Yeah I shall give it a year to see hwo it does before reaching any conclusions. At this stage by biggest problem is how much CPU it uses to playback, quality seems ok to me but CPU use is not. Hope that can be improved substantially and the hardware (eg GPU) decoding stuff happens quite quickly.
As for the whole page as a canvas for videos, I guess there is quite a lot of potential there, either through multiple videos or different parts of the page playing back different periods of time from a single video file. Quite what uses fo this will be discovered Im not sure, hope there is plenty of experimentation with this and other stuff that is ossible via CSS animation and fancy javascript manipulation of HTML5 video. My initial experiments on this front will be done using H.264 for CPU use reasons and also because Im going to get an ipad. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman <jay.ded...@...> wrote: > Interesting to read, but I would make note of the source. anyone > invested in H264 will obviously do what they can to lay down fear. > Remember when Google bought Youtube and there was all the fear of > copyright lawsuits? Google has the lawyers to figure it out. > > The more important issue to research is how well WebM works. Hows it > look, how smooth is it, how well does it compress and transcode? If > Google gives developers all the resources they need, let's give people > 3 months before we see some cool expeirments. > > In my mind, the whole idea is to break out of the idea of "the video > in the player". What if you could use the whole page as a canvas for > your videos? Stan is right that creators need the tools to do this. > > As Verdi said, http://www.mirovideoconverter.com/, is a nice free tool > to transcode to WebM for tests. > > Jay > > -- > http://ryanishungry.com > http://twitter.com/jaydedman > 917 371 6790 >
