Howlin0001 Posted February 4, 2010 Share Posted February 4, 2010 I know it's still in production, but what will really change compared to HTML 4?I heard something about it not requiring the need for adobe flash and youtube is testing it out (or something along them lines). www.youtube.com/html5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBC Posted February 4, 2010 Share Posted February 4, 2010 Flash/Silverlight will become less useful since there are new <audio> <video> elements in HTML 5. The code is easier to understand, more consistent result on different browsers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InkofDeath Posted February 4, 2010 Share Posted February 4, 2010 Flash/Silverlight will become less useful since there are new <audio> <video> elements in HTML 5. The code is easier to understand, more consistent result on different browsers. Read this article if you want an insight:http://gizmodo.com/5...ve-the-internet Basic knowledge is just written out in the article until you get to the 'Managing Expectations' part. I would say the issues they bring up in this section is what you should pay attention to, as this is what HTML5 was or has been hoping to accomplish, yet some of the 'facts' they bring up aren't completely accurate even if they have some validity. Basically it is expanding on the entire 'one unified standard' for browsers that web developers have wanted for a very long time. At least that is how I've interpreted it, though if Microsoft Silverlight continues to be as successful as it has been, HTML5/FLASH will expire relatively quickly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silverlight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
____ Posted February 5, 2010 Share Posted February 5, 2010 I have to admit, the youtube HTML5 player is rather clean. The resize option I like a lot better than Full Screen mode too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsavi Posted February 5, 2010 Share Posted February 5, 2010 HTML5 also adds <header> and <footer> tags and makes the default doctype really simple too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jard_Y_Dooku Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 I wish Microsoft didn't be so difficult when it comes to standards. That is all I have to say for now, otherwise... yeah, that's all I have to say for now. Never trust anyone. You are always alone, and betrayal is inevitable.Nothing is safe from the jaws of the decompiler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liquid_1520 Posted February 16, 2010 Share Posted February 16, 2010 with google chrome and the new HTML media player, I love it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howlin0001 Posted February 16, 2010 Author Share Posted February 16, 2010 What is the difference between HTML5 loading youtube videos and flash loading them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liquid_1520 Posted February 16, 2010 Share Posted February 16, 2010 I notice a lot of speed, and there's a completely different video interface I believe, that works a lot better imo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InkofDeath Posted February 17, 2010 Share Posted February 17, 2010 What is the difference between HTML5 loading youtube videos and flash loading them? With HTML5 the browsers are using a different format or codec than the .swf or flash codec/format. Flash is CPU heavy (hence why you won't be able to play two 720p videos at once with most CPUs) and is generally restricted to the CPU. It also carries a license and isn't open source and really isn't updated with things it needs to continue to be a viable technology on the internet. With HTML5 though all browsers would have a single codec or a set of codecs to play videos or other media with. This codec would be open sourced, not licensed like flash and could be improved much more specifically or gradually. As well, such a codec could be coded to work with more than just the CPU, and not be as resource intensive as flash is altogether. With better or improved coding such a codec could also be improved to play more than just one HD video on any CPU, or much more realtime options could be coded into the codec for a more flexible experience. Things like editing a video online wouldn't be hard to code as it is with Flash. There's a larger amount of tools to use too for a quicker development than just the Flash IDE. Though there are a lot of negatives as well, like finding a codec that has the ability & potential to perform better than Flash but also not to take up loads of bandwidth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsavi Posted February 17, 2010 Share Posted February 17, 2010 OGG/Theora is the best choice if you ask me; It is both open source and free from patents, unlike H.264, and although H.264 requires no license as of now (And won't until at least 2016) and has an open source implementation it is still a non-free codec that users must download separately in open source operating systems/get a license just like MP3 on Ubuntu. Not only that, but OGG/Theora produces competitive, if not better image quality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InkofDeath Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 OGG/Theora is the best choice if you ask me; It is both open source and free from patents, unlike H.264, and although H.264 requires no license as of now (And won't until at least 2016) and has an open source implementation it is still a non-free codec that users must download separately in open source operating systems/get a license just like MP3 on Ubuntu. Not only that, but OGG/Theora produces competitive, if not better image quality. It has larger bandwidth though or so I have been informed. "If [YouTube] were to switch to Theora and maintain even a semblance of the current YouTube quality it would take up most available bandwidth across the internet," DiBona said. "The most recent public number was just over 1 billion video streams a day, and I've seen what we've had to do to make that happen, and it is a staggering amount of bandwidth."DiBona's quality claim was broadly disputed by Theora supporters on the mailing list. Mozilla's Mike Shaver encouraged DiBona to examine the most recent Theora developments, suggesting that the latest improvements have helped to significantly close the gap in compression efficiency. "I don't think the bandwidth delta is very much with recent (and format-compatible) improvements to the Theora encoders," he wrote. "[Codec improvements] are a big part of what we've been funding, and the results have been great already. I'd like to demonstrate them to you, because I suspect that you'd be a better-armed advocate within Google for unencumbered video if you could see what it's really capable of now." Source: http://arstechnica.c...odec-debate.ars If you read the section "Undesirable Middle Ground", in that article, that sounds like the best solution if only everyone were to work towards that solution and not oppose it. In all honesty it just sounds like those that are calling Theora 'good' and a 'solution' are trying to promote their own products or agendas, while those that say it is relatively 'inefficient' are also trying to protect their own products and agendas. Hence the lack of actual comparisons between the two formats and to other formats. The current comparison tests between the two formats are inconclusive and just look mishandled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsavi Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 http://people.xiph.org/~greg/video/ytcompare/comparison.html 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