|
I was wondering how to make my own video player for my website. I really don't want to use flash. Any ideas?
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2012 Jan 28 at 11:40 UTC
|
|
|
Down Rodeo
Cap'n Moth of the Firehouse
2007 Oct 19 • 5486
57,583 ₧
|
HTML5 will provide. You can use the <video> tag and your choice of h.264, Ogg Vorbis and WebM.
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2012 Jan 28 at 17:30 UTC
|
|
|
|
You might be able to get away with this, too:
html code <embed src="movie.file" width="540" height="400" autostart="false" loop="false" volume="60"></embed> Or some horrible Java thing, or some horrible custom browser plugin.
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2012 Jan 29 at 05:59 UTC
— Ed. 2012 Jan 29 at 05:59 UTC
|
|
|
|
I've decided to go with Divx's Web Player.
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2012 Jan 29 at 10:42 UTC
|
|
|
Down Rodeo
Cap'n Moth of the Firehouse
2007 Oct 19 • 5486
57,583 ₧
|
No, use HTML5. Why the hell wouldn't you? (No arguments about non-supporting browsers allowed)
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2012 Jan 29 at 16:44 UTC
|
|
|
|
Or I can use 1 .mkv file.
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2012 Jan 29 at 20:08 UTC
|
|
|
Down Rodeo
Cap'n Moth of the Firehouse
2007 Oct 19 • 5486
57,583 ₧
|
But then you are using some proprietary nonsense. HTML 5 is the new cool, use it. Additionally I told you no arguments about compatibility were allowed.
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2012 Jan 30 at 01:20 UTC
|
|
|
Rockbomb
Dog fucker (but in a good way now)
2009 Nov 14 • 2045
|
Down Rodeo said: But then you are using some proprietary nonsense.
This.
Plus, I guarantee most people will just leave if they have to download a new codec just to watch a video.
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2012 Jan 30 at 01:37 UTC
|
|
|
Down Rodeo
Cap'n Moth of the Firehouse
2007 Oct 19 • 5486
57,583 ₧
|
This is a consideration. It's important to remember that Chrome has recently overtaken Firefox in terms of users; they have basically the same codecs supported. Also you have a picture of text. I'm not saying you made it but I can't read any of the small print. This is a bad thing.
EDIT: Jesus Christ it's a JPG. Who the hell even does that?!
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2012 Jan 30 at 02:12 UTC
— Ed. 2012 Jan 30 at 02:13 UTC
|
|
|
|
Down Rodeo said: Also you have a picture of text. I'm not saying you made it but I can't read any of the small print. This is a bad thing.
EDIT: Jesus Christ it's a JPG. Who the hell even does that?!
Wha?
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2012 Jan 30 at 15:54 UTC
|
|
|
Rockbomb
Dog fucker (but in a good way now)
2009 Nov 14 • 2045
|
sprinkles said: Down Rodeo said: Also you have a picture of text. I'm not saying you made it but I can't read any of the small print. This is a bad thing.
EDIT: Jesus Christ it's a JPG. Who the hell even does that?!
Wha? JPEG is a shit format, and the text in your image is too small/too compressed to read.
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2012 Jan 30 at 16:01 UTC
|
|
|
Down Rodeo
Cap'n Moth of the Firehouse
2007 Oct 19 • 5486
57,583 ₧
|
Rockbomb said: sprinkles said: Down Rodeo said: Also you have a picture of text. I'm not saying you made it but I can't read any of the small print. This is a bad thing.
EDIT: Jesus Christ it's a JPG. Who the hell even does that?!
Wha? JPEG is a shit format, and the text in your image is too small/too compressed to read. It's not a shit format, however it is completely unfit for purpose in this case. For text, PNG is all you need. Or, y'know, a link to the source. Because HTML is HyperTEXT, blah blah.
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2012 Jan 30 at 16:41 UTC
|
|
|
Rockbomb
Dog fucker (but in a good way now)
2009 Nov 14 • 2045
|
Down Rodeo said:
It's not a shit format, however it is completely unfit for purpose in this case. For text, PNG is all you need. Or, y'know, a link to the source. Because HTML is HyperTEXT, blah blah.
When would jpeg be the best format to use? I would think that in almost every case there's going to be a better choice you could use.
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2012 Jan 30 at 17:58 UTC
|
|
|
|
What fucking img are you talking about?
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2012 Jan 30 at 19:15 UTC
|
|
|
Down Rodeo
Cap'n Moth of the Firehouse
2007 Oct 19 • 5486
57,583 ₧
|
Rockbomb said: Down Rodeo said:
It's not a shit format, however it is completely unfit for purpose in this case. For text, PNG is all you need. Or, y'know, a link to the source. Because HTML is HyperTEXT, blah blah.
When would jpeg be the best format to use? I would think that in almost every case there's going to be a better choice you could use. Pictures. The difference at anything above 85% quality is essentially unnoticeable. It can be instructive to take a high-quality lossless image then JPEG it and look at the difference between the two images. There's a slight afterimage, but really not much. It's a hugely clever algorithm too.
See the problem is, you can't use lossless everywhere. Eventually you will find a file that increases when "compressed".
Sprinkles: This one.
Edit for glory: if JPEG is essentially not the best choice, why are (basically) all videos MPEGs?
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2012 Jan 30 at 20:30 UTC
— Ed. 2012 Jan 30 at 20:31 UTC
|
|
|
Rockbomb
Dog fucker (but in a good way now)
2009 Nov 14 • 2045
|
Down Rodeo said: Rockbomb said: Down Rodeo said:
It's not a shit format, however it is completely unfit for purpose in this case. For text, PNG is all you need. Or, y'know, a link to the source. Because HTML is HyperTEXT, blah blah.
When would jpeg be the best format to use? I would think that in almost every case there's going to be a better choice you could use. Pictures. The difference at anything above 85% quality is essentially unnoticeable. It can be instructive to take a high-quality lossless image then JPEG it and look at the difference between the two images. There's a slight afterimage, but really not much. It's a hugely clever algorithm too.
See the problem is, you can't use lossless everywhere. Eventually you will find a file that increases when "compressed".
Sprinkles: This one.
Edit for glory: if JPEG is essentially not the best choice, why are (basically) all videos MPEGs? Why not just use PNGs? It's lossless, and there usually isn't much of a difference in size between png and jpg.
I guess, I shouldn't have said that jpg is a shit format, but I definitely think there's almost always going to be a better choice, and I also think that choice is almost always going to be PNG.
Also... maybe I'm just a bit slow, but I'm not picking up on what you're talking about with mpegs...
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2012 Jan 30 at 22:01 UTC
|
|
|
Down Rodeo
Cap'n Moth of the Firehouse
2007 Oct 19 • 5486
57,583 ₧
|
There's a massive difference in size. If you want proof, try it using my pictures from the "noise" thread. My point about MPEGs is that they use many of the same ideas and algorithms as JPEGs do. Broadly, certain key frames are encoded with JPEG, then the changes between successive frames are tracked. Honestly though, JPEGs have the bestest compression ratios for "complex" images. The tricky bit is defining complex, of course.
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2012 Jan 30 at 22:30 UTC
|
|
|
|
I drink to forget but I always remember.
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2012 Jan 30 at 23:09 UTC
|
|
|
|
All this shit over an image off google? lulz.
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2012 Jan 30 at 23:38 UTC
|
|
|
Down Rodeo
Cap'n Moth of the Firehouse
2007 Oct 19 • 5486
57,583 ₧
|
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2012 Jan 31 at 00:14 UTC
|
|
|
SRAW
Rocket Man
2007 Nov 6 • 2525
601 ₧
|
DR uses a 56k modem so thats why he complains and bitches and moans over trivial matters such as this, true story
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2012 Jan 31 at 00:21 UTC
|
|
|
Down Rodeo
Cap'n Moth of the Firehouse
2007 Oct 19 • 5486
57,583 ₧
|
Yes, it took me 5 hours to upload the noise images from last week. When I play Battlefield, my character appears to go back in time.
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2012 Jan 31 at 16:16 UTC
|
|
|
|
I told youtube to make my videos 3d.
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2012 Jan 31 at 16:27 UTC
|
|
|
SRAW
Rocket Man
2007 Nov 6 • 2525
601 ₧
|
Down Rodeo said: When I play Battlefield, my character appears to go back in time.
That made me LoL for no reason lol
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2012 Jan 31 at 22:26 UTC
|
|
|
Down Rodeo
Cap'n Moth of the Firehouse
2007 Oct 19 • 5486
57,583 ₧
|
I thought nothing would make you switch away from DotA 2?
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2012 Feb 1 at 02:03 UTC
|
|
|
|
