Flash wins

Jump to First Reply
addaboxaddabox
Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
It occurred to me the other day-- we used to spend a lot of time around here fretting over the relative adoption rates of QT, WMV and Real.



We figured that whoever controlled the ubiquitous web video format controlled the world.



Turns out we have a winner, and it's none of the above. Our new video master is Adobe, nee Macromedia, and Flash.



Did anyone see this coming? I guess YouTube sealed the deal, but I found an interesting article here that lays out the technical and historical reasons that the Big Three got made irrelevant, fast.



I just thought it was interesting that an on-line video standard happened while no one was looking, and the "format battle" has moved on to things like higher resolution downloads and which codec gets used for new delivery media.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 15
    sunilramansunilraman Posts: 8,133member
    Yes. The key is that Flash penetration from version 4 onwards has always pushed 80%-90%, it has in general for the past two years been ahead of QT, Real, and WMV installations. FlashVideo is the perfect icing on the cake. YouTube is like the chunky chocolate chips sprinkled liberally all over said cake. 8)



    The format battle is still there, with Zune trying to keep WMV alive, and Real still chugging along (I wish it would die already, DIE!). iTunes Store and iTunes6/7 makes QuickTime and H.264 much more ubiquitous but WMV and Real will not go away, stupid things. XVID and DIVX and Nero Digital are still out there. Blu-Ray and HD-DVD, still battling it out.



    It's still a good mix of all sorts of codecs and stuff. Certainly for short, lower resolution online clips, Flash is the winner. Realtime streaming though, Flash AFAIK not so popular. Hmmm.... And who doesn't like old school MPG pr0n clips.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 2 of 15
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,665member
    Surely at some point Real has to go away-- as an on line video format they have absolutely no reason to exist.



    It's interesting because the growth of high speed internet has meant that there isn't that much of a need for a true streaming format, since most people can start watching a progressive dl almost immediately, and at much high quality.



    Does Real even have a non-streaming format?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 3 of 15
    Marvinmarvin Posts: 15,585moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sunilraman


    And who doesn't like old school MPG pr0n clips.



    Not me, mpeg is great. I can play it at 16-32x without a dropped frame and chipmunk sex is funny.



    I agree about the flash video format having taken over. I wish it hadn't because I'm sure it's only H263 video. However, I've seen how Quicktime MP4s can mess up in Windows yet play fine in VLC. If Apple want a competing format, they need to make sure it works. X264 is faster than Quicktime too.



    What I'd absolutely love is if Apple and Google (who now own youtube) came to an agreement to use x264 (the name even fits with OS X) and offer an easy way to compress content. Then make sure it works on Windows, Linux and Mac.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 4 of 15
    splinemodelsplinemodel Posts: 7,311member
    Someone told me once that Flash video is basically an encapsulated Quicktime engine. I'm not sure if this is true or not. Even so, Quicktime isn't going away anytime soon since most video editors use macs, and hence also use Quicktime. The bigger question is: why does the engine even matter that much? The codec has more to do with all aspects of video performance, and codecs are not usually bound to specific engines.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 5 of 15
    slewisslewis Posts: 2,081member
    Quote:

    What I'd absolutely love is if Apple and Google (who now own youtube) came to an agreement to use x264 (the name even fits with OS X) and offer an easy way to compress content. Then make sure it works on Windows, Linux and Mac.



    gotta look to Adobe for that. For the last time Google is not a messiah for the Mac.



    Sebastian
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 6 of 15
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,665member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Splinemodel


    Someone told me once that Flash video is basically an encapsulated Quicktime engine. I'm not sure if this is true or not. Even so, Quicktime isn't going away anytime soon since most video editors use macs, and hence also use Quicktime. The bigger question is: why does the engine even matter that much? The codec has more to do with all aspects of video performance, and codecs are not usually bound to specific engines.



    Yeah, QT is a whole 'nother ballgame-- it might not be the ubiquitous on-line format we had hoped for, but it wears a lot of hats and is doing fine.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 7 of 15
    Marvinmarvin Posts: 15,585moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Slewis


    gotta look to Adobe for that. For the last time Google is not a messiah for the Mac.



    Perhaps but not in terms of popularity. When you submit videos to Google/Youtube, they convert everything to Flash video. This then increases the popularity of the format.



    However, Adobe could help out a lot by using x264 in the flash encoding process and allow Quicktime to export it free..



    Another reason why Flash video will be popular is that Flash is already used for vector content so I think that it probably gained popularity when web developers started integrating video into Flash animations and then decided to use the video part on its own for stuff that has no vector content.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 8 of 15
    slewisslewis Posts: 2,081member
    Google and Youtube may use it but Flash has been used by many other things, it's practically a requirement for the Internet these days.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 9 of 15
    sunilramansunilraman Posts: 8,133member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addabox


    Surely at some point Real has to go away-- as an on line video format they have absolutely no reason to exist.



    Hallelujah, brother, Testify!! I sympathise with people that work at Real, but will they just die already!!!!



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addabox


    It's interesting because the growth of high speed internet has meant that there isn't that much of a need for a true streaming format, since most people can start watching a progressive dl almost immediately, and at much high quality.



    Actually, if you look at broadband penetration particularly with a lot of Internet users coming online from developing countries, streaming is still important... but actually shitty, because nascent (new-to-market) broadband providers in developing countries, and still the chunk of Internet users, have a lot of ping and network congestion. So yeah, progressive download is the smartest way to go. QuickTime or Flash8/9 can work out how much has been downloaded and how fast, and decide how long to "buffer" the initial chunk of video before playback.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addabox


    Does Real even have a non-streaming format?



    PFFT. Not something that works nowadays. I did some conversion of VHS tapes (Matrox Rainbow Runner) to Real format as one of my first part-time web design gigs. 1997/98. Now the choice for non-streaming is clearly as you suggested, progressive download QuickTime H.264, Flash8/9 or downloaded XVID/DIVX.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 10 of 15
    sunilramansunilraman Posts: 8,133member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addabox


    Yeah, QT is a whole 'nother ballgame-- it might not be the ubiquitous on-line format we had hoped for, but it wears a lot of hats and is doing fine.



    You're my friend today Totally agree. Whole 'nother ballgame, but doing well. And iPod+iTunes is the fracking Trojan Horse than brought QuickTime 6/7 to the masses in a real big way. Heh... pun unintended.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 11 of 15
    sunilramansunilraman Posts: 8,133member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Marvin


    ..I agree about the flash video format having taken over. I wish it hadn't because I'm sure it's only H263 video.... However, I've seen how Quicktime MP4s can mess up in Windows yet play fine in VLC. If Apple want a competing format, they need to make sure it works. X264 is faster than Quicktime too.



    What I'd absolutely love is if Apple and Google (who now own youtube) came to an agreement to use x264 (the name even fits with OS X) and offer an easy way to compress content. Then make sure it works on Windows, Linux and Mac...



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Slewis


    ...Gotta look to Adobe for that. For the last time Google is not a messiah for the Mac...



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Splinemodel


    ...Someone told me once that Flash video is basically an encapsulated Quicktime engine. I'm not sure if this is true or not. Even so, Quicktime isn't going away anytime soon since most video editors use macs, and hence also use Quicktime. The bigger question is: why does the engine even matter that much? The codec has more to do with all aspects of video performance, and codecs are not usually bound to specific engines...



    Flash Video actually really started out with Sorenson Spark which is an apparently incomplete implementation of H.263.



    However, Flash 8 and 9 player, significantly, uses the On2 VP6 codec. On2 is pushing VP7 as the next codec.



    Given Flash 8 and 9 and it's ubiquity, this makes On2 VP6 codec HUGELY important.



    It is interesting you mention X264 and H.264 etc. as an alternative. On2 has claims on VP7 being superior to H.264.



    http://www.on2.com/

    http://www.on2.com/technology/vp7/



    If you consider hardware requirements for smooth playback of H.264, hella long encoding times for X264/ QT7 H.264, you can start to see the benefits of On2 VP6 in Flash8/9, as is the codec of choice for Google and YouTube. And the codec of choice for Adobe.



    There's a good blog on why Flash8 engineers chose On2 VP6... You have to admit he's got a point about speed of encoding and lower playback requirements... http://www.kaourantin.net/2005/08/qu...n-flash-8.html



    Excerpts:



    # Legacy hardware support. It's nice to have a new shiny video codec, but if it does not run on an older Macintosh what's the point? Flash is about ubiquity, not forcing people to upgrade hardware or even require specialized hardware. Our target was a Pentium III 500Mhz and a Mac G3 running at 800Mhz.



    # Hardware support. Looks like it's a conflict with the previous item, but it's not. We were looking for a codec which could benefit from standard graphics hardware in the future, things like iDCT, YUV conversion/display, motion compensation etc. A lot of experimental codecs failed miserably here.



    # Performance. When your CPU usage doubles during complex scenes I consider a codec to have a serious performance problem. In some cases the video codecs we tested were dropping frames on a 3.4Ghz Pentium 4!



    # Completeness. This mostly affects standards based codecs. If only half of the specification is implemented why even claiming to be compliant?



    # Strong support. We were looking for a codec which had excellent support from the vendor, including the ability to come up with customs solutions very quickly, both on the client and deployment side. They also had to have the ability to support not only us, but any 3rd party interested in Flash Video. A vendor which saw us as just another potential to dump their prefabricated closed solution on us was simply not interesting. Our goal is to create a complete ecosystem around Flash Video with as many players as possible.



    # Good encoding tools. Another lesson we learned is that good encoding tools are essential for customers. If the vendor is able to provide alternatives to ours, even better.



    # Risks for Macromedia. We had to know exactly what we were getting into. A codec with an open ended license agreement which has to be renegociated every few years simply bear incalculable risks for a company the size of Macromedia.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 12 of 15
    sunilramansunilraman Posts: 8,133member
    Assuming my position is I wish Real and WindowsMedia would just frack off already, I see X264/QT7-H.264 as taking over Xvid and Divx with speed and power of desktops delivering better and faster encoding of near-DVD-quality and HighDef progressive download or streamed, in QuickTime or Mpeg4(?) containers. Preferably H.264 Mpeg4 because that's fairly "open".



    In the meantime for web-clips like YouTube, Google, etc, and slick consumer-oriented web apps like nikeplus.com, clearly Flash 8/9 OnVP6 will be the codec of choice.



    It is ironic that WMV exists simply because Microsoft exists and throws lots of money down that drain, yet Flash8/9 On2VP6 has come to the fore and thrived. A pity about Flash being used for soooo many annoying web ads, but at least it is not as notorious as a jiggling small browser window claiming "OMFG Your Computer Is Infected with Spyware!! Download our (Spyware) instead now!!!"



    H.264 and Mpeg4, Quicktime7+ and X264 is a good standard to work towards for the future, but be sure to keep an eye on On2VP6 and On2VP7. Heh. Another pun unintended.



    In the meantime, I'll keep the gravesite freshly dug and moist for WMV and Real.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 13 of 15
    sunilramansunilraman Posts: 8,133member
    Comment: (suddenly had a flicker of Deja Vu there but anyway)... Xvid and Divx will give way to X264 because despite some very skilled encoding coming out of Xvid, particularly off DVD-rips, H.264 will offer better reduction of blocking artifacts. I definitely hope to see X264 continue to improve in quality and speed and multicore(?)/ xgrid/ farm/server node support... Seeing as there is NO real hardware H.264 encoder in the mainstream market. It would be hella cool to have say 3-4 Pentium3s or G4 iMacs network encoding H.264/X264. Glad to see that X264 is providing a decent alternative to Apple's "just throw a bunch of Mac Pros at it" approach to H.264 workflow. Even Apple's movie trailer site, you can tell their production machines are intensely used to encode all that film content to H.264 full-spec HDTV down to smaller clips... Some blocking artifacts on the 720p and 1080p H.264 trailers if you look at shade areas (usually greyish shadow areas) with very subtle variations in darkness -- these blocking artifacts, of course, are much worse even with multipass, highquality Xvid/Divx.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 14 of 15
    sunilramansunilraman Posts: 8,133member
    This is a decent example of Flash-enabled sites that combine vector, bitmap, video, sound. Thanks to On2VP6 for video codec, that does have speed and performance advantages over H.264/X264...



    http://www.vcc.com.my/allnewC70/

    http://www.volvocars.us/models/c70/default.htm
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 15 of 15
    icfireballicfireball Posts: 2,594member
    There should be a major distinction though:



    QuickTime, Real, and WMV are not ideal for the web. Flash won the web, and rightfully so.



    But Flash is NOT for the computer (local video). And this is where QuickTime/WMV/Real comes in.



    Flash is good for built in media control Apps with XML and Media streaming.



    This thread is comparing apples to oranges.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.