InkofDeath Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 A lot of forums(Magicbox for one) are starting to offer YouTube in High Definition or High Quality, some have separate tags, others have just one tag for HQ/HD and the system automatically checks for the version/resolution. YouTube isn't the 4:3 player anymore, and almost all videos are offered in High Quality, or High Definition. I'm not recommending Tip.It gets rid of the 4:3 embed code though, that needs to stay as it's still a standard at YouTube, but it is beginning to become a version 1.0 product, compared to the 2.0 High Quality and the 2.5 High Definition. We also know that YouTube videos are very popular, for very obvious reasons explained thoroughly through-out 2006/2007 in online news articles and such. So hopefully it is well understood how important YouTube is to a lot of the internet community, especially to those that: Game; Play RuneScape; Post Videos in OT, VG; Post Trailers; Post Spoilers; and all the other stuff. If possible someone could scan the forums for the amount of YouTube tags used, and I'm pretty sure they'd be quite high, or the growth of the use of the tags over time has increased dramatically since introduced. But I'm pretty sure this doesn't need to be done to prove a meaningless point, that we know. Thus I'm suggesting that Tip.It configure some new tags for YouTube videos, that will put the video in the high quality player, or in the 16:9 player (might be auto-put in hide tags, or something). Why? - Reasons above - How many people post the link to the video, because HD isn't enabled here, and thus the 4:3 player kills the quality? - Convenience for faster and easier forum browsing - Putting Tip.It ahead of all other Runescape message boards - Setting a higher standard for competitors - May increase the users posting their PK Videos, or recreational RuneScape videos on Tip.It over other message boards because of the convenience. Who is this for? - Mainly for those Off-Topic'ers, who are posting YouTube videos daily in Video Games, Movies & Television, and some portion of off-topic threads to convey points through video - May spark a new community of users using the YouTube tags to their advantage How would it work? Youtube HD Video - This video will cause high CPU usage, to view the video in a lower quality, please click here. here. here. here. here. here. [ythq]&hl=en&ap=%2526fmt%3D18" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"> That in the long run has to safe some kind of internet space, or something, would make others enjoy the typing out of two or three tags much easier (they can copy and paste, but some find it faster perhaps to just type it out than to select the tags and such). I'd also recommend that [ythq]&hl=en&ap=%2526fmt%3D18">here. here. here. here. [ythq]&hl=en&ap=%2526fmt%3D18" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"> That in the long run has to safe some kind of internet space, or something, would make others enjoy the typing out of two or three tags much easier (they can copy and paste, but some find it faster perhaps to just type it out than to select the tags and such). I'd also recommend that [ythq]&hl=en&ap=%2526fmt%3D18">here. [ythq]&hl=en&ap=%2526fmt%3D18" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"> That in the long run has to safe some kind of internet space, or something, would make others enjoy the typing out of two or three tags much easier (they can copy and paste, but some find it faster perhaps to just type it out than to select the tags and such). I'd also recommend that [ythq]&hl=en&ap=%2526fmt%3D18"> [ythq]&hl=en&ap=%2526fmt%3D18" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"> That in the long run has to safe some kind of internet space, or something, would make others enjoy the typing out of two or three tags much easier (they can copy and paste, but some find it faster perhaps to just type it out than to select the tags and such). I'd also recommend that [ythq]&hl=en&ap=%2526fmt%3D18" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"> is just forgotten and the [ythd] one checks for eiter high quality or high definition, if both are present, default to HD, if no HD, use HQ. Then again if people wanted to choose HQ over HD that would be a problem. --- I'm hoping that this can at least go under discussion/theorize if it is possible and worth doing. Or at least for a future reference to do. TL:DR - Do it before Zybez does. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tripsis Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 I don't see it as a necessary addition, but I certainly have no problem with it if it's relatively easy/quick to do. - 99 fletching | 99 thieving | 99 construction | 99 herblore | 99 smithing | 99 woodcutting - - 99 runecrafting - 99 prayer - 125 combat - 95 farming - - Blog - DeviantART - Book Reviews & Blog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bauke Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 HD material in a little embedded Youtube player is highly overkill and only takes up a lot extra cpu cycles. Imo, if you want to watch HD, go to the Youtube site. Changing the aspect ratio to 16:9 is a good idea, to preserve quality (stretched video's are ugly) but going to HD with such a small embedded player, on a forum, please no. Twitter ||| Google+ ||| Facebook ||| LinkedIn ||| My very interesting weblog about science Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laikrob Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 HD material in a little embedded Youtube player is highly overkill and only takes up a lot extra cpu cycles. Imo, if you want to watch HD, go to the Youtube site. Changing the aspect ratio to 16:9 is a good idea, to preserve quality (stretched video's are ugly) but going to HD with such a small embedded player, on a forum, please no. Summed up my thoughts pretty well. I would like to see it in 16:9 if it's not a huge deal to change. You're accusing me of bigotry, how ironic. It's a nice attempt at argument, but your responses are facile and asinine, if not diatribe. Who's arrogant now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InkofDeath Posted January 19, 2009 Author Share Posted January 19, 2009 HD material in a little embedded Youtube player is highly overkill and only takes up a lot extra cpu cycles. Imo, if you want to watch HD, go to the Youtube site. Changing the aspect ratio to 16:9 is a good idea, to preserve quality (stretched video's are ugly) but going to HD with such a small embedded player, on a forum, please no. Which is exactly why I suggested that a 16:9 player would require hide tags. I should probably mention that more than once, so people don't miss it. I believe images in hide tags take up more pixels on someones resolution than a 16:9 player will, and YouTube's HD player isn't that large anyways...my post above was larger than it almost in width. Not to mention you could probably adjust the size or whatever, without loss of quality in HD. but I wouldn't like that one. =P Also it's not a necessary addition, but honestly, let's not go down that path like almost every thread in this forum goes to. Sure it's not necessary, but we also don't need several other convenient things on the boards as well. We don't need posts, avatars, custom profile fields...etc. Yet those are useful, and so is this, and has just as much value, if not more to a good portion of users. Not to mention other RS forums do not have this feature yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tripsis Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Also it's not a necessary addition, but honestly, let's not go down that path like almost every thread in this forum goes to. Sure it's not necessary, but we also don't need several other convenient things on the boards as well. We don't need posts, avatars, custom profile fields...etc. Yet those are useful, and so is this, and has just as much value, if not more to a good portion of users. Not to mention other RS forums do not have this feature yet. I don't want to go down that path either :P I mean sure it makes sense to not implement a new, unnecessary feature, if it takes a lot of time and effort. But if it's simple enough and doesn't do any harm, then it shouldn't be a problem. - 99 fletching | 99 thieving | 99 construction | 99 herblore | 99 smithing | 99 woodcutting - - 99 runecrafting - 99 prayer - 125 combat - 95 farming - - Blog - DeviantART - Book Reviews & Blog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InkofDeath Posted January 19, 2009 Author Share Posted January 19, 2009 I don't want to go down that path either :P I mean sure it makes sense to not implement a new, unnecessary feature, if it takes a lot of time and effort. But if it's simple enough and doesn't do any harm, then it shouldn't be a problem. Indeed. : The usability/performance of the product to the effort/time to create the product is definitely the question I'm wanting to know, but I only have a vague idea of how it could be done, and that's by changing a bit of code in the original youtube tags, excluding the 'checking for hq/hd' part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsavi Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 I was thinking of posting this myself. As a solution for old computers, I think that [ythd] and [ythq] should have built-in hide tags that stop the video from loading by breaking the code when it's hidden. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bauke Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Point is, a lot of computers will have trouble running HD. It simply requires a lot of cpu speed. Next to that, it's unnecessary. Video's are watched on the forum in a small embedded player. HD implies a high resolution. You don't need a high resolution on a forum. It's just too many pixels you want to fit in a small area. And at what benefits? Video with hickups for most people... The normal / high quality is enough for forum use. A higher resolution (being HD) is simply too much. A 16:9 aspect ratio is something else. It implies the way the video's are portraited. Nobody wants stretched video's, so changing the aspect ratio is worth the while. I don't know about the possibilities, but if it's possible I'd say keep the same quality, but change the aspect ratio to 16:9 where needed. Twitter ||| Google+ ||| Facebook ||| LinkedIn ||| My very interesting weblog about science Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsavi Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Please read all the replies before you post. I was thinking of posting this myself. As a solution for old computers, I think that [ythd] and [ythq] should have built-in hide tags that stop the video from loading by breaking the code when it's hidden. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bauke Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Please read all the replies before you post. I was thinking of posting this myself. As a solution for old computers, I think that [ythd] and [ythq] should have built-in hide tags that stop the video from loading by breaking the code when it's hidden. Please don't just assume things without even proper reading yourself. With hiding, the same problem occurs. People will want to play the video, notice it's in HD, it plays with hick-ups.. results in the video not being watched. So, again, no HD please. Twitter ||| Google+ ||| Facebook ||| LinkedIn ||| My very interesting weblog about science Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsavi Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 [hide=Warning to users of slow computers]It isn't any more difficult than that.[/hide] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bauke Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 How does that solve the fact that people can't play the video file? Twitter ||| Google+ ||| Facebook ||| LinkedIn ||| My very interesting weblog about science Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmyw3000 Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 I thought the youtube video embedded in the tags wouldn't download or whatever untilled you clicked "Play"... Or am i epicly wrong? :uhh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsavi Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 I would have to dig in the Gecko source code to tell you, and tbh that's not something I feel like doing. Not like I know C++ anyway. :P So it might download the code, and leave it alone until JavaScript unhides it. Or it might parse and display the code invisibly. I don't really know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InkofDeath Posted January 20, 2009 Author Share Posted January 20, 2009 Their CPU isn't even utilized until they play the darn video. I also hope people haven't lost their common sense to just click any and all youtube videos when they could ultimately not play them. --- If I have a computer that can't handle HD, and I'm really skeptical of a computer unable to play it that isn't older than 5-7 years. All it's doing is using your internet connection to load the video. So hardware is very minuscule. I don't even think CPU power is even an argument since if I know my computer can't play certain things, why would I keep trying to watch HD? I really don't think a suggestion should be looked down on simply because people are redundant, and that is what it comes down to. But really who can't play HD, disregarding the internet connection needed? HD video isn't going to kill any 2001+ CPU to my knowledge. & Jimmy; I thought so too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MageUK Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 The following tags have been added: [youtubehq][/youtubehq] [youtubehd][/youtubehd] [yt][/yt] [ythq][/ythq] [ythd][/ythd] The following tags have been removed from the posting page (but kept to ensure old posts do not break): [youtube][/youtube] [youtubehq][/youtubehq] [youtubehd][/youtubehd] The following tags have been added to the posting page: [yt][/yt] [ythq][/ythq] [ythd][/ythd] Both [yt] and [yt] Demo [yt]NoiB1BKvS70[/yt] [ythq] Demo [ythq]NoiB1BKvS70&hl=en&ap=%2526fmt%3D18"> [ythd] Demo [ythd]NoiB1BKvS70">here. [ythd] Demo [ythd]NoiB1BKvS70&hl=en&fs=1&ap=%2526fmt%3D22"> [ythd] Demo [ythd]NoiB1BKvS70&hl=en&fs=1&ap=%2526fmt%3D22" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="854" height="504"> Please remember to use the video ID only, not the entire URL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsavi Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Great :thumbup: No more clicking to the high quality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bauke Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Their CPU isn't even utilized until they play the darn video. I also hope people haven't lost their common sense to just click any and all youtube videos when they could ultimately not play them. That's my point. They click, they can't play. While if the post was simply in HQ, they could have played it. If someone posts a HD video, not everyone can play it, and people would have to go to the YouTube site first to watch the video there in HQ. Though, noticing the implementation of HD I'd have to say that problem is solved. If posting a HD video also gives the option to watch it in HQ, then people won't have the hassle to go to the YouTube site. If I have a computer that can't handle HD, and I'm really skeptical of a computer unable to play it that isn't older than 5-7 years. All it's doing is using your internet connection to load the video. So hardware is very minuscule. I don't even think CPU power is even an argument since if I know my computer can't play certain things, why would I keep trying to watch HD? Connection is used to get the data from the internet, the cpu is used to actually play the data. So yes, cpu power is an argument. I really don't think a suggestion should be looked down on simply because people are redundant, and that is what it comes down to. But really who can't play HD, disregarding the internet connection needed? HD video isn't going to kill any 2001+ CPU to my knowledge. You're totally wrong. Twitter ||| Google+ ||| Facebook ||| LinkedIn ||| My very interesting weblog about science Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tripsis Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Awesome - thank you! :thumbsup: - 99 fletching | 99 thieving | 99 construction | 99 herblore | 99 smithing | 99 woodcutting - - 99 runecrafting - 99 prayer - 125 combat - 95 farming - - Blog - DeviantART - Book Reviews & Blog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InkofDeath Posted January 21, 2009 Author Share Posted January 21, 2009 Excellence! Great job Peter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PoorLepRecon Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Great addition guys! Forum Updates & Suggestions <------ Let your voice be heard!Forum Games <------- Coolest place on Tip.ItTip.It Forum Rules <------- Read them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
n_odie Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Peter is worth his weight in cookies! <3 RIP MichaelangelopolousThanks to cowboy14 for the pimp sig! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now