Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 2nd Jul 2009 18:51 UTC, submitted by snydeq
We here at OSNews have taken somewhat of an interest in the new HTML5 video and audio tags, which should - some day - make embedding audio and video material into web pages as easy and straightforward as embedding images, allowing the web to finally remove the shackles of dreadful Flash video. Sadly, the problem with these new tags are the codecs; as it turns out, browser makers have not reached an agreement about what codecs to choose for video, with mostly Apple throwing a spanner in the works, and Microsoft shining in absence.
Thread beginning with comment 371476
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Once Youtube works without flash I am purging it
by lemur2 on Fri 3rd Jul 2009 04:06
in reply to "RE[3]: Once Youtube works without flash I am purging it"
Member since:2007-02-17
"Uhm... No. Youtube and most flash videos are not in fact Mpeg4, it's On2 Technologies VP6, H.263 or H.264 has been since 2004. As reported by Media player classic FLV1 == VP6 FLVC == H.263 The newest iteration supports H.264, and while technically flv supports MP4 (FL4) nobody I'm aware of is actually using it that way.
Wrong. FLV1 = H.263 (Sorenson Spark). YouTube has always been using H.263 and now it's using H.264. Old videos on YouTube are encoded in FLV/H.263, new videos on YouTube are encoded in H.264, and the container is sometimes FLV (H.264 in FLV is perfectly normal), sometimes MP4. " AFAIK, only the "watch in HD" streams are encoded in h264. Everything else on YouTube is encoded in either H263 or VP6, both of which are outdone by Theora in its current state of play.
Also, AFAIK, YouTube is actively looking for a more viable solution than H264, because after 2010 it will cost YouTube (as it will anyone else) a small amount of money for every time they send any H264 stream to any recipient.
For a site like YouTube, that could be a lot of transmissions of a lot of videos. Even a small charge for each transmission would end up costing YouTube a fortune by the time it is all added up. This is, AFAIK, exactly why YouTube are looking now to use something else for their codec.
RE[5]: Once Youtube works without flash I am purging it
by J. M. on Fri 3rd Jul 2009 04:29
in reply to "RE[4]: Once Youtube works without flash I am purging it"
Member since:2005-07-24
Everything I have downloaded from YouTube in the last couple of months is encoded in H.264. Including the low-res videos. All old videos were encoded in H.263. I have never seen a single video on YouTube encoded in VP6. That's just an old myth, an old mistake spread by someone and repeated by others. BTW, VP6 is much better than H.263, and probably still better than Theora (which is based on VP3 - sure, the encoder may be improving dramatically, but still, they have to cope with the limitations of a 1990's generation format, so there's only so much they can do).
But I don't see what the H.264 replacement could be. Theora? Will it ever be efficient enough? It may be free to use, but bandwidth isn't free either.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2005-07-24
As reported by Media player classic
FLV1 == VP6
FLVC == H.263
The newest iteration supports H.264, and while technically flv supports MP4 (FL4) nobody I'm aware of is actually using it that way.
Wrong. FLV1 = H.263 (Sorenson Spark). YouTube has always been using H.263 and now it's using H.264. Old videos on YouTube are encoded in FLV/H.263, new videos on YouTube are encoded in H.264, and the container is sometimes FLV (H.264 in FLV is perfectly normal), sometimes MP4.