HTML5 or Flash?

Please compose all posts in Emacs.

Moderators: phlip, Moderators General, Prelates

In your opinion, what should be the interactive media standard for the next generation of the web?

Adobe Flash
14
12%
Microsoft Silverlight
6
5%
Oracle Java/JavaFX
3
3%
WHATWG's HTML5
76
64%
GET INTERACTIVE MEDIA OFF THE WEB!
14
12%
Other (Please tell us!)
5
4%
 
Total votes: 118

User avatar
hotaru
Posts: 1042
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2007 6:54 pm UTC

Re: Html5

Postby hotaru » Sat Jan 15, 2011 5:38 am UTC

Xanthir wrote:The quality drop from camcorder to youtube absolutely swamps the quality drop from transcoding between two lossy formats.

maybe to you, but tearing and blurriness (even if very minor) are much more significant than just scaling the picture down (even to a 1/16th it's original size) to me.

Code: Select all

factorial product enumFromTo 1
isPrime n 
factorial (1) `mod== 1

keeperofdakeys
Posts: 658
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 6:04 am UTC

Re: Html5

Postby keeperofdakeys » Sat Jan 15, 2011 5:51 am UTC

hotaru wrote:maybe to you, but tearing and blurriness (even if very minor) are much more significant than just scaling the picture down (even to a 1/16th it's original size) to me.

It sounds like your suggesting that converting from h264 to h264 is any different from converting from h264 to webm. There is no advantage to the original source being the same as the encoding format. The video still has to be fully decoded and re-encoded.

User avatar
hotaru
Posts: 1042
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2007 6:54 pm UTC

Re: Html5

Postby hotaru » Sat Jan 15, 2011 9:05 pm UTC

keeperofdakeys wrote:The video still has to be fully decoded and re-encoded.

yes, but different codecs lose different information. using the same codec makes it much less likely that you're going to lose much more than is necessary.

Code: Select all

factorial product enumFromTo 1
isPrime n 
factorial (1) `mod== 1

User avatar
J the Ninja
Posts: 718
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:08 pm UTC
Location: Portland, USA
Contact:

Re: Html5

Postby J the Ninja » Sat Jan 15, 2011 9:15 pm UTC

hotaru wrote:
keeperofdakeys wrote:The video still has to be fully decoded and re-encoded.

yes, but different codecs lose different information. using the same codec makes it much less likely that you're going to lose much more than is necessary.


The damage will still come nowhere close to that from cutting the bitrate from camera levels down to web streaming levels.
Shishichi wrote:Applies a sexward force to counter the sexpression effect that Forward Advection can apply to fluid density, particularly along sextainer boundaries. In this way, the sextribute attempts to conserve the overall fluid volume ensuring no density loss.
(he/him/his)

keeperofdakeys
Posts: 658
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 6:04 am UTC

Re: Html5

Postby keeperofdakeys » Sun Jan 16, 2011 3:23 am UTC

hotaru wrote:
keeperofdakeys wrote:The video still has to be fully decoded and re-encoded.

yes, but different codecs lose different information. using the same codec makes it much less likely that you're going to lose much more than is necessary.

When you encode video, your not just losing information, you are introducing noise. Even if what you are saying is true, you still have to encode this noise, and it will probably negate any advantage you get from using the same codec.

There is also the fact that VP8, the codec used for WebM, uses many of the same tactics to encode video as h264; they are just different in some of the finer details. This means that, if what you say is true, the loss should be minimal as most of the same techniques are being used and the same information passed on.

User avatar
RahulKolasseri
Posts: 54
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 1:19 pm UTC
Location: Singapore

Re: HTML5 or Flash?

Postby RahulKolasseri » Sun Jan 16, 2011 11:48 am UTC

Heh, I spent a good 15 minutes searching before I realised that my html5 topic had been merged and moved into religious wars.
Xeio wrote:Small amounts of cancer are definately worth the awesome.

User avatar
hotaru
Posts: 1042
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2007 6:54 pm UTC

Re: Html5

Postby hotaru » Mon Jan 17, 2011 3:59 am UTC

keeperofdakeys wrote:There is also the fact that VP8, the codec used for WebM, uses many of the same tactics to encode video as h264; they are just different in some of the finer details. This means that, if what you say is true, the loss should be minimal as most of the same techniques are being used and the same information passed on.

the loss should be minimal, but it isn't. i wouldn't be complaining if there was an encoder that could do a decent (i'd settle for just not making my eyes bleed, i'm not looking for great quality here) job of transcoding from h.264 to vp8.
until such an encoder exists, is freely available, and is widely used, i'd much rather have h.264.

Code: Select all

factorial product enumFromTo 1
isPrime n 
factorial (1) `mod== 1

User avatar
RahulKolasseri
Posts: 54
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 1:19 pm UTC
Location: Singapore

Re: HTML5 or Flash?

Postby RahulKolasseri » Mon Jan 17, 2011 5:47 am UTC

hotaru wrote:The loss should be minimal, but it isn't. I wouldn't be complaining if there was an encoder that could do a decent (i'd settle for just not making my eyes bleed, I’m not looking for great quality here) job of transcoding from h.264 to vp8.
Until such an encoder exists, is freely available, and is widely used, I’d much rather have h.264.

There is. Its called FFmpeg, its GPL, and I've used it(not for h264 to webM/vp8, but for other transcodings), and it is actually quite good. It is a command line/terminal program though, but its quite easy to use once you read the docs. It can transcode almost any video format you throw at it. It's kinda like the vlc of video transcoding.

[Edit]: Also, FFmpeg does image, audio, and subtitle format conversions in addition to video conversions
Xeio wrote:Small amounts of cancer are definately worth the awesome.

keeperofdakeys
Posts: 658
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 6:04 am UTC

Re: HTML5 or Flash?

Postby keeperofdakeys » Mon Jan 17, 2011 6:06 am UTC

RahulKolasseri wrote:There is. Its called FFmpeg, its GPL, and I've used it(not for h264 to webM/vp8, but for other transcodings), and it is actually quite good. It is a command line/terminal program though, but its quite easy to use once you read the docs. It can transcode almost any video format you throw at it. It's kinda like the vlc of video transcoding.

At the moment ffmpeg uses google's libvpx to encode and decode vp8, any native ffmpeg implementation will take a while. The code google has is the official code from On2, which has been opened sourced. It hasn't been optimised to hell yet, but it has started to move along. It is stable, and produces quite decent video, which are the main concerns.

P.S. For interest, vlc uses libavcodec, from ffmpeg, to do decoding for most formats.

User avatar
hotaru
Posts: 1042
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2007 6:54 pm UTC

Re: HTML5 or Flash?

Postby hotaru » Mon Jan 17, 2011 6:11 am UTC

RahulKolasseri wrote:There is. Its called FFmpeg, its GPL, and I've used it(not for h264 to webM/vp8, but for other transcodings), and it is actually quite good. It is a command line/terminal program though, but its quite easy to use once you read the docs. It can transcode almost any video format you throw at it. It's kinda like the vlc of video transcoding.

[Edit]: Also, FFmpeg does image, audio, and subtitle format conversions in addition to video conversions

ffmpeg uses libvpx to do vp8 encoding, just like everything else that encodes vp8 does. so it's produces video that's just as crappy as what everything else does. and it's not free enough.

Code: Select all

factorial product enumFromTo 1
isPrime n 
factorial (1) `mod== 1

User avatar
RahulKolasseri
Posts: 54
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 1:19 pm UTC
Location: Singapore

Re: HTML5 or Flash?

Postby RahulKolasseri » Mon Jan 17, 2011 6:28 am UTC

hotaru wrote:so it's produces video that's just as crappy as what everything else does


keeperofdakeys wrote:It is stable, and produces quite decent video

Clearly, one of you is wrong :P
Xeio wrote:Small amounts of cancer are definately worth the awesome.

stephentyrone
Posts: 778
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 10:58 pm UTC
Location: Palo Alto, CA

Re: Html5

Postby stephentyrone » Mon Jan 17, 2011 9:20 am UTC

I was going to leave this alone, especially now that it's moved to RW, but seriously, what the hell:

Xanthir wrote:Here's the thing. All right-thinking people want to avoid royalty-encumbered technologies from being baked into the web platform. h.264 is royalty-encumbered, thus all right thinking people want to avoid h.264 being baked into the web platform. Google's move is thus obvious - they're trying to keep the web stack free, because that helps everyone.


What is this, the thought police? All right-thinking people?!

What about the people who don't care about your politics, and who are willing to pay reasonable amounts of money for products that work? Where exactly is their thinking "wrong"? The world is full of companies who are willing to pay for good products, who make cost-benefit decisions based on actual cost and quality instead of "Oh me yarm patent-encumbered" or "its moar open". That's engineering. A huge pile of engineering firms in a variety of industries have decided that using h.264 is a sound engineering decision, despite the required royalty payments.
GENERATION -16 + 31i: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum. Square it, and then add i to the generation.

keeperofdakeys
Posts: 658
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 6:04 am UTC

Re: HTML5 or Flash?

Postby keeperofdakeys » Mon Jan 17, 2011 9:52 am UTC

RahulKolasseri wrote:
hotaru wrote:so it's produces video that's just as crappy as what everything else does


keeperofdakeys wrote:It is stable, and produces quite decent video

Clearly, one of you is wrong :P

Here and here are comparisons between h264 and webm, done around the time of the announcement of webm. Since they are about 6 months old, the vp8 encoder should have come along a bit since then. The difference in results between these two comparisons is due to the profile of h264 used, which controls quality and complexity. There are three, high, main and baseline. Each is less complex and less cpu-intensive to play than the next.

The first comparison used the high profile, this shouldn't have been used it will never get wide adoption as a web codec, due to the fact that the iphone, ipad and other consumer devices physically can't play it. Most can play main (like i* devices), but some may only be able to play baseline. The second comparison uses baseline, but since most devices will be able to play main, it may be cutting the quality a little too fine.

From what I can see of these two comparisons, I wouldn't describe vp8 as 'crappy' (I know the above quote is out of context, but you were still implying it). I would describe it as possibly needing some more work compared to h264 high profile, but as we can't use that on the web, vp8 should be decent. I am going to encode up some comparisons using the latest encoder and I shall post my results soon.

User avatar
Amnesiasoft
Posts: 2573
Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 4:28 am UTC
Location: Colorado
Contact:

Re: HTML5 or Flash?

Postby Amnesiasoft » Mon Jan 17, 2011 1:46 pm UTC

keeperofdakeys wrote:The second comparison uses baseline, but since most devices will be able to play main, it may be cutting the quality a little too fine.

And yet h.264 still looks better at the baseline setting than VP8.

User avatar
Robert'); DROP TABLE *;
Posts: 730
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 6:46 pm UTC
Location: in ur fieldz

Re: Html5

Postby Robert'); DROP TABLE *; » Mon Jan 17, 2011 5:01 pm UTC

stephentyrone wrote:I was going to leave this alone, especially now that it's moved to RW, but seriously, what the hell:

Xanthir wrote:Here's the thing. All right-thinking people want to avoid royalty-encumbered technologies from being baked into the web platform. h.264 is royalty-encumbered, thus all right thinking people want to avoid h.264 being baked into the web platform. Google's move is thus obvious - they're trying to keep the web stack free, because that helps everyone.


What is this, the thought police? All right-thinking people?!

What about the people who don't care about your politics, and who are willing to pay reasonable amounts of money for products that work? Where exactly is their thinking "wrong"? The world is full of companies who are willing to pay for good products, who make cost-benefit decisions based on actual cost and quality instead of "Gee Willikers patent-encumbered" or "its moar open". That's engineering. A huge pile of engineering firms in a variety of industries have decided that using h.264 is a sound engineering decision, despite the required royalty payments.

If you bake a proprietary format into the web framework, whoever owns the patent for that format has an automatic monopoly on that content.
...And that is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped.

stephentyrone
Posts: 778
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 10:58 pm UTC
Location: Palo Alto, CA

Re: Html5

Postby stephentyrone » Mon Jan 17, 2011 5:09 pm UTC

Robert'); DROP TABLE *; wrote:If you bake a proprietary format into the web framework, whoever owns the patent for that format has an automatic monopoly on that content.


Unlike WebM, h.264 is not a proprietary format. To be fair, Google seems to want to set up an open standard for WebM, but it hasn't happened yet, as far as I'm aware.

Many aspects of h.264 are patented, but as a consequence of inclusion in the standard, it is required that they be licensed under RAND terms. There is no "patent for that format" that allows anyone a "monopoly on that content".

Besides, ownership of content is legally separate from any licensing associated with a specific data format.
GENERATION -16 + 31i: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum. Square it, and then add i to the generation.

User avatar
flying sheep
Posts: 63
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 12:35 am UTC

Re: Html5

Postby flying sheep » Mon Jan 17, 2011 5:52 pm UTC

whoa, massive shitstorm detected.

let’s get things straight, guys;
  1. if you want to deliver video to all modern browsers in a proper quality, you’ll need baseline h.264 for iOS, full h.264 for safari and vp8 for the rest. vp8 scores.
  2. ok, since that was not fair, other way round: you’ll need baseline h.264 for iOS, full h.264 for safari and IE and vp8 for the rest. vp8 still scores.
  3. h.264 has slightly better quality when using the same bitrate. h.264 scores
  4. recording devices record in h.264. when you transcode video from recording device quality to streaming quality, the quality loss is equal in both codecs. no points here.
  5. h.264 is patent-encumbered, vp8 not. vp8 scores.
  6. h.264 is supported by hardware decoding in mobile devices. h.264 scores a half point, since it wasn’t like that two years ago and in two years from now, they could already support vp8-hardware-decoding.

ending score
h.264: 1.5
vp8: 2

we have a winner!

i don’t think it’s a close call, however, since i value the openness of vp8 way over the advantages h.264 has. vp8 can reach the quality and the hardware support, but h.264 can never be freely used*.

*or more exactly, as the chewanater pointed out: it can be used freely by a time nobody will want it anymore. like GIF.
Last edited by flying sheep on Mon Jan 17, 2011 8:22 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
TheChewanater
Posts: 1279
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 5:24 am UTC
Location: lol why am I still wearing a Santa suit?

Re: Html5

Postby TheChewanater » Mon Jan 17, 2011 7:52 pm UTC

flying sheep wrote:vp8 can reach the quality and the hardware support, but h.264 can never be freely used.

And neither can GIFs, right?
ImageImage
http://internetometer.com/give/4279
No one can agree how to count how many types of people there are. You could ask two people and get 10 different answers.

User avatar
flying sheep
Posts: 63
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 12:35 am UTC

Re: Html5

Postby flying sheep » Mon Jan 17, 2011 8:20 pm UTC

TheChewanater wrote:
flying sheep wrote:vp8 can reach the quality and the hardware support, but h.264 can never be freely used.

And neither can GIFs, right?
let me change “it can never be used freely” to “by the time it can be used freely, nobody will want it anymore, like, e.g., gif”

User avatar
cjmcjmcjmcjm
Posts: 1158
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 5:15 am UTC
Location: Anywhere the internet is strong

Re: HTML5 or Flash?

Postby cjmcjmcjmcjm » Mon Jan 17, 2011 8:48 pm UTC

What a lot of you are missing is the fact that several major browsers already don't support H.264. Sure, MS (I didn't use the dollar sign this time!) helped out their FF users under Win 7, but that's a small fraction of users of browsers who cannot use H.264 who now can. Besides, if H.264 "wins", then FF and Opera will have to rely on plug-ins to play video, which defeats the purpose of the video tag in the first place
frezik wrote:Anti-photons move at the speed of dark

DemonDeluxe wrote:Paying to have laws written that allow you to do what you want, is a lot cheaper than paying off the judge every time you want to get away with something shady.

User avatar
thoughtfully
Posts: 2253
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 12:25 am UTC
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Contact:

Re: HTML5 or Flash?

Postby thoughtfully » Mon Jan 17, 2011 10:14 pm UTC

An informative article that clears up some of the vague terminology, and cuts through a bit of the bluster from the various sides:
http://antimatter15.com/wp/2011/01/the- ... -vs-h-264/
Image
Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.
-- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

User avatar
Xanthir
My HERO!!!
Posts: 5339
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 12:49 am UTC
Location: The Googleplex
Contact:

Re: Html5

Postby Xanthir » Tue Jan 18, 2011 7:27 am UTC

stephentyrone wrote:I was going to leave this alone, especially now that it's moved to RW, but seriously, what the hell:

Xanthir wrote:Here's the thing. All right-thinking people want to avoid royalty-encumbered technologies from being baked into the web platform. h.264 is royalty-encumbered, thus all right thinking people want to avoid h.264 being baked into the web platform. Google's move is thus obvious - they're trying to keep the web stack free, because that helps everyone.


What is this, the thought police? All right-thinking people?!

Yes.

What about the people who don't care about your politics, and who are willing to pay reasonable amounts of money for products that work?

Fuck politics. Baking royalty-encumbered technologies into the internet is a bad thing. Full stop. There is no "reasonable amount of money". The point isn't what *you* pay, it's what the next startup involved in video will be told they have to pay or else risk a ruinous lawsuit, so they'll just not start their business in the first place. The point is that Firefox wouldn't have existed if it had to pay h.264 license fees originally (even now, the fees would be, iirc, a good 20% of their operating budget).

"Reasonable and non-discriminatory fees" are neither. They destroy nascent industries, and massively benefit large players who can ignore the cost.

Where exactly is their thinking "wrong"? The world is full of companies who are willing to pay for good products, who make cost-benefit decisions based on actual cost and quality instead of "Gee Willikers patent-encumbered" or "its moar open". That's engineering. A huge pile of engineering firms in a variety of industries have decided that using h.264 is a sound engineering decision, despite the required royalty payments.

"despite the required royalty payments" is incorrect. Many of the large companies using h.264 are part of the patent pool, and thus don't pay any licensing fees (for example, both Apple and Microsoft).

I'll note as well that a pile of engineering firms have bet on WebM as well, given that we'll have production hardware decoders out this year.
(defun fibs (n &optional (a 1) (b 1)) (take n (unfold '+ a b)))

User avatar
Steax
SecondTalon's Goon Squad
Posts: 3038
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 12:18 pm UTC

Re: HTML5 or Flash?

Postby Steax » Sun Mar 13, 2011 3:13 am UTC

Just tossing this in here for anyone reading the thread and wondering if there still isn't a half-decent conversion app with a proper UI: Miro has one. And it appears to be cross-platform.
In Minecraft, I use the username Rirez.


Return to “Religious Wars”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests