Exposure Room releases beta HTML5 player
jabloomf1230
wrote on 9/8/2010, 4:05 PM
Comments
Chienworks
wrote on 9/8/2010, 6:21 PM
I'm even more confused again.
1) HTML5 browsers need a video player plugin
2) Prior browsers need a video player plugin
therefore
3) HTML5 still doesn't play video any more natively than prior versions.
4) The video features that HTML5 promises have already been available in previous browsers.
I still don't get the point.
1) HTML5 browsers need a video player plugin
2) Prior browsers need a video player plugin
therefore
3) HTML5 still doesn't play video any more natively than prior versions.
4) The video features that HTML5 promises have already been available in previous browsers.
I still don't get the point.
Coursedesign
wrote on 9/8/2010, 7:33 PM
Ever seen different Flash video players?
They have different functionality.
Ditto with HTML5 players.
The difference between Flash and HTML5 for video (which is not what Flash was originally designed for)?
From the Exposure Room web page linked above:
We did some extensive tests during the course of developing our player and find that the playback performance of IE 9 [Win] and Safari [Mac] are extremely good (almost as efficient as the native players on their respective platforms). So much so that they are far better than any Flash based video player (including ours).
They have different functionality.
Ditto with HTML5 players.
The difference between Flash and HTML5 for video (which is not what Flash was originally designed for)?
From the Exposure Room web page linked above:
We did some extensive tests during the course of developing our player and find that the playback performance of IE 9 [Win] and Safari [Mac] are extremely good (almost as efficient as the native players on their respective platforms). So much so that they are far better than any Flash based video player (including ours).
Chienworks
wrote on 9/8/2010, 7:54 PM
I'm not talking about flash vs. non-flash at all (and by the way, i agree that flash players are garbage). Exposure Room could have implemented the same technology in non-flash plugins for older browsers. HTML5 still has nothing to do with it.
Coursedesign
wrote on 9/8/2010, 9:57 PM
Exposure Room could have implemented the same technology in non-flash plugins for older browsers. HTML5 still has nothing to do with it.
Do you mean serving QT or AVI depending on the browser? Or something else?
HTML5 has specific features that can be consistent across OSes and supported browser platforms.
How would you do that with non-flash plugins?
You can always do what many sites are doing now: serving an H.264 file in a flash wrapper or in an HTML5 wrapper depending on who's requesting.
Do you mean serving QT or AVI depending on the browser? Or something else?
HTML5 has specific features that can be consistent across OSes and supported browser platforms.
How would you do that with non-flash plugins?
You can always do what many sites are doing now: serving an H.264 file in a flash wrapper or in an HTML5 wrapper depending on who's requesting.
Chienworks
wrote on 9/9/2010, 4:43 AM
"How would you do that with non-flash plugins?"
The same way it's done with flash plugins, or any other plugins.
Note that HTML5 doesn't specify the video format nor do HTML5 browsers play the video content. The server still serves up ... some format ... of video file and the browser still uses ... some plugin ... to play the video. Contrast that to HTML4 or HTML3 where the server serves up ... some format ... of video file and the browser uses ... some plugin ... to play the video. Sure, HTML5 uses the < video > tag instead of the < embed > tag. So what? I don't see any change in the process. Maybe the new plugins are better, but that's simply because the new plugins are better, as are most new versions of any software, not because they're designed for HTML5.
The same way it's done with flash plugins, or any other plugins.
Note that HTML5 doesn't specify the video format nor do HTML5 browsers play the video content. The server still serves up ... some format ... of video file and the browser still uses ... some plugin ... to play the video. Contrast that to HTML4 or HTML3 where the server serves up ... some format ... of video file and the browser uses ... some plugin ... to play the video. Sure, HTML5 uses the < video > tag instead of the < embed > tag. So what? I don't see any change in the process. Maybe the new plugins are better, but that's simply because the new plugins are better, as are most new versions of any software, not because they're designed for HTML5.
Coursedesign
wrote on 9/9/2010, 3:04 PM
Flash video is always viewed with a separately downloaded plug-in that together with Adobe Reader is responsible for about 70% of security holes on PCs.
HTML5 video doesn't require downloading a separate plug-in, doesn't have the security issues of the Flash architecture, and allows immediate viewing by the at least tens of millions of people who are using flash blockers to avoid pesky blinking flash ads, or are using one of the hundreds of millions of mobile devices with permanent flash blockers (iPhones, iPads, 99% of Android phones and gadgets, as well as all the other smartphones).
Sounds pretty good to me.
HTML5 video doesn't require downloading a separate plug-in, doesn't have the security issues of the Flash architecture, and allows immediate viewing by the at least tens of millions of people who are using flash blockers to avoid pesky blinking flash ads, or are using one of the hundreds of millions of mobile devices with permanent flash blockers (iPhones, iPads, 99% of Android phones and gadgets, as well as all the other smartphones).
Sounds pretty good to me.
Chienworks
wrote on 9/9/2010, 6:04 PM
That, too, is the hype i've heard and it does sound good indeed!
But, if it's true, why is Exposure Room making a player for HTML5? Either it's completely redundant and unnecessary, or HTML5 actually does need a plugin to play the video. Which is it?
Most of the technical descriptions i've seen of HTML5 indicate it's the latter, and that HTML5 browsers do not in fact come with the ability to play video natively. And i that's true, then what's the point and why the hoopla?
But, if it's true, why is Exposure Room making a player for HTML5? Either it's completely redundant and unnecessary, or HTML5 actually does need a plugin to play the video. Which is it?
Most of the technical descriptions i've seen of HTML5 indicate it's the latter, and that HTML5 browsers do not in fact come with the ability to play video natively. And i that's true, then what's the point and why the hoopla?
Coursedesign
wrote on 9/10/2010, 9:47 AM
Why are there 50 flash players if only one is needed?
Because they have different feature sets that people are willing to pay good money for.
XR indicated on their web site that they were doing it for the new features made possible by HTML5, and the substantial performance boost (compared to flash) when playing back higher resolution videos.
Because they have different feature sets that people are willing to pay good money for.
XR indicated on their web site that they were doing it for the new features made possible by HTML5, and the substantial performance boost (compared to flash) when playing back higher resolution videos.