Page 9 of 15 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 147

Thread: Adobe Rants Over Linux Video Acceleration APIs

  1. #81
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    3,046

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RealNC View Post
    So what if it won't work everywhere? The standard doesn't mandate that Flash must work in all platforms either. The <video> tag isn't any different from <embed>. Just as it isn't important what types of objects work in an <embed>, what kind of video codec works in a <video> tag isn't important either.
    I believe the main reason for the hullabaloo is more due to a desire of making it possible to have a least common denominator that doesn't need a plugin at all to play. In light of the fact that most of the h.264 videos on the 'net aren't encoded at really much of any higher quality than Vorbis, I would say that it's a somewhat reasonable desire to seek that sort of thing. Now, before you remark on "hardware supports h.264 and doesn't Vorbis", I would observe that for the hardware in question, save for some instances of video adapters where we don't have a lot of support on, that the "hardware" is mostly a DSP doing the work and can be reconfigured for the task of Vorbis support fairly easily. Moreover, it's largely doubtful that a silicon vendor, except for perhaps an ATSC or other HD television, would be producing a end-to-end h.264 decoder- they make pieces. Many of which recycle over (otherwise they wouldn't be able to do MPEG1, MPEG2, or MPEG4 in addition to AVC (h.264...).

    Whether it happens or not, is irrelevant- but it is a somewhat reasonable position to ask for and it's not impossible for the vendors, in the large, to support as a baseline.

  2. #82
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Under the bridge
    Posts
    2,126

    Default

    @RealNC: The only hypocrite here is you saying that Mozilla is somehow limiting your freedom by not supporting a patent-encumbered codec in a free implementation of an open standard. You seem to have some very skewed perspective of the world.

    Once more, if you want to use plugins for video you can do that already. It's called flash. You can also use Chrome or - if you can't live without Firefox - you can fork that too and provide your own video implementation.

  3. #83
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,777

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Svartalf View Post
    I believe the main reason for the hullabaloo is more due to a desire of making it possible to have a least common denominator that doesn't need a plugin at all to play.
    Unfortunately, there is none. No, Theora (Vorbis is an audio codec) won't be implemented by Apple for Safari and probably Microsoft for Internet Explorer. They will implement H.264 instead. That's *at least* one half of the browser market. The other half, Firefox, Opera and Chromium (not Chrome) will only implement Theora. Chrome will implement both. There's no "least common denominator" here for a website to follow. It's either the one half, or the other half.

    In light of the fact that most of the h.264 videos on the 'net aren't encoded at really much of any higher quality than Vorbis
    I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Do you claim that for the same bitrate, Theors (and not Vorbis) would offer the same quality? I think it has been established by now that H.264 offers the smaller sizes for a given target quality.

    I would say that it's a somewhat reasonable desire to seek that sort of thing. Now, before you remark on "hardware supports h.264 and doesn't Vorbis", I would observe that for the hardware in question, save for some instances of video adapters where we don't have a lot of support on, that the "hardware" is mostly a DSP doing the work and can be reconfigured for the task of Vorbis support fairly easily.
    I didn't consider hardware players in any of my arguments. Since I don't really know anything about it, I'll stay of this. From "the outside" though, it seems H.264 has the upper hand here too because of Apple devices ("iRandomWord" stuff). And it seems Apple will not support Theora and Vorbis unless Hell freezes over.

    Whether it happens or not, is irrelevant- but it is a somewhat reasonable position to ask for and it's not impossible for the vendors, in the large, to support as a baseline.
    As stated above, there probably will not be a baseline. Anyone who offers web videos using HTML5 will have to decide which half of the market they want to support or recommend everyone to use Google Chrome.



    Quote Originally Posted by BlackStar View Post
    @RealNC: The only hypocrite here is you saying that Mozilla is somehow limiting your freedom by not supporting a patent-encumbered codec in a free implementation of an open standard. You seem to have some very skewed perspective of the world.

    Once more, if you want to use plugins for video you can do that already. It's called flash. You can also use Chrome or - if you can't live without Firefox - you can fork that too and provide your own video implementation.
    A totally irrelevant answer as it doesn't add anything new to what I've already answered. Just goes back and repeats the already dealt with issues.

  4. #84
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    772

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RealNC View Post
    The <video> tag isn't any different from <embed>.
    Yes it is. As an element, <embed> doesn't directly imply anything about what kind of media is embedded, nor does it present a standardized API for streaming media. The API is part of the spec, and sites using <video> will likely break if that API is not present. You keep talking about this as though Mozilla has made some kind of arbitrary decision to not "allow" plugins for <video>, but you haven't addressed how they've gone about "disallowing" it. If they have to extend NPAPI to make it possible, that's not a task to be undertaken on a whim.

    Quote Originally Posted by RealNC
    There's no "least common denominator" here for a website to follow. It's either the one half, or the other half.
    Sites can encode in both formats; they aren't required to choose just one. They can either supply multiple <source> elements (which seems to be the recommended method) or use JavaScript to generate the "src" attribute. Yes, this requires more storage, but I'd think that the main bottleneck for streaming video is bandwidth.

  5. #85
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,777

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ex-Cyber View Post
    Yes it is. As an element, <embed> doesn't directly imply anything about what kind of media is embedded, nor does it present a standardized API for streaming media. The API is part of the spec, and sites using <video> will likely break if that API is not present.
    It's similar to the given problem. I should rather say, "In this regard, the <video> tag isn't any different from <embed>." When Firefox sees an <embed> it tries to find a plugin that can deal with it. Similarly, when Firefox would find a <video> or <audio>, it could try to find a plugin that deals with the video's or audio's *codec*, not the <video>/<audio> itself.

    In other words, the entity "codec of the <video> source" could be treated similarly to the entity "object of <embed> source". Yes, sure <video> always means video. But the codec isn't part of <video> and could be a plugin.

    You keep talking about this as though Mozilla has made some kind of arbitrary decision to not "allow" plugins for <video>, but you haven't addressed how they've gone about "disallowing" it.
    When did I say that they disallowed it? "No support" doesn't mean "disallow." Unless you mean the statement about Flash. That was the counter-argument to platform differences. I'll reword it then to make it clearer:

    Argument: Mozilla can't support H.264 (externally or however) because not all platforms would support it.

    Counter-argument: Mozilla supports Flash, which is an <embed> object, even though not all platforms can support it. They could do the same for <video> codecs. If they wanted to always support the same stuff on all platforms, they would have chosen only the subset of <embed> objects that are known to be supported on all platforms. That would really mean actively disallowing Flash. They aren't disallowing H.264. They just don't support a way for others to add support (trough a platform codec or plugin.)

    If they have to extend NPAPI to make it possible, that's not a task to be undertaken on a whim.
    But can be done.

    Sites can encode in both formats; they aren't required to choose just one. They can either supply multiple <source> elements (which seems to be the recommended method) or use JavaScript to generate the "src" attribute. Yes, this requires more storage, but I'd think that the main bottleneck for streaming video is bandwidth.
    They certainly can. And they might even do it. But they also might not.

  6. #86
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    England
    Posts
    103

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RealNC View Post
    So what if it won't work everywhere?
    If you don't understand the need or importance of universally accessible information you have failed to grasp the most important tenant of the internet itself. This discussion is over.

    To anyone else: keep in mind HTML 5 is still in flux and just because a codec hasn't been chosen yet doesn't mean one wont be in the future. Why do you think Google bought On2 directly after the first Theora / HTML 5 debate? Something interesting should be coming out from them soon.

  7. #87
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,777

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hoodlum View Post
    If you don't understand the need or importance of universally accessible information you have failed to grasp the most important tenant of the internet itself. This discussion is over.
    Goodbye and don't forget to send a postcard.

    To anyone else: keep in mind HTML 5 is still in flux and just because a codec hasn't been chosen yet doesn't mean one wont be in the future.
    Hoodlum failed to check facts before posting. (I'm using third person because he/she left the discussion.) A codec was chosen (Theora) and then, after they thought it through thoroughly (I always wanted to use those three words together :P) they removed it again.

  8. #88
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    England
    Posts
    103

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RealNC View Post
    Goodbye and don't forget to send a postcard.
    I didn't leave the thread, I recognised there is no counter for what I have said (which was purely factual). You just confirmed this fact.

    Hoodlum failed to check facts before posting.
    Wrong again.

    A codec was chosen (Theora) and then, after they thought it through thoroughly (I always wanted to use those three words together :P) they removed it again.
    Yes and HTML 5 spec is still in flux, as I said. I suggest you educate yourself before you post in future.

    Here I'll help you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML_5
    "HTML5 is being developed as the next major revision of HTML (Hypertext Markup Language), the core markup language of the World Wide Web."

    Being developed. It is in progess I cannot make this any more simple for you to understand.

  9. #89
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,027

    Default

    I can't believe we're having this discussion, yet AGAIN.

    RealNC, of course Mozilla could use the system codecs, but that doesn't mean they should.

    They've said that they are attempting to steer the video tag away from the disaster that flash and the gif format was. If they went ahead and implemented using the system plugins, everyone would simply use h264 and it would be over. By forcing this situation while sites haven't yet moved over, they're hoping they can convince sites to provide theora in addition to h264 for apple. That, or it sounds like they are very hopeful that google might open up VP8 and move everything to that.

    If it becomes apparent that Mozilla has lost the battle, and everyone is simply using h264 anyway, they've said they will go ahead and implement it, that's just something that would be stupid to do before they absolutely are forced into it.

    And for everyone complaining about this, why aren't you complaining the same about Apple not including Theora support? Is it just because you recognize there's no way in hell that's ever going to happen? Why do they get held to a lesser standard than the open source Firefox, which anyone could go in and fork to their needs if necessary?

  10. #90
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,777

    Default

    Yes, it's in progress. And? How do you know they'll bring back codecs into the spec? Are you psychic?

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •