the video object only the audio object/element. And that includes up to the latest 9.64 version that has been released.

Re:Yeah, screw you too (3, Insightful)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#28188995)

So...you're limiting Opera to official/final releases but Firefox Beta is fine?

How cute...

Re:Yeah, screw you too (1)

plus_M (1188595) | more than 4 years ago | (#28188445)

I don't know. I use Opera exclusively and just a few days ago upgraded to Opera 10.00 Beta, and yet I can't seem to view the Youtube html5 demo [youtube.com] . Note that I have been trying this only on my 64 bit Linux workstation.

Re:Yeah, screw you too (0, Flamebait)

harryandthehenderson (1559721) | more than 4 years ago | (#28188641)

That's because they still don't have support for the video tag yet. The GP is full of shit to claim that Opera has support for it yet.

Re:Yeah, screw you too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28189253)

Here. [lmgtfy.com] You ignorant clod!

Re:Yeah, screw you too (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#28189017)

Opera has different preview versions for different functionalities.

Re:Yeah, screw you too (4, Insightful)

Xest (935314) | more than 4 years ago | (#28188507)

That's not really the fault of Firefox or HTML5, it's the fault of the site, but really I do think HTML5 is indeed a step backwards.

It reduces separation of the content and presentation layers and it increases parsing ambiguity by relaxing standards. Of course, ambiguity is bound to lead to a performance hit too, albeit perhaps rather small so may not really matter. This is really not great news as far as the web is concerned as it's exactly what we've been fighting against for the last decade with reasonable success - the web is certainly more portable and accessible now than it used to be.

From what I've read previously of the HTML5 spec and comments surrounding it the idea is to make HTML development more accessible, but I'm not sure this is the right way to go about things. If we're going to increase the amount of people who can publish on the internet then a better option seems to be to improve the applications for doing this - whether they're web applications (i.e. Wordpress to Twitter to Facebook to MySpace) or whether we simply make better quality WYSIWYG desktop applications. If we do this on a spec that's better built for the real web developers - those who really need clear separation of concerns to ensure their sites are truly enterprise ready then we'll undoubtedly end up with a much better web.

With tags like and so forth added it's meant to increase clarity, but really it doesn't, because ultimately it will never fulfil everyone's needs, someone will want or so on, this means they're back to something like

meaning half your markup is in the div format and half not, or you could just ignore the feature but then effectively you may as well just carry on using XHTML anyway.

Let web developers develop and let users use applications to publish - it's worked so well as many Web 2.0 successes have shown.

Besides that there's also something that stinks about forcing a standard on the web too - open or not. I think I'd rather have market forces decide a standard over a small clique of people who have their own interests and agendas which may not necessarily be the best for the web overall.

Standards should be lightweight, extensible and well defined, I would argued HTML5 is flawed in all of these areas, whereas with XHTML that is much less the case. HTML5 simply makes worse the very reasons we started to move away from HTML to XHTML in the first place.

Re:Yeah, screw you too (1)

ardor (673957) | more than 4 years ago | (#28188583)

Let web developers develop and let users use applications to publish - it's worked so well as many Web 2.0 successes have shown.

Actually, it didn't. HTML 5 isn't actually suited for *web applications*. It is suited for *documents*. These two are entirely different entities - for example, there is no need for navigation buttons in a web application. HTML 5 reflects today's actual web needs much better. The web is no longer primarily made up of hypertext document, it is primarily made up of web applications.

Also, the market forcing a standard ends up with closed standards that require licensing and whatnot. Even if the specs are open.

Re:Yeah, screw you too (1)

ardor (673957) | more than 4 years ago | (#28188595)

HTML 5 isn't actually suited for *web applications*.

For some reason, Slashdot submit ate the <.
It should read "HTML <"

Re:Yeah, screw you too (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#28188987)

HTML5 specifies the algorithm to use to transform bad markup into a DOM. How is that ambiguous?

Re:Yeah, screw you too (1)

pizzach (1011925) | more than 4 years ago | (#28189073)

Besides that there's also something that stinks about forcing a standard on the web too - open or not. I think I'd rather have market forces decide a standard over a small clique of people who have their own interests and agendas which may not necessarily be the best for the web overall.

According to the w3c site [w3.org] , the members include:

  • Apple, Inc.
  • Microsoft Corporation
  • Opera Software
  • Mozilla Foundation

I may be wrong, but I believe this encompasses all the major rendering engines on the web today. There are about 390 other members on the page too. I do not understand how this is a smaller clique of people than just having the developers of Webkit, Gecko, Trident and Presto doing their own things.

The demo at Dailymotion are developed by Mozilla (1)

feranick (858651) | more than 4 years ago | (#28188781)

So it's not surprising....
From here: http://www.dailymotion.com/openvideodemo [dailymotion.com]

Featuring:
* no flash involved
* only the new HTML5 video tag
* + javascript/CSS3
* + some svg filters too
* + animated PNG
* easy to maintain
* easy to extend
* demos and skin from Mozilla and Dailymotion

Re:Yeah, screw you too (3, Insightful)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#28189087)

Yeah, it's simply exchanging browser monopoly for browser duopoly - previously we've had "best viewed in IE", now it's "...in IE & Firefox". No real progress at all.

Posting from a place where Opera is quite popular (8.5% here, 31.6% in neighbouring country (yeah, more than Gecko - 24.5%); most countries in the region have less than 50% IE usage); trust me, browser-agnostic web is a much better idea.

Styling the UI? (4, Insightful)

Chris Pimlott (16212) | more than 5 years ago | (#28187949)

How does the open video format handle styling the UI? One of the reasons sites love flash for video so much is that it gives them complete control over how the video is presented, e.g. available controls, positions, colors and themes to match the rest of the page, etc. Then you have the more intrusive things, like Youtube's overlay ads, text captions, and suggested videos after playback finishes.

If open video means a widget that site owners have no control over, like Quicktime video embedding, then commercial site operators aren't going to be too keen on it.

Re:Styling the UI? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28188013)

How does the open video format handle styling the UI?
See that link, get the beta here? Try it!

Re:Styling the UI? (2, Informative)

db48x (92557) | more than 5 years ago | (#28188055)

There's a default UI, but you can turn it off and use whatever HTML/CSS/XML/SVG you care to dream up.

Re:Styling the UI? (1)

ouwiyaru (87338) | more than 5 years ago | (#28188075)

Easily, it's all JS and HTML dom. As you can see in the YouTube demo (the video doesn't work in linux/ffox 3.5, since they don't provide an OGG source, but it should work elsewhere):
http://www.youtube.com/html5 [youtube.com]
The play/seek widgets are all html and not flash/etc.

Look up the controls attribute (4, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#28188177)

If open video means a widget that site owners have no control over, like Quicktime video embedding, then commercial site operators aren't going to be too keen on it.

HTML 5 Video [whatwg.org] states that a page can ask the user agent to show a built-in control widget (by providing a controls attribute) or hide it and provide its own widget that controls the video player through its DOM (by omitting the controls attribute).

Re:Styling the UI? (1)

Disco Hips (920480) | more than 4 years ago | (#28188623)

I've just created an <audio> based project along with a friend. We didn't use the 'controls' attribute, and instead created some faux-LCD style display, with all the play, pause, skip buttons, volume dial and track progress slider with scrubber, in standard HTML - images, <a> links and JS calls. All styled as per our own designs. I assume <video> is much the same, but I've only yet begun to fiddle with using that element as yet.

finally (3, Interesting)

delirium of disorder (701392) | more than 5 years ago | (#28188001)

Thank flying spaghetti monster. Flash is the only proprietary software I use. I can't wait for in browser ogg theora support to take off, and the online video market to embrace it. As soon as I see it working, I'll delete my google video account and self-host all my videos.

Re:finally (0)

Microlith (54737) | more than 4 years ago | (#28188529)

I'll delete my google video account and self-host all my videos.

Enjoy the lack of exposure and footing the bandwith costs.

On second thought, those are mutually exclusive, now aren't they?

Re:finally (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28189015)

Welcome to the year 2009 when videos can be sent down tubes without paying an arm and a leg.

Re:finally (2, Insightful)

blakedev (1397081) | more than 4 years ago | (#28188589)

I can has video on FreeBSD plz? One of the major reasons why I don't use FreeBSD as my main os (even though I like it) is the lack of good support for Flash. I feel giddy.

Re:finally (1)

Shadow-isoHunt (1014539) | more than 4 years ago | (#28189179)

You use openbios? How's that working for you?

Question (1)

sys.stdout.write (1551563) | more than 5 years ago | (#28188003)

Do Google or other owners of the big video sites have any incentive to stick with Flash?

I would assume that most users would prefer not to have to download Flash plugins..

Re:Question (1, Interesting)

TinBromide (921574) | more than 5 years ago | (#28188069)

I'm really not sure if google pays flash licensing fees. If they do, the fees may not decrease if X% use open standard players and 100-X% use flash. Until google can cut flash loose, those flat rate fees may not decrease. (I.E. Adobe says "Google, pay me $250K per year and I'll let you use all the flash you want").

However, adobe may not charge for flash applet generation and google may not pay a single penny to adobe for the flash portion. If that is the case (which is more likely as a "free" media standard would make flash the ubiquitous "standard" it is to day), Google may only offer the firefox HTML standard flash player as an option.

Re:Question (1)

Fry-kun (619632) | more than 5 years ago | (#28188147)

IIRC, Flash won over Shockwave because the developer had to pay to use Shockwave but didn't for Flash.

Re:Question (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#28188389)

IIRC, Flash won over Shockwave because the developer had to pay to use Shockwave but didn't for Flash.

They were made by the same company: Macromind, then Macromedia, then Adobe. And until Macromedia/Adobe documented the SWF format and later released Flex SDK, you did have to pay for Flash authoring software (mid to upper three figures USD) to make SWF files.

Re:Question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28188315)

X.264 will have a fee attached to it for content distributors from some point in 2010 (either the start or the end, I forget which), so there is a monetary reason for moving over to a free codec too. Just imagine the amount of money that would have to be forked over on per video basis royalties.

Re:Question (1)

harryandthehenderson (1559721) | more than 4 years ago | (#28188927)

Except that the amount the licensing fees they would have to pay, since they do cap out at just a few million a year, would barely be 1/2th of 1/10th of a percent of their total yearly revenue. They would spend more on employee lunches in a year, which has been approximated to around 70-80 million a year, than they would on the H.264 licensing fees.

Re:Question (2, Informative)

Fry-kun (619632) | more than 4 years ago | (#28188209)

Yes, because Flash boasts huge market penetration (http://www.adobe.com/products/player_census/flashplayer/). Of course it's Adobe's own market research, but it's probably true that they have most of the market in their grasp.
Add to that the fact that IE still has the largest browser market share.
Those two practically guarantee that Google will stick with Flash for most part. Maybe they will create a dynamic service which would prefer support over flash, but Flash is here to stay for quite a while longer.

Re:Question (4, Insightful)

harryandthehenderson (1559721) | more than 4 years ago | (#28188275)

I would assume that most users would prefer not to have to download Flash plugins..

Most users are probably more inclined to download the flash plugin that happens automatically for them versus downloading a whole new browser to get HTML5 video tags to work.

Re:Question (1)

wagnerrp (1305589) | more than 4 years ago | (#28188721)

Most users wouldn't understand the difference, flash or otherwise. The only incentive flash has at the moment is support for RTMPE. Content control is impossible on an open standard. You have to have control over the program to have control over the played content. If you can modify the code, or write your own program, you can simply ignore any copy restrictions. The only way around that is to have key revocation systems like BD+ where you can disable future access. Sites like Youtube or Dailymotion dont care, and there's no reason not to move to an open standard. Sites like Hulu will always use a closed module.

Why promote an "inferior" product? (3, Interesting)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 5 years ago | (#28188141)

While I am happy to see that Mozilla and Firefox are setting the standards, let me remind readers that previous evaluations have found the Theora encoders inferior compared to contemporary video codecs. In particular, the reference Theora encoder has inferior picture quality and network frame rate control as of 2008.

Ohh wait a minute...There is a Slashdotter who noted [slashdot.org] this as well.

Frankly, it bothers me big time. Why not wait until the standard is "up to par" with the likes of Microsoft's Silverlight or Adobe's Flash?

Re:Why promote an "inferior" product? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28188369)

Simply because the standard is not going to improve if nobody uses it.

Re:Why promote an "inferior" product? (5, Insightful)

siDDis (961791) | more than 4 years ago | (#28188379)

Theora is great for embedded devices like cell phones since it is "cheap" when it comes to cpu cycles. For top quality video, Dirac should be used. I wonder when Firefox, Opera or Konqueror will have native support for Dirac.

Re:Why promote an "inferior" product? (0)

ardor (673957) | more than 4 years ago | (#28188617)

Dirac too is inferior to h.264, while being several times slower.
Nothing beats h.264.

Sometimes worse is better (4, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#28188479)

In particular, the reference Theora encoder has inferior picture quality and network frame rate control as of 2008.

But as of 2009, Thusnelda is coming soon. The Thusnelda encoder has already fixed [slashdot.org] some of the problems that Theora inherited from On2's VP3, thanks in part to the flexibility that Xiph added to the Theora bitstream format. Sure, it's still inferior to x264 (50% bigger rate for same distortion as of about a month ago), but it's improving.

Why not wait until the standard is "up to par" with the likes of Microsoft's Silverlight or Adobe's Flash?

Because sometimes worse is better [wikipedia.org] . For example, worse can be better because it's Free and thus more available for deployment on devices other than PCs.

Re:Why promote an "inferior" product? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28188845)

Repeat this to yourself until you understand it: having this option does NOT preclude using Flash or other video technologies!

Is it really so difficult for the masses of "all open source sucks" naysayers and skeptics that haunt slashdot to understand that having a COMMON, OPEN SOURCE, PATENT-FREE ALTERNATIVE is a good thing? No one is forcing you to use it.

Jesus F. Christ, slashdot used to be a place where you could go to learn and talk about cool open source technologies. Nowadays its all about the latest proprietary shit from Microsoft and Apple.

Re:Why promote an "inferior" product? (5, Insightful)

Phroggy (441) | more than 4 years ago | (#28189165)

While I am happy to see that Mozilla and Firefox are setting the standards, let me remind readers that previous evaluations have found the Theora encoders inferior compared to contemporary video codecs. In particular, the reference Theora encoder has inferior picture quality and network frame rate control as of 2008.

The important thing is that we move toward open standards, away from proprietary solutions, because open standards allow us to do more cool stuff with them.

Remember RealPlayer? Remember all the bitching about what a piece of crap it was? People had to have it, even though it sucked, because a lot of content was only available in RealAudio format. Today, RealPlayer is all but gone, and you can play the same type of content using whatever software you like. Why? Because when Apple added Podcast support to iTunes, Podcasts suddenly became hugely popular, and virtually all of the content providers that used to offer only RealAudio now offer Podcasts instead. This means that users are free to choose whatever software they want, and competition will drive the software to improve.

In the same way, if web sites move away from Flash video players to using HTML5's video tag, it will mean users will no longer be dependent on Adobe's plugin to access the content. Unfortunately we still have patent issues to deal with; Ogg is unencumbered, but better quality codecs will be supported by most browsers, and if we can get content providers to get used to the idea of making their video content freely available (instead of wrapping it up in Flash), there can be competition among codecs too.

It's not a perfect world, but it's one step closer.

Re:Why promote an "inferior" product? (2, Insightful)

pizzach (1011925) | more than 4 years ago | (#28189187)

I still do not why slashdoters think Theora has no worth as a baseline free video codec with less legal shackles? H264 is already in the standard. I doubt it's going to disappear. It would be nice if some free (as in beer) software could ship with a working video encoder that isn't illegal in some countries. Just toss the baby out with the bathwater guys...

Frame rate, looping, size... (1)

Twinbee (767046) | more than 4 years ago | (#28188297)

Is it possible to set frame rate, size, and looping attributes inside the HTML? Does the video get anti-aliasing if the size is reduced?

How about lossless video? is that supported? What codecs are supported?

Re:Frame rate, looping, size... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28188911)

Read the specs yourself :-P

Yes, you can apply lots of transforms to the video. You can do sheer, blur/distortion, color correction. You can even do greenscreen style replacements.

Codec support is limited though since many of the common video codecs are not open.

Long live FF 2.xx (-1, Troll)

97cobra (89974) | more than 4 years ago | (#28188377)

Just say NO to the AwfulBar !!!!

Re:Long live FF 2.xx (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28188665)

You can turn it off. It's rather easy.

I hope it doesn't a quad core CPU to run (2, Informative)

Krneki (1192201) | more than 4 years ago | (#28188449)

With Adobe every year my CPU is more loaded when I'm watching Youtube or similar.
While using a different player, the movies uses 10 time less CPU cycles. I can't wait for something to replace that bloat from Adobe.

Widespread adoption and annoying ads are over. (4, Funny)

GreatBunzinni (642500) | more than 4 years ago | (#28188513)

As soon as major sites such as youtube adopt this standard and drop that PoS adobe flash then flash will be practically relegated to crappy early 90s sites and annoying ads, which means that removing the flash plugin from any system will vastly improve your web experience. Good riddance.

Re:Widespread adoption and annoying ads are over. (1)

Omniscient Lurker (1504701) | more than 4 years ago | (#28188697)

And games. If minesweeper/solitaire won the desktop, games will keep flash around (on newgrounds at least)

This is a CPU hog (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28188703)

I'm on a Sempron 2600+ machine here and the cpu usage keeps hitting 100%. Flash videos play at 80%, what gives?

The video tag has a fatal flaw - codecs (4, Interesting)

AndrewStephens (815287) | more than 4 years ago | (#28188743)

The video tag is great, but it has a fatal flaw (actually two fatal flaws, but one is much more important.) The attempt to standardize on a single codec was correct, but now that it has failed the video tag becomes much less useful. At least with flash you can host a video and be sure that most of your audience will be able to view it. With the video tag, even when browsers that support it become widely available, which codec do you encode the video in? Already the browsers are going in different directions, with Safari using Quicktime to play h.264.

Hopefully it gets sorted out soon. Personally I would like to see h.264 adopted if the licensing issues can be sorted out.

I blogged about this issue a couple of days ago [sandfly.net.nz] , if anyone is interested in a longer version of this comment.

(The other fatal flaw is that the video tag makes it easy for people to download the original video file - something none of the big content providers want. Yes, everyone knows how to do this with Flash videos, but the illusion of content protection is there.)

Re:The video tag has a fatal flaw - codecs (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28188929)

Neither flash nor h264 will be opened unless competing alternatives gets strong enough. Implement html5 tags as options in your site and hope for the best.

Re:The video tag has a fatal flaw - codecs (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28189071)

The big content providers don't want you to download their content, all the reason they are becoming ever more irrelevant. Welcome to new media.

firefox linux link (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28188859)

Here [mozilla.org] is a link to a 64-bit linux nightly build that sorta works[the controls on the video don't seem to work real well]. The link in the summary wants to try to give you a 32-bit build which probably won't work for most people.

This FP foR gNAA (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28189029)

become like they us the courtesy Talk to one of the Mr. Raymond's around return it but suffice it I know it sux0rs, Posts. Therefore believe their Lube. This can lead Lay down paper by BSDI who seel be on a wrong non-fucking-existant. already aware, *BSD ultimately, we fear th3 reaper enjoy the loud I thought it was my ops or any of the and help us! OpenBSD wanker Theo not going to play Non-fucking-existant. Noises out of the there are only have their moments first avoid going shout the loudest posts. Therefore what they think is you can. No, worse and worse. As Playing so it's the system clean

Major Typo in the Article Title (1, Insightful)

malevolentjelly (1057140) | more than 4 years ago | (#28189055)

Maybe I misread, but it seems to me that they're claiming this is somehow standards-based. This is a working draft that's basically implemented in a single browser... and it's not even complete. It's just amazing how everyone has already started trashing Microsoft for not implementing this "standard" when it's a complete paper tiger. This is an unfinished standard with no means of standard implementation.

This is not "standards" behavior. This is calling random firefox features "standards" while Opera and Webkit developers dig through the source code to create awkwardly almost-consistent implementations of the draft. This particular instance, where DailyMotion is concerned, is even branding HTML 5 as a Firefox feature. This is not what I have in mind when I think of an open web.

This is really not impressive. The w3c is doing a terrible job of commoditizing dynamic content with this HTML 5 spec. It's jam packed with horrific cruft like the theora decoder, another rapidly changing and incomplete format that will now have to be picked up, developed, and optimized by any web organization that doesn't want to get lynched by the freetard brigade for not being "standards-compliant". It's amazing how they've found a careful balance to somehow simultaneously cock-block progress on video development while still being unusably bleeding edge with non-existent-to-partial implementations of technology.

If you really want to know how many of these BS standards are actually "Complete", use IE 8 and weep.

"standard" (2, Insightful)

Lord Bitman (95493) | more than 4 years ago | (#28189223)

While this new "standard" format is open, it's also something with almost zero support, especially across legacy browsers.
This means Flash is here to stay, even /with/ new javascript capabilities.

Any License that will Prevent Transcoding? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28189251)

I have a really naive question.

Is there any License that will prevent transcoding original video produced by me, to another format, like .flv?

I'd like to make my videos open source only, including the "container".

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>