dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
18

Guspaz
Guspaz
MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC

Guspaz to avp77

MVM

to avp77

Re: CTV Olympic streaming - "Video Error"

Silverlight generally does a far better job at video (and streaming it) than Flash.

I'm constantly having problems on multiple machines where flash's hardware accelerated decoding or scaling doesn't kick in, but I've never had any problems with silverlight.

donoreo
Premium Member
join:2002-05-30
North York, ON

donoreo

Premium Member

said by Guspaz:

Silverlight generally does a far better job at video (and streaming it) than Flash.

I'm constantly having problems on multiple machines where flash's hardware accelerated decoding or scaling doesn't kick in, but I've never had any problems with silverlight.

HTML 5 should be used.

Guspaz
Guspaz
MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC

Guspaz

MVM

said by donoreo:

HTML 5 should be used.

HTML 5 video is missing three critical features to be a valid replacement for this:

1) Common set of codecs guaranteed by standard to be supported by all browsers. Firefox and Opera do not officially support h.264 or AAC, instead supporting WebM and Vorbis, despite 80% of HTML5 video being h.264.

2) DRM support. Doesn't matter how you feel about it (personally I hate DRM), content providers won't make their content available without it.

3) Seamless switching between multiple bitrate streams. You can do dynamic bitrate switching with javascript, but it's not seamless like it is in Flash/Silverlight (there will be a pause).

Not to mention that only three quarters of browser claim any HTML 5 support, and installing a browser plugin is a lot more realistic than asking somebody to change to a different browser to view your site/stream.

Until these issues are resolved, HTML 5 won't be a valid replacement for video streaming for Netflix or similar things. Point 1 should be resolved shortly, as Mozilla has said they will eventually switch to h.264 (due to WebM thankfully never catching on). Point 2 is something under discussion, but nobody has yet to agree on. Point 3 is something that isn't currently supported, but might be in the future.
Shredda
join:2008-10-28
London, ON

Shredda

Member

said by Guspaz:

said by donoreo:

HTML 5 should be used.

HTML 5 video is missing three critical features to be a valid replacement for this:

1) Common set of codecs guaranteed by standard to be supported by all browsers. Firefox and Opera do not officially support h.264 or AAC, instead supporting WebM and Vorbis, despite 80% of HTML5 video being h.264.

2) DRM support. Doesn't matter how you feel about it (personally I hate DRM), content providers won't make their content available without it.

3) Seamless switching between multiple bitrate streams. You can do dynamic bitrate switching with javascript, but it's not seamless like it is in Flash/Silverlight (there will be a pause).

Not to mention that only three quarters of browser claim any HTML 5 support, and installing a browser plugin is a lot more realistic than asking somebody to change to a different browser to view your site/stream.

Until these issues are resolved, HTML 5 won't be a valid replacement for video streaming for Netflix or similar things. Point 1 should be resolved shortly, as Mozilla has said they will eventually switch to h.264 (due to WebM thankfully never catching on). Point 2 is something under discussion, but nobody has yet to agree on. Point 3 is something that isn't currently supported, but might be in the future.

You hit the nail straight on. I've tried explaining this to other people, but they just brush it off like HTML5 is the be all and end all. I like HTML5 and try to use it as much as possible, but I can't argue with the points made when it comes to video streaming (especially the DRM point.) There is no way that the TV/Movie studios will sign on to use HTML5 until that is solved, and until so, that means no apps like Netflix for Linux (at least web-based.)

RobinK
join:2004-04-16
Canada

RobinK to Guspaz

Member

to Guspaz
said by Guspaz:

instead supporting WebM and Vorbis, despite 80% of HTML5 video being h.264.

Mind telling me where you got this number?
funny0
join:2010-12-22

1 edit

funny0 to donoreo

Member

to donoreo
said by donoreo:

said by Guspaz:

Silverlight generally does a far better job at video (and streaming it) than Flash.

I'm constantly having problems on multiple machines where flash's hardware accelerated decoding or scaling doesn't kick in, but I've never had any problems with silverlight.

HTML 5 should be used.

no its too heavy on computers resources for video....it is why its slow to adopt.ITS like needing a brand new pc and computer with latest graphics card ( something not that many are buying into these days ) to use your web browser? HAHA not....
funny0

funny0 to Shredda

Member

to Shredda
said by Shredda:

said by Guspaz:

said by donoreo:

HTML 5 should be used.

HTML 5 video is missing three critical features to be a valid replacement for this:

1) Common set of codecs guaranteed by standard to be supported by all browsers. Firefox and Opera do not officially support h.264 or AAC, instead supporting WebM and Vorbis, despite 80% of HTML5 video being h.264.

2) DRM support. Doesn't matter how you feel about it (personally I hate DRM), content providers won't make their content available without it.

3) Seamless switching between multiple bitrate streams. You can do dynamic bitrate switching with javascript, but it's not seamless like it is in Flash/Silverlight (there will be a pause).

Not to mention that only three quarters of browser claim any HTML 5 support, and installing a browser plugin is a lot more realistic than asking somebody to change to a different browser to view your site/stream.

Until these issues are resolved, HTML 5 won't be a valid replacement for video streaming for Netflix or similar things. Point 1 should be resolved shortly, as Mozilla has said they will eventually switch to h.264 (due to WebM thankfully never catching on). Point 2 is something under discussion, but nobody has yet to agree on. Point 3 is something that isn't currently supported, but might be in the future.

You hit the nail straight on. I've tried explaining this to other people, but they just brush it off like HTML5 is the be all and end all. I like HTML5 and try to use it as much as possible, but I can't argue with the points made when it comes to video streaming (especially the DRM point.) There is no way that the TV/Movie studios will sign on to use HTML5 until that is solved, and until so, that means no apps like Netflix for Linux (at least web-based.)

and what happens in a few mnths when h265 is released and its such a patent mess....
34764170 (banned)
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

34764170 (banned) to RobinK

Member

to RobinK
said by RobinK:

said by Guspaz:

instead supporting WebM and Vorbis, despite 80% of HTML5 video being h.264.

Mind telling me where you got this number?

He pulled it out of his a**. Most of his post above is nonsense.
34764170

34764170 (banned) to funny0

Member

to funny0
said by funny0:

no its too heavy on computers resources for video....it is why its slow to adopt.ITS like needing a brand new pc and computer with latest graphics card ( something not that many are buying into these days ) to use your web browser? HAHA not....

No different than Silverlight or Flash.