Stick Online Forums

Quote from: Lingus on February 11, 2010, 04:28:39 PM

Quote from: Scotty on February 10, 2010, 11:28:05 PM

Quote from: ARTgames on February 10, 2010, 10:40:54 PM
0_o. im talking about if we loos flash and go to html5 what video codac(s) do you think should be on top. You tube does .flv (flash) and and mp4 rapper coded in h.264. fire fox will not takes those out of the box for easy to see reasons. But i guess that can be fixed easly.

FFMPEG has an excellent selection of codecs.  Be it MPEG-1/2/4 (part 4), FFV1, you name it.  It's all open source, and they also have a selection of Audio codecs as well, although their AAC format is probably going to be best.  If people feel squirrely, they can try LAME or FLAC if they want a great sound codec, and both are open source.

I can see the problem Art is talking about. If I'm understanding correctly. So basically instead of having one standard format for videos on the web (flash) we'd be using codecs which would be required for the user to install on their machine? If that's the case, count me out. I've dealt with having to install codecs and I know there are codec packs that seem to work pretty well, but you'll always find that there are some videos you can't play. Sure, you'd be able to view a majority of the video on the web, but there'll be the sites that use a different codec than what you have.

Of course, if I'm not understanding this correctly feel free to tell me I'm a moron...

The thing is, FFMPEG is a single source for codecs.  So instead of installing flash, you'd install FFMPEG, and you'd be all good, there is no doubling of different codecs.  If everyone adapted to a single open source codec, we'd all be good, as we are almost guaranteed to never see that go under, without someone else picking it up and running with it.

Well, if that's what I'm thinking of, like a codec pack, then I've used something similar before and I found that I was still unable to view some videos. Inevitably, there will be someone who is using some codec that is not included in the pack.

I'm just saying. It's probably a better solution than everyone using a single product such as flash. If the standard is set up to use any codec out of the FFMPEG pack, then great. At least there is no single point of failure since not everyone will use exactly the same codecs. What I'm against is there being no standard. If everyone just used whatever codecs they wanted, then it may or may not be included in the codec pack you have. I want to be able to look at a site, and if the video doesn't load I can say, "Oh, well they aren't within standards so screw them." versus, "Oh, I don't have this sites codec, I guess I have to go hunt for it and make sure it works after I install it... etc etc"

@anyone
We want an mp3 for videos. There is other codecs than mp3's but we all know people can play a mp3. (I'm basically saying what Lingus just said. :P)

Quote from: ARTgames on February 11, 2010, 09:41:15 PM
@anyone
We want an mp3 for videos. There is other codecs than mp3's but we all know people can play a mp3. (I'm basically saying what Lingus just said. :P)

The problem is that mp3 is a patented digital audio encoding format.  The format for its encoding is not open source, hence why support for mp3 does not come stock with any Linux build, and you have to go and find the external packages that allow for you to use them (so long as it is legal for you).

Yup, that is true. That's why fire fox does not work with you tubes HTML5 player because you tube videos are made in flash and h.264 which is closed like the mp3. That's why i want the next standard to be open when it comes to video. But it looks like h.264 will take over.