Personally, I find the download option in ClickToFlash to be the easiest. Note, if you press the Option key it toggles between the 480p and 720p MP4 versions of the file. I don’t think it’s set up to grab the 1080p version yet.
PS: If all they have is the FLV version for DL you can use Visual Hub to transcode it to a different format.
Mozilla's answer to why they won't support h.264. I would have to argue they are putting up quite a few straw men. They are arguing that the MPEG-LA group are completely out of touch with the realities of video on the web, but they are not really sure if the MPEG-LA group are completely out of touch.
They make a few arguments about the worst case scenario and then admit they don't have the full information about what is going to happen. Instead of making the argument for more favorable licensing terms, they assume the worst, and argue they can do nothing about it.
To clarify, I meant most end-users that download probably want an mpeg4 file. They don't want an FLV that they have to convert later to mpeg4.
All the options I listed give you MP4 files. Very few videos on YouTube are still in the old FLV-only format at 320x240 resolution. ClickToFlash doesn?t even give you an option to DL the FLV version, only the 480p and 720p MP4 version.
Mozilla's answer to why they won't support h.264. I would have to argue they are putting up quite a few straw men. [,,,]
They?re going to eventually eat crow and include it. Too many big players are adopting it and the fastest browser segment is the smartphone, which has a dominance with WebKit. In the interim they?ll likely be a plug-in that makes H.264 play within the video tag in Firefox, but Mozilla will have to support it. I think even MS has to give in and support H.264 in IE9.
No, just a clarification. Anything powerful can be problematic. The sun can be problematic if you don't avoid its harmful radiation, but nobody is calling for the sun to be blocked, as that would be stupid - life on this planet would be quite limited without the sun. Similarly Flash can be problematic but it also provides an abundance of useful features which I would rather have than not.
This is why I'm confused as to what your position is. Can you clarify whether you do actually now believe that a Flash app can peg a CPU? If so, do you have any sense of who is to blame - Apple, Adobe or the developer?
Personally, I find the download option in ClickToFlash to be the easiest. Note, if you press the Option key it toggles between the 480p and 720p MP4 versions of the file. I don?t think it?s set up to grab the 1080p version yet.
PS: If all they have is the FLV version for DL you can use Visual Hub to transcode it to a different format.
Activity Window in Safari. Double click on the link to the vid. Make sure to reload vid before downloading. Done.
This is why I'm confused as to what your position is. Can you clarify whether you do actually now believe that a Flash app can peg a CPU? If so, do you have any sense of who is to blame - Apple, Adobe or the developer?
I have never experienced it in a working production app, but I'm not saying it doesn't occur as I can easily imagine scenarios that could cause that to happen, I just avoid those issues before publishing my applications. I admit, I do live in a rather closed environment when it comes to Flash development. By in large, the only examples of Flash I see in the world outside my work, and apart from Google finance and street view, are ads, which even with several on a page at once does not seem to affect the operation of my computer in a negative way.
So I guess I would have to put most of the blame on the developer since Adobe gives you some decent debugging and profiling tools to monitor your application's performance prior to publishing which I assume most competent developers would take advantage of.
I have never experienced it in a working production app, but I'm not saying it doesn't occur as I can easily imagine scenarios that could cause that to happen, I just avoid those issues before publishing my applications. I admit, I do live in a rather closed environment when it comes to Flash development. By in large, the only examples of Flash I see in the world outside my work, and apart from Google finance and street view, are ads, which even with several on a page at once does not seem to affect the operation of my computer in a negative way.
So I guess I would have to put most of the blame on the developer since Adobe gives you some decent debugging and profiling tools to monitor your application's performance prior to publishing which I assume most competent developers would take advantage of.
I see - thanks for the clarification. I wonder if part of the problem is that many Flash developers, particularly the 'fun' kind of applets, ads and widgets, are from a design rather than a programming background? Either they need to be educated, or the browser and/or the plug-in needs to manage things more tightly. It's a difficult situation.
I see - thanks for the clarification. I wonder if part of the problem is that many Flash developers, particularly the 'fun' kind of applets, ads and widgets, are from a design rather than a programming background? Either they need to be educated, or the browser and/or the plug-in needs to manage things more tightly. It's a difficult situation.
A ton of bricks will fit in a 1/2 ton pickup, but it is not necessarily a good idea.
I do Flash for mostly medical imaging diagnostics and research and usually only visit business sites so I can't speak from any real experience on the fun side of Flash. I don't even watch youtube. but I imagine what you say about novice Flash programmers is likely accurate.
Yosemite theme, light sky blue, so much better than grey...
Woho! I like the browser wars!!
Injust wonder if this will make it on to any Apple devices like Apple Tv, iPhone, tablet so we can access free online content and not be locked in to buying what should be free. Make sense.
Mozilla's answer to why they won't support h.264. I would have to argue they are putting up quite a few straw men. They are arguing that the MPEG-LA group are completely out of touch with the realities of video on the web, but they are not really sure if the MPEG-LA group are completely out of touch.
They make a few arguments about the worst case scenario and then admit they don't have the full information about what is going to happen. Instead of making the argument for more favorable licensing terms, they assume the worst, and argue they can do nothing about it.
The future of computing will be mobile, where will Mozilla be on this end? - the people have spoken H.264 is where we are going, and today Flash is no longer on my computer
The future of computing will be mobile, where will Mozilla be on this end? - the people have spoken H.264 is where we are going, and today Flash is no longer on my computer
Mozilla needs to get on the ball. They?re going to support H.264, it?s inevitable and Firefox 3 needs to be available on Android Marketplace. They have absolutely market share in the marketspace outside of Maemo and
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
It is currently available as a release candidate for Nokia Maemo based N800/N810/N900 devices, and in Alpha version for Windows Mobile. Work is underway for Symbian OS based mobile devices, and a version for the Android platform is due to be released [not soon enough].
Tristan Nitot president of Mozilla Europe has said that it's unlikely that an iPhone or a BlackBerry version will be released; citing Apple's non-compete application approval policies and BlackBerry's limited operating system as the reasons
Looks like Firefox isn't supported because it's an open source project that can't pay royalties on the patent-encumbered H.264 codec.
Not true at all! The beauty of HTML 5 is that it is the responsibility of the user agent (browser) to decide how to handle the file. So in theory at least, if the browser lacks the capability of handling the file in question, it should be able to pass it off to a helper application that can deal with it. That's what Safari does: HTML 5 VIDEO elements are handed off to QuickTime, so if the file is ANY format that QuickTime can handle, it plays. I don't see why a browser couldn't hand off to any media handler that can handle the specified file..heck, you could set the browser up so that "video/MP4" type files get handed off to Flash Player if you want. The point is, instead of the web site telling you how to handle the file, they just give you the data and tell your browser what it is supposed to look like...it's up to your system to render it using any method available.
That Mozilla chooses not to call the system native video handler, preferring instead to limit itself to Ogg Theora, is not a limitation of HTML-5, but a limitation of Mozilla.
But instead I always point to Google's stock market finance application. Until someone can replicate that in HTML5, 6 or whatever, there is nothing that can replace the more advanced features set of Actionscript 3.
Comments
You easily can, Google has a bookmarklet
http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/200...mp4-files.html
Not sure why they just don't have the h.264 mpeg4 link visible all the time
There are many ways to DL YouTube videos. Here are a few of the popular ones…Personally, I find the download option in ClickToFlash to be the easiest. Note, if you press the Option key it toggles between the 480p and 720p MP4 versions of the file. I don’t think it’s set up to grab the 1080p version yet.PS: If all they have is the FLV version for DL you can use Visual Hub to transcode it to a different format.
There are many ways to DL YouTube videos. Here are a few of the popular ones… ..
PS: If all they have is the FLV version for DL you can use Visual Hub to transcode it to a different format.
I think implicit in the h.264 download request would be to download as an mpeg4, without later conversion. Visual Hub development is over
http://www.techspansion.com/
I'm sure there are lots of FLV download helpers, and format converters.
But a one-click download to mpeg4 is best, I would think that is the download format most end-users want.
I think implicit in the h.264 download request would be to download as an mpeg4, without later conversion.
I?m not following you here. What later conversion of the MP4 file are you talking about?
Visual Hub development is over
http://www.techspansion.com/
I'm sure there are lots of FLV download helpers, and format converters.
But a one-click download to mpeg4 is best, if that is the download format most end-users want.
I know, but I think it?s still the simplest app for Mac OS X so i still recommend it.
I’m not following you here. What later conversion of the MP4 file are you talking about?
To clarify, I meant most end-users that download probably want an mpeg4 file. They don't want an FLV that they have to convert later to mpeg4.
They make a few arguments about the worst case scenario and then admit they don't have the full information about what is going to happen. Instead of making the argument for more favorable licensing terms, they assume the worst, and argue they can do nothing about it.
Video, Freedom And Mozilla
To clarify, I meant most end-users that download probably want an mpeg4 file. They don't want an FLV that they have to convert later to mpeg4.
All the options I listed give you MP4 files. Very few videos on YouTube are still in the old FLV-only format at 320x240 resolution. ClickToFlash doesn?t even give you an option to DL the FLV version, only the 480p and 720p MP4 version.
Mozilla's answer to why they won't support h.264. I would have to argue they are putting up quite a few straw men. [,,,]
They?re going to eventually eat crow and include it. Too many big players are adopting it and the fastest browser segment is the smartphone, which has a dominance with WebKit. In the interim they?ll likely be a plug-in that makes H.264 play within the video tag in Firefox, but Mozilla will have to support it. I think even MS has to give in and support H.264 in IE9.
You've changed your tune
No, just a clarification. Anything powerful can be problematic. The sun can be problematic if you don't avoid its harmful radiation, but nobody is calling for the sun to be blocked, as that would be stupid - life on this planet would be quite limited without the sun. Similarly Flash can be problematic but it also provides an abundance of useful features which I would rather have than not.
I have never experienced any problems whatsoever
This is what you said just now:
Flash can be problematic
This is why I'm confused as to what your position is. Can you clarify whether you do actually now believe that a Flash app can peg a CPU? If so, do you have any sense of who is to blame - Apple, Adobe or the developer?
There are many ways to DL YouTube videos. Here are a few of the popular ones?Personally, I find the download option in ClickToFlash to be the easiest. Note, if you press the Option key it toggles between the 480p and 720p MP4 versions of the file. I don?t think it?s set up to grab the 1080p version yet.PS: If all they have is the FLV version for DL you can use Visual Hub to transcode it to a different format.
Activity Window in Safari. Double click on the link to the vid. Make sure to reload vid before downloading. Done.
This is what you said earlier:
This is what you said just now:
This is why I'm confused as to what your position is. Can you clarify whether you do actually now believe that a Flash app can peg a CPU? If so, do you have any sense of who is to blame - Apple, Adobe or the developer?
I have never experienced it in a working production app, but I'm not saying it doesn't occur as I can easily imagine scenarios that could cause that to happen, I just avoid those issues before publishing my applications. I admit, I do live in a rather closed environment when it comes to Flash development. By in large, the only examples of Flash I see in the world outside my work, and apart from Google finance and street view, are ads, which even with several on a page at once does not seem to affect the operation of my computer in a negative way.
So I guess I would have to put most of the blame on the developer since Adobe gives you some decent debugging and profiling tools to monitor your application's performance prior to publishing which I assume most competent developers would take advantage of.
I have never experienced it in a working production app, but I'm not saying it doesn't occur as I can easily imagine scenarios that could cause that to happen, I just avoid those issues before publishing my applications. I admit, I do live in a rather closed environment when it comes to Flash development. By in large, the only examples of Flash I see in the world outside my work, and apart from Google finance and street view, are ads, which even with several on a page at once does not seem to affect the operation of my computer in a negative way.
So I guess I would have to put most of the blame on the developer since Adobe gives you some decent debugging and profiling tools to monitor your application's performance prior to publishing which I assume most competent developers would take advantage of.
I see - thanks for the clarification. I wonder if part of the problem is that many Flash developers, particularly the 'fun' kind of applets, ads and widgets, are from a design rather than a programming background? Either they need to be educated, or the browser and/or the plug-in needs to manage things more tightly. It's a difficult situation.
I see - thanks for the clarification. I wonder if part of the problem is that many Flash developers, particularly the 'fun' kind of applets, ads and widgets, are from a design rather than a programming background? Either they need to be educated, or the browser and/or the plug-in needs to manage things more tightly. It's a difficult situation.
A ton of bricks will fit in a 1/2 ton pickup, but it is not necessarily a good idea.
I do Flash for mostly medical imaging diagnostics and research and usually only visit business sites so I can't speak from any real experience on the fun side of Flash. I don't even watch youtube. but I imagine what you say about novice Flash programmers is likely accurate.
And Firefox updated to 3.6 today too!!
Yosemite theme, light sky blue, so much better than grey...
Woho! I like the browser wars!!
Injust wonder if this will make it on to any Apple devices like Apple Tv, iPhone, tablet so we can access free online content and not be locked in to buying what should be free. Make sense.
Mozilla's answer to why they won't support h.264. I would have to argue they are putting up quite a few straw men. They are arguing that the MPEG-LA group are completely out of touch with the realities of video on the web, but they are not really sure if the MPEG-LA group are completely out of touch.
They make a few arguments about the worst case scenario and then admit they don't have the full information about what is going to happen. Instead of making the argument for more favorable licensing terms, they assume the worst, and argue they can do nothing about it.
Video, Freedom And Mozilla
The future of computing will be mobile, where will Mozilla be on this end? - the people have spoken H.264 is where we are going, and today Flash is no longer on my computer
The future of computing will be mobile, where will Mozilla be on this end? - the people have spoken H.264 is where we are going, and today Flash is no longer on my computer
Mozilla needs to get on the ball. They?re going to support H.264, it?s inevitable and Firefox 3 needs to be available on Android Marketplace. They have absolutely market share in the marketspace outside of Maemo and
It is currently available as a release candidate for Nokia Maemo based N800/N810/N900 devices, and in Alpha version for Windows Mobile. Work is underway for Symbian OS based mobile devices, and a version for the Android platform is due to be released [not soon enough].
Tristan Nitot president of Mozilla Europe has said that it's unlikely that an iPhone or a BlackBerry version will be released; citing Apple's non-compete application approval policies and BlackBerry's limited operating system as the reasons
Looks like Firefox isn't supported because it's an open source project that can't pay royalties on the patent-encumbered H.264 codec.
Not true at all! The beauty of HTML 5 is that it is the responsibility of the user agent (browser) to decide how to handle the file. So in theory at least, if the browser lacks the capability of handling the file in question, it should be able to pass it off to a helper application that can deal with it. That's what Safari does: HTML 5 VIDEO elements are handed off to QuickTime, so if the file is ANY format that QuickTime can handle, it plays. I don't see why a browser couldn't hand off to any media handler that can handle the specified file..heck, you could set the browser up so that "video/MP4" type files get handed off to Flash Player if you want. The point is, instead of the web site telling you how to handle the file, they just give you the data and tell your browser what it is supposed to look like...it's up to your system to render it using any method available.
That Mozilla chooses not to call the system native video handler, preferring instead to limit itself to Ogg Theora, is not a limitation of HTML-5, but a limitation of Mozilla.
No conversion necessary.
To clarify, I meant most end-users that download probably want an mpeg4 file. They don't want an FLV that they have to convert later to mpeg4.
But instead I always point to Google's stock market finance application. Until someone can replicate that in HTML5, 6 or whatever, there is nothing that can replace the more advanced features set of Actionscript 3.
Check this out...