Re: [videoblogging] Brief history of video compression
Joly MacFie wrote: > > > Forest - are you suggesting that flash is more > cpu-intensive than baseline h.264? > > Is that so? > I was referring to the flash player in general and wasn't suggesting the flash container itself requires significantly more resources on the client side. (Also, flash is a container format; 264 is a compression format, so not completely sure what your question is.) Even so, when Adobe/Apple rolled out their 'compromise' last year, there was the usual hang-wringing about battery life & browser performance; although to my mind it's not clear how a custom rolled app that plays flash video from a specific site (eg. Hulu) would *necessarily* realise significant performance gains. (At just 5MB the whole binary itself weighs in on the low side of a typical app, and not likely the app porter is going to improve its performance.) But then I haven't built an app such as that, myself yet. stay tuned, forest mars -- mnn.org http://mnn.org
Re: [videoblogging] Brief history of video compression
Beg pardon, Forest - are you suggesting that flash is more cpu-intensive than baseline h.264? Is that so? joly On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 5:37 PM, Mars Forest wrote: > While there has been much rampant speculation, and Apple has > said/implied different things at different times, I'm inclined to > believe them when they indicate the client-side cpu requirements, which > is one of the things that makes flash so appealing, were a decisive factor. > -- --- Joly MacFie 917 442 8665 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com ---
Re: [videoblogging] Brief history of video compression
Richard Amirault wrote: > > > - Original Message - > From: "Jay dedman" > (snip) > > I cant play Flash videos on my > > iPhone bcause Apple doesnt want to pay Adobe for the rights for the > > codec playback. These are problems. > > My understandsng is that Apple is too scared to run Flash on the iPhone > because it's too powerful. Apple specifically prohibits developers from > using Flash on the iPhone. > While there has been much rampant speculation, and Apple has said/implied different things at different times, I'm inclined to believe them when they indicate the client-side cpu requirements, which is one of the things that makes flash so appealing, were a decisive factor. Not that it can be reduced to a single "deal-breaker" and not that Apple doesn't have plenty of other examples of taking their toys and going home when they can't get what they want (ZFS comes to mind.) cheers, forest mars -- mnn: you're what's on! http://mnn.org > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Brief history of video compression
- Original Message - From: "Jay dedman" (snip) > I cant play Flash videos on my > iPhone bcause Apple doesnt want to pay Adobe for the rights for the > codec playback. These are problems. My understandsng is that Apple is too scared to run Flash on the iPhone because it's too powerful. Apple specifically prohibits developers from using Flash on the iPhone. Richard Amirault Boston, MA, USA http://n1jdu.org http://bostonfandom.org http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7hf9u2ZdlQ
Re: [videoblogging] Brief history of video compression
Jay dedman wrote: > > > The idea of people editing video > like they edit a text document is still a long ways away. Why? > Well Marshall Mcluhan would certainly have had an answer to that question. However, not to digress... forest mars -- mnn: you're what's on! http://mnn.org [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Brief history of video compression
> > Video compression (especially proprietary) is a bottleneck > > with online video. > > Just the opposite ... video compression is a boon to online video. If there > were no video compression there would not be any online video. Very very true. Improved video compression has helped spread web vide the last 10 years. My more specific point is simple this: video codecs have gotten better...but the fight between the proprietary standards is hampering online video from further spreading. The idea of people editing video like they edit a text document is still a long ways away. Why? Because every platform uses different standards. Its difficult for a PC and mac to trade video files without a lot of conversion nonsense. Flash is pretty universal for playback but useless for editing. Open Source community cant really build good video editors without "stealing" compression technology. I cant play Flash videos on my iPhone bcause Apple doesnt want to pay Adobe for the rights for the codec playback. These are problems. Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://momentshowing.net http://twitter.com/jaydedman 917 371 6790
Re: [videoblogging] Brief history of video compression
This article is awesome to me. Back in the early 90s, I was helping my dad's publishing shop produce multimedia CD-ROMs. Breaking the 320x240 vidoe size barrier was a dream for me, until one day I realized that pixel-doubling in Macromedia Director didn't make the video look too bad, and it was immersive to boot! To help Jay explain the "bottleneck", if we look at production in the lens of video media literacy, the digital divide would look like this: [image: 4244864841_363a04f890_o_d.jpg] I've used this chart in my classes... it's from "Knowledge of Digital Video Manipulation Techniques and its Effect on the Preceived Credibility of Television News" by Arie Stavchansky (2006). The entire dissertation (PDF) is available at: http://webspace.utexas.edu/cherwitz/www/ie/samples/stavchansky.pdf Kevin Lim Cyberculturalist http://theory.isthereason.com This email is: [ ] bloggable[X] ask first [ ] private email locator: ╔╗╔═╦╗ ║╚╣║║╚╗ ╚═╩═╩═╝ On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 2:01 PM, Joly MacFie wrote: > > > I think what Jay was trying to say is that the development of free and > open video codecs is hamstrung by patented algorithms. > > joly > > > On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 8:10 AM, Richard Amirault > > > wrote: > > - Original Message - > > From: "Jay dedman" > > (snip) > > > >> Video compression (especially proprietary) is a bottleneck > >> with online video. > > > > Just the opposite ... video compression is a boon to online video. If > there > > were no video compression there would not be any online video. > > > > Richard Amirault > > Boston, MA, USA > > http://n1jdu.org > > http://bostonfandom.org > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7hf9u2ZdlQ > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > -- > -- > Joly MacFie 917 442 8665 Skype:punkcast > WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com > http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com > -- > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Brief history of video compression
I think what Jay was trying to say is that the development of free and open video codecs is hamstrung by patented algorithms. joly On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 8:10 AM, Richard Amirault wrote: > - Original Message - > From: "Jay dedman" > (snip) > >> Video compression (especially proprietary) is a bottleneck >> with online video. > > Just the opposite ... video compression is a boon to online video. If there > were no video compression there would not be any online video. > > Richard Amirault > Boston, MA, USA > http://n1jdu.org > http://bostonfandom.org > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7hf9u2ZdlQ > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > -- --- Joly MacFie 917 442 8665 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com ---
Re: [videoblogging] Brief history of video compression
- Original Message - From: "Jay dedman" (snip) > Video compression (especially proprietary) is a bottleneck > with online video. Just the opposite ... video compression is a boon to online video. If there were no video compression there would not be any online video. Richard Amirault Boston, MA, USA http://n1jdu.org http://bostonfandom.org http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7hf9u2ZdlQ
