[Daniel Low]

[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.

[Daniel Low]

[Craig Seeman] “If HTML5 H.264 begins to spread further,”

I think that should be ‘When’, not ‘If’. IMO.

__________________________________________________________________
Sent from my iPad Nano.

[Daniel Low]

So you are creating Elementary streams – separate Video and Audio.

As such, where are you playing these back and seeing the sync issues?

__________________________________________________________________
Sent from my iPad Nano.

[Daniel Low]

What kind of MPEG stream are you creating? (PS, TS?)

__________________________________________________________________
Sent from my iPad Nano.

[Daniel Low]

Heard back from Sorenson support?

__________________________________________________________________
Sent from my iPad Nano.

[Daniel Low]

[Harold Ek] “This has probably been answered before”

Not less than 10,000,000,000 times before. 😉

[Harold Ek] “What is the most compatible format to use to upload a video for viewing on the Web?”

Probably .MP4[Harold Ek] “I have Edited AVI files and can encode them using Sorenson Squeeze 6 into almost any format. I had been advised that MP4 would be the best choice, Good Quality with minimum file size and compatible with most people who would have either QuickTime, Flash or Windows media players. “

[Harold Ek] “Is that good info?”

Sort of. MP4 can be wrapped in a Flash player that is assessable by 95% approx of the worlds web browsers. So that’s a web based Flash player, NOT Quicktime or Windows Media players.

They are mostly right, however Flash has been able to play MP4 files since the end of 2007 – with version 9.01 of the Flash player.

You have to ask yourself who your audience is. If there is a chance of them not updating their computer software in the last 2.5 years (this may include big, backward businesses), then you should either forget about them or encode to FLV

[Harold Ek] “The people handling the website say we should encode the files as flv in order to have them widely available.”

__________________________________________________________________
Sent from my iPad Nano.

[Daniel Low]

[Anthony Koelker] “I was hoping somebody had an answer”

There are a number of different answers in that thread, of particular interest are:

Motion – Which uses the lanczos algorithm.
AE with has a high quality scaler – I believe it’s bicubic spline based but I could be wrong
And Reframe from Miraizon

There are also good report from people using Shake and of course Smoke is now on the Mac!

__________________________________________________________________
Sent from my iPad Nano.

[Daniel Low]

Did you try doing a search?

https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/20/864724

__________________________________________________________________
Sent from my iPad Nano.

[Daniel Low]

PhotoJPEG is a great intermediate codec as well as a handy delivery codec in certain situations.

__________________________________________________________________
Sent from my iPad Nano.

[Daniel Low]

4:2:0.

Apple sees H.264 as a delivery codec (quite rightly) and as such 4:2:0 is perfectly suitable.

Apple has ProRes 4:2:2 & 4:4:4 for a ‘work’ codec

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/MPEG-4_AVC
https://images.apple.com/quicktime/pdf/H264_Technology_Brief.pdf
https://images.apple.com/finalcutstudio/docs/Apple_ProRes_White_Paper_July_2009.pdf

Obviously you’d only want to work with the colour subsample of the source you have, no point in going from 4:2:2 to 4:4:4 unless you love compositing.

__________________________________________________________________
Sent from my iPad Nano.