-
Best compression for WEB
-
Yes, the “when” is inevitable…but there are quite a few stumbling blocks to wide HTML5 implementation anytime soon. Not the least of which is a lack of full support in Internet Explorer, with no current video support in IE8.
Plus there isn’t an agreement on a video standard (Firefox supports Ogg natively, the others support H264), and a wide lack of HTML5 support on web server software.
The group that works on HTML 5 alongside W3C — WHATWG, states in its FAQ section that HTML 5 is expected to reach what they call a “candidate release” stage in 2012, and W3C recommendation status in 2022 or later!
That doesn’t mean you can’t start implementing it, but web designers we work with are NOT eager to rewrite their sites just yet, or take the time for partial implementation.
Here’s a quote from Jan. 26th from Mark Pilgrim of Google, who works with the WHATWG and writes their blog:
Does all that work yet? Hell no. We don’t even have a standard video codec yet! Google Chrome is the only browser that has shipped an implementation of web sockets (although it’s part of WebKit, so presumably Apple could ship it in a future version of Safari if they choose). And the entire device API is still in its infancy. Nobody has even started implementing a prototype of that piece yet, and the whole idea might be scrapped by my next episode. But that’s life on the bleeding edge.
Chris Blair
Magnetic Image, Inc.
Evansville, IN
http://www.videomi.com -
[Chris Blair] “but there are quite a few stumbling blocks to wide HTML5 implementation anytime soon. Not the least of which is a lack of full support in Internet Explorer, with no current video support in IE8. “
Blah. IE is widely recognised as the worst browser out there, despite its obvious dominance, and this all goes to prove what a steaming pile of junk it is. (All IE versions have been in steady decline for a while, where as Firefox, Chrome and Safari have done nothing but grow).
Dig down here:
https://marketshare.hitslink.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qprid=0– This week from MS!:
https://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9164038/Microsoft_Don_t_press_F1_key_in_Windows_XP[Chris Blair] “Plus there isn’t an agreement on a video standard (Firefox supports Ogg natively, the others support H264) “
Blah. so what, that’s the nature of the beast. Theora and H.264 can live happy side-by-side. (BTW ‘the others’ support both Theora AND H.264 via a Xiph decoder.)
Anyway:
https://blog.jilion.com/2010/02/11/sublimevideo-supports-firefox
https://jilion.com/sublime/video[Chris Blair] “The group that works on HTML 5 alongside W3C — WHATWG, states in its FAQ section that HTML 5 is expected to reach what they call a “candidate release” stage in 2012, and W3C recommendation status in 2022 or later!”
Irrelevant. The largest video sharing service in the world and the next largest (probably) namely YouTube and Vimeo are offering users a choice of HTML5 already.
StandardS don’t need to be ‘released’ before they become market or industry leaders. Just look at 802.11n – Approved and published late last year but in very wide use and product availability for years before that, but more so, look to MPEG-4 which had no proper release yet was in such wide use before it became ‘official’ that only the licensing situation was really relevant.
[Chris Blair] “but web designers we work with are NOT eager to rewrite their sites just yet, or take the time for partial implementation. “
They’ll have to eventually. The smart people are already all over it like a rash. These guys are leaders, not followers (like MIcrosoft and IE8 etc). Anyway, who said anything about having to rewrite a site? MOST coders and designer want HTML5 so badly
https://bclennox.com/moving-to-html-5 – Aug 09 – “There’s lately been a remarkable amount of progress and activity centered around HTML5”, “….and browser support is widespread or hackable enough to start using most of the basic HTML 5 elements on web sites right now!”
[Chris Blair] “Here’s a quote from Jan. 26th from Mark Pilgrim of Google”
Funny you quote that bit from Mark (he is the author of ‘Dive Into HTML5’ https://diveintohtml5.org – I suggest you read it), as it’s right at the bottom of a page that is dated Jan 16 – (Part 1), not 26th – (Part 2). Did you really read it?
Here’s the quote in the correct context – Hint – it’s about Video Conferencing!
So it’s for video conferencing, something you can currently only do with Adobe Flash or other proprietary plugins that sit on top of your browser. In fact, most of the pieces for browser-based video chat are already in place. The idea is that a device element would go hand in hand with a video element and a web socket. The device records a video stream (using the also-newly-defined Stream API) and sends the stream of video along a web socket to the other party (perhaps via an intermediate server) which renders the stream in a video element. And like the video element, the device element would be native to your browser, so browser vendors would not have to wait for third parties to add specific support for their platform.
Does all that work yet? Hell no. We don’t even have a standard video codec yet! Google Chrome is the only browser that has shipped an implementation of web sockets (although it’s part of WebKit, so presumably Apple could ship it in a future version of Safari if they choose). And the entire device API is still in its infancy. Nobody has even started implementing a prototype of that piece yet, and the whole idea might be scrapped by my next episode. But that’s life on the bleeding edge.
And now you know “What’s Next in HTML.”
Nothing to do with what we all talk about on this forum.
__________________________________________________________________
Sent from my iPad Nano. -
Lordy…I don’t what you have against me…but all I’m trying to do is provide a little perspective. We work with web designers all the time and the ones we work with are NOT eager to dive into HTML 5. And I’ve read the the “dive into HTML 5” draft you speak of. It’s very technical for the most part but in it he discusses the lack of agreement on standards and the stumbling blocks it presents…namely licensing issues with H264. Plus the lack of server side support that’s likely to take some time to overcome.
I’m just trying to point out that it’s going to be several years before there’s widespread adoption of it and Flash will be relevant for years to come.
If you’d like this forum to become a monologue…fine…but I thought the purpose of this site was to be a community where people share information to get perspective and be able to make informed decisions.
Chris Blair
Magnetic Image, Inc.
Evansville, IN
http://www.videomi.com -
[Chris Blair] “We work with web designers all the time and the ones we work with are NOT eager to dive into HTML 5. And I’ve read the the “dive into HTML 5″ draft you speak of. It’s very technical for the most part but in it he discusses the lack of agreement on standards and the stumbling blocks it presents…namely licensing issues with H264.”
Google’s YouTube is doing it and that’s a driving force and Google certainly knows it.
Then there’s all those “i” devices that marketing people want to make sure their web pages hit.
And Google would love to have Chrome surpass FireFox while they insist on Ogg. Perspective . . . raise your cyber hands folks if you’re using Ogg instead of H.264.
And then there’s Google’s Android which badly wants to compete with the Apple “i” devices.In short, Google has YouTube, Chrome, Android. Apple certainly is along for that HTML5. On the other side you certainly have Adobe hoping to get Flash on handsets but Apple is resistant and Android (Google is the “decider”) but there is a battle for sure here.
I don’t see how Mozilla can with this with Ogg.
Microsoft doesn’t gain anything with Flash or HTML5. They’d certainly prefer Silverlight but that’s been “niche.” Netflix is Silverlight but . . . Netflix has started to survey users if they’re interested in iPhone support. So it sounds like they’re looking at HTML5 as well. Silverlight will still have value with those that have lots of legacy WMV to integrate with H.264. To that end maybe Microsoft benefits a little if HTML5 competes with Flash.
BTW just to add emphasis, you can not underestimate how dominant Google’s YouTube is on online video.
I’m sure Adobe is banking a lot on Flash 10.1 (they’re hoping Android will support of course and they’re pleading with Apple for “i” support and Safari hardware acceleration hooks) and they certainly feel major pressure from Google and Apple. Sure there’s no certainty but HTML5 H.264 looks like it can avalanche.
We can only guess what Google will do with On2 . . . the “other” Flash codec but that’s one more “control” Google has on Adobe.
BTW Chris, don’t take this personally. It’s just when I analyze all the pieces this is the full landscape I see.
-
[Chris Blair] “Lordy…I don’t what you have against me”
I have nothing against you at all.
[Chris Blair] “but all I’m trying to do is provide a little perspective”
Likewise.
[Chris Blair] ” We work with web designers all the time and the ones we work with are NOT eager to dive into HTML 5″
My mileage is different from yours. I live in a different part of the world from you. That’s my perspective. If I ran a web company I’d insist my coders and designers were already working with HTML5, that they already had stuff up their sleeves’. I wouldn’t want to be caught out.
Please read – https://youtube-global.blogspot.com/2010/01/introducing-youtube-html5-supported.html
“HTML5 is a new web standard that is gaining popularity rapidly”
[Chris Blair] “he discusses the lack of agreement on standards and the stumbling blocks it presents”
Like I said these are rather moot points going by what’s happened historically and how rapidly things are changing.
[Chris Blair] “I’m just trying to point out that it’s going to be several years before there’s widespread adoption of it and Flash will be relevant for years to come. “
That’s your opinion Chris. It’s not fact.
What is fact is that Flash (most importantly Flash Video) does not work on the fastest growing hardware platforms out there, namely handheld devices and most importantly the iPhone, and the soon to appear iPad. It’s these devices that are driving innovation.
I firmly believe that Flash (Video) has had it’s day. It may take several years for HTML5 video to completely replace Flash but the ball has started to roll. Don’t underestimate the powerhouse that is Apples mobile devices!
[Chris Blair] “If you’d like this forum to become a monologue”
Bear in mind that I simply respond to people here. Despite being highly opinionated, I offer my advice, help and thoughts. Take it or leave it.
[Chris Blair] “but I thought the purpose of this site was to be a community where people share information to get perspective and be able to make informed decisions. “
You always bring this up Chris. It is, and that’s exactly what you and I are doing, in our own special ways!
__________________________________________________________________
Sent from my iPad Nano. -
I certainly wasn’t championing Ogg…just pointing out what direction Firefox has decided to go with video in regards to HTML5.
And certainly with Google and YouTube “diving” into HTML5 it will have an impact, but many big corporations we work with have only recently begun to embrace video as an important part of their online presence, and most don’t have the resources to keep their sites properly updated, much less rework them to take advantage of HTML5’s features.
Google and YouTube are online companies…so it certainly makes sense for them to be on the leading edge. But many big U.S. corporations don’t think that way…and certainly small to medium sized ones we work with don’t.
We work with one 8 billion dollar a year corporation (with a dozen well-known brands) that started using video extensively on their sites in late 2008 and early 2009. But then…late in 2009, the company eliminated their web development division, eliminated all creative professionals involved with their websites (16 different brands in all plus another dozen employee only sites) and moved all design, administration etc. to a third party company in India. It literally takes them 4-6 months to get a compressed, ready to load video up onto a site they’re so backlogged with work. Yes…4 to 6 months to get a video posted to their website. And they’re not unique. We hear over and over from Marketing Directors, Communications Directors and Advertising VPs that their number one problem is keeping their website updated and making sure it works properly for clients.
It’s the first place corporations cut in marketing when the economy is slow like it has been. So while I’m sure companies whose business is built on the web will jump in… nobody we work with has ever mentioned HTML5. Same goes for friends and colleagues of mine who work in Atlanta, Nashville Indy and other good sized U.S. cities. HTML5 isn’t even on their radar. And when it comes to video…even when these companies have web admins on staff, their knowledge of web video is almost always their weakest skill.
So the point is that it’s going to take time, likely several years for it to become widely adopted.
Chris Blair
Magnetic Image, Inc.
Evansville, IN
http://www.videomi.com -
It seems that my request expanded beyond what I expected.
But I would like to thank all who have contributed to my education and some confusion.My comment about “Just involve changing some links” demonstrates my lack of understanding of how involved the process was, not that our web designer suggested or attempted it.
I am a volunteer who has been primarily involved in shooting and editing informational videos for a small Village. We started a few years back to stream these videos to cover a larger portion of our clients. At that point we were encoding them to wmv but recently decided to attempt to improve our quality by changing format to mp4. We had been encoding at 2 different data rates to cover both dial-up and broadband clients. I would judge that our viewers are mostly not highly computer savvy, and few if any businesses.
Just today I attempted to encode to flv by modifying 2 presets in Squeeze 6. That generates a couple of additional questions.
1. Do you think we should abandon our efforts to accommodate any low bandwidth clients?
2. Can you refer me to a good source to explain all the options on the Flash presets?Thanks again to all!
-
[Chris Blair] “I certainly wasn’t championing Ogg…just pointing out what direction Firefox has decided to go with video in regards to HTML5. “
Mozilla has a “mission statement” about licensing which puts them in a difficult decision. They will be faced with changing or losing to Chrome. I can’t see any compressionist or web master considering Ogg.[Chris Blair] “And certainly with Google and YouTube “diving” into HTML5 it will have an impact, but many big corporations we work with have only recently begun to embrace video as an important part of their online presence, and most don’t have the resources to keep their sites properly updated, much less rework them to take advantage of HTML5’s features. “
Granted this is true for many businesses. At least with H.264 they won’t need to re-encode everything when the time comes. If they’re not doing a lot of heavy interactivity the embedding shouldn’t be difficult. Of course as time goes on they will have to make a financial decision based on how much losing the handset market costs them in reach vs changing the webpage.
[Chris Blair] “nobody we work with has ever mentioned HTML5. “
As above, they’ll have to decide whether they want to reach the handset market if things head in that direction. There may be no urgency to move to HTML5 now and certainly Safari and Chrome handle Flash and FireFox and Internet Explorer are certainly bigger. 18 months from now might be a very different story.This is why I say, getting back to the original poster, go to H.264 now and at least you won’t get hit with major re-encoding. Of course handsets aren’t using the same files as desktop/laptop inherently so that may have to happen too at some point but at least the former will be ready to go.
-
[Harold Ek] “It seems that my request expanded beyond what I expected. “
Actually this stuff is the kind of thing a local gov’t needs to think about given possible budget issues. I’d say if you go with H.264 mp4 you’ll be OK with Silverlight, Flash and down the road, HTML5.
[Harold Ek] “My comment about “Just involve changing some links” demonstrates my lack of understanding of how involved the process was, not that our web designer suggested or attempted it. “
If it’s just simple video in a player then there’s some embed code changes but that shouldn’t be too difficult for a web master. It some cases it can be nearly as simple as cut and paste.[Harold Ek] “Do you think we should abandon our efforts to accommodate any low bandwidth clients? “
This is a very important and good question and a local gov’t certainly would have very different concerns than a business. If you’ve been doing dial up and broadband encodes you (the webmaster) can look at the site analytics and get a sense what portion of the visitors are actually viewing the dial up version currently.You also need to know what portion of the local population is still on dial-up. Since you have a specific target, general stats may not be useful. Basically it’s the portion of the community you serve that’s on dial up plus the consideration of what portion is viewing the files. Two important factors are the community’s economics (can people afford broadband) and location (is it a rural community which has limited broadband access).
For example, you might find that 40% are on dial up but only 5% are viewing dial up video. You may find that such people are better served by text based fast loading web pages or audio only files.
[Harold Ek] “Can you refer me to a good source to explain all the options on the Flash presets? “
This is one of those “it depends” on your target questions.
You’ll probably find this tutorial helpful on H.264 for Flash in Squeeze.
https://www.streaminglearningcenter.com/articles/video-tutorial-producing-h264-video-for-flash-distribution-with-sorenson-squeeze.html -
Craig Seeman: This is why I say, getting back to the original poster, go to H.264 now and at least you won’t get hit with major re-encoding. Of course handsets aren’t using the same files as desktop/laptop inherently so that may have to happen too at some point but at least the former will be ready to go.
Oh I agree with you…but if his web people have it in their head that flv files are the way to go….we’ve just found it’s often a tough battle to try to convince web designers and administrators that H264 is the better long-term choice. There’s a lot of resistance to it in this part of the country.
Chris Blair
Magnetic Image, Inc.
Evansville, IN
http://www.videomi.com
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up