All 68 entries tagged Flash
September 09, 2008
Microsoft has announced that Silverlight will be supporting AAC audio and H.264 video. With regard to my previous entry about the video tag, this will make it even harder for Theora and can only consolidate H.264 as the current codec of choice. The announcement comes as no surprise to industry experts, but this move proves that MS is aggressively going after online video in a big way, but I’m not sure anyone really wins – based on browser/OS install base Silverlight may become more of a threat than the video tag would have been.
I’ve also been thinking a little more about Chrome – given that YouTube is part of Google it’s likely that when Chrome supports the video tag, the embedded codec(s) Google chooses could have a huge impact. Considering that H.264 is already being used on YouTube, perhaps that would be the default choice?
September 08, 2008
The availability of a Firefox 3.1 alpha (and Safari 3.1) with video tag support has prompted a few people to proclaim that Flash will soon be replaced as the primary medium for playing video on the web. I think predictions of Flash’s demise are both premature and inaccurate, and also think there’s a possibility that the introduction of the new tag could cause more problems than it was intended to solve. Why? – codecs…
Firefox (and Opera) will support one embedded codec in the first instance, Theora. Theora is completely open-source but based on an older-generation codec, On2 VP3. Flash currently uses VP6 and H.264, Quicktime Player supports H.264 and Silverlight adds support for VC-1, one of the newest kids on the video block. All are newer, higher-quality formats than Theora (typical comparison here). That’s not to say Theora is a bad codec, far from it, but in the world of video codecs it is at least a generation old, maybe more, and as such doesn’t represent the current best of breed in terms of video quality/performance.
Secondly, in order to take over from Flash, Theora needs to be on all or enough browsers to work as a standard. The HTML5 specification doesn’t advocate or recommend any codecs, and as the specification notes, this is problematic:
It would be helpful for interoperability if all browsers could support the same codecs. However, there are no known codecs that satisfy all the current players: we need a codec that is known to not require per-unit or per-distributor licensing, that is compatible with the open source development model, that is of sufficient quality as to be usable, and that is not an additional submarine patent risk for large companies. This is an ongoing issue and this section will be updated once more information is available.
So, if one browser advocates Theora, will every other browser follow? After all it’s a fairly trivial (and zero-licencing cost) thing to include support for it. Firefox and Opera combined currently have around 25-30% share of the browser market; while 30% (and growing) is an excellent starting point to build from, IE’s and Flash’s dominance in terms of installed base will make it difficult forTheora to overtake the current popular formats unless they support it too.
We’re not starting with a blank sheet of paper here either; many video services and sites that use video have spent a considerable amount of time and investment in encoding to a specific platform, one that is currently supported by enough browsers/platforms to make it worthwhile. At best a move to Theora would have to be transitional, and likely to take several years, as people migrate content over to the new format. IE is the most common browser by a considerable margin, and Microsoft has its own favoured formats; WMV via Windows Media Player and/or VC-1 via Silverlight, plus the formats supported by Flash Player. It’s hard to see these not being with us for a while yet, unless IE starts supporting Theora at the expense of Windows Media formats (unlikely); if Theora isn’t included in IE, it simply isn’t going to get traction as quickly as it needs to to become the standard. Similarly unless Webkit (as the core engine of Chrome and Safari) or YouTube also add native support for it (AFAIU latest Safari builds that support the video tag currently support Quicktime’s supported formats, which doesn’t include Theora as standard), it’s hard to see it taking over. While users will be able to add new codecs manually, assuming they will do so in order to view a new video format could be risky. Then there’s streaming support via RTSP/RTMP, etc.
My point is we are going to have to live with multiple formats whether we like it or not, and that Theora is a technically a backward step; it will only take one browser vendor to ignore Theora and it will become void as a standard, yet HTML5 isn’t forcing or even recommending a standard to follow. At this point video on the web will be in danger of becoming a mess as people find they don’t have the required codec and have to install support for it. I wouldn’t go as far as to suggest the video tag is going to create chaos where relative calm currently exists, but it might. I can’t see a good technical reason why the current model of using Flash as a wrapper for video and codec support is broken, or why it needs to be replaced with what may become a mess of format support where we move from two or three dominant formats to five, six or maybe more competing ones, plus multiple downloads for users. In my experience proprietary formats tend to be better, that’s why they cost, and neither do I buy into the ‘everything has to be open-source’ argument, especially considering that the dominant audio format is MP3, which isn’t an open-source format at all (even AAC codecs require patent licence).
Most importantly though, while all this takes place a solution already exists; Flash Player. It supports H.264, VP6 and Sorenson, most people already have it and it works on all the browsers mentioned above, across Windows, Linux and Mac. “But Flash is a terrible resource hog!” I hear you say, but when you consider that Flash is decoding and rendering video, in software, it’s worth noting that this takes CPU cycles and is a processor/memory intensive task. Even if you could run fully-hardware accelerated video (which Flash is moving towards), video is still relatively intensive work for the average desktop/laptop. In the first instance, Theora decoding in Firefox is going to run in software, just like Flash, and presumably consume CPU cycles in a similar way.
With all this in mind it would seem to me that the only reason for wanting to take Flash off its video pedestal is that it is owned by a commercial entity, ignoring the fact that Flash Player has been a key enabler and driver of the dramatic increase in use of video on the web, without any of the ‘payback’ people seem to fear. Without advocacy from W3C, the reality is that browsers are going to be free to implement their own choice of favoured codecs, but those choices are likely to be driven by different criteria, not necessarily whether they are open-source. It could be about to get messy.
Alternatively, we could all start using Mike Chambers’ workaround for getting Flash to display video wherever the video tag is used, and everyone could just carry on. ;-)
July 01, 2008
Kudos to Adobe, Google and Yahoo for creating the mechanism for Flash content to be indexed on search engines. With one or two reservations (like how to distinguish between application content and a site) I think this is another significant move towards maintaining the ubiquity of Flash. It seems as though Adobe is steadily, but impressively quickly, removing piece by piece the most-cited drawbacks of Flash. Some of the most significant announcements (in no particular order):
- H.264 video support
- Open-sourced Flex SDK, BlazeDS
- Opened access to Flash Player APIs
- 3D support (thanks to Papervision, Away3D etc.)
In addition to the technology itself, Adobe has provided the means to develop and deploy it effectively, with the Flex SDK and FlexBuilder. Personally I have no objection to proprietary technologies when they a) work, b) don’t break anything and c) positively drive change and allow people to do things that standards-based technologies often take much longer to enable (and often not quite as well). Flash and Flex won’t be the standard, they will peacefully co-exist with other technologies (along with man, and fish); a single unified standard just isn’t possible in a competitive world, nor is it always desirable. Someone has to innovate, and attacking Flash (or Apple come to to think of it) for being proprietary is like attacking Ferrari for making a better sportscar (and charging for it). If it enables you to go faster, better, and (similar to Java and JS) is on 90-something% of desktops, who can blame Adobe for adding features and functionality that will maintain or increase edge and adoption? And at the same time if it is making key components of its platforms open, regardless of motivation, it’s A Good Thing*. So long as the standards do catch up, it’s fine.
There is I think, one thing left to do at the moment, the final hurdle as I see it – accessibility. It’s kind of in there, but if Adobe could make Flash and Flex as accessible as a typical web page, or at least as easy to make accessible as a web page, it would remove the one last stick with which it gets beaten. In fact and to bring this full circle, the same mechanism by which search indexing now works may also prove the key to unlocking accessibility, so maybe that’s already possible?
*None of these arguments apply to Microsoft, especially the Ferrari analogy. Silverlight is neither better or faster.
May 15, 2008
Writing about web page http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/flashplayer10/
A pre-release of Flash Player 10 is now out on Adobe Labs. Astro has a number of new features; P2P support, Speex voice codec (no more having to use ASAO!), dynamic streaming support and RTMFP, 3D, improved hardware acceleration and more sophisticated text control being the ones I’m most looking forward to.
The full feature list can be found here
May 14, 2008
I just had to encode a couple of videos from AVI to H.264 format for playing via a Flash-based video player and noticed that the player was having to download the whole file before playing it. I checked out this Adobe Tech article on H.264 encoding and here’s why:
One important thing about playing an H.264 video file as progressive download is that the moov atom needs to be located at the beginning of the file, or else the entire file will have to be downloaded before it begins playing. The moov atom is a part of the file that holds index information for the whole file.
I was using SUPER to encode to H.264, and by default the moov atom gets placed at the file end. Fortunately, Renaun Erickson at Adobe has kindly created a small AIR application (a port of a C++ application) that will take a standard H.264 file and relocate the moov atom to the front of the file, and then progressive download works properly.
Edit- thanks to Marshall’s comment, if you’re using SUPER there’s an option to select ‘Streamable H.264’ – do that and the moov atom will be put at the beginning of the file. :-)