Video Player
Pages: [1], 2
|
|
Programming Help
|
sprinkles
2009 Sep 6 • 2480
10 ₧
|
I was wondering how to make my own video player for my website. I really don't want to use flash. Any ideas?
...then I got some ap, and shot a big ass lazar at everyone.
|
|
|
|
|
Down Rodeo
Cap'n Moth of the Firehouse
2007 Oct 19 • 5328
57,583 ₧
|
|
|
|
|
|
superjer
superjer
2005 Mar 20 • 3767
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
(Edited 2012 Jan 28 at 21:59)
2012 Jan 28 at 21:59
|
|
|
sprinkles
2009 Sep 6 • 2480
10 ₧
|
I've decided to go with Divx's Web Player.
...then I got some ap, and shot a big ass lazar at everyone.
|
|
|
|
|
Down Rodeo
Cap'n Moth of the Firehouse
2007 Oct 19 • 5328
57,583 ₧
|
|
|
|
|
|
sprinkles
2009 Sep 6 • 2480
10 ₧
|
Or I can use 1 .mkv file.
...then I got some ap, and shot a big ass lazar at everyone.
|
|
|
|
|
Down Rodeo
Cap'n Moth of the Firehouse
2007 Oct 19 • 5328
57,583 ₧
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rockbomb
Dog fucker
2009 Nov 13 • 1943
-190 ₧
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Down Rodeo
Cap'n Moth of the Firehouse
2007 Oct 19 • 5328
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?!
Everyone stares when you walk in the room, they stare when you go....
|
|
|
|
|
(Edited 2012 Jan 29 at 18:13)
2012 Jan 29 at 18:12
|
|
|
sprinkles
2009 Sep 6 • 2480
10 ₧
|
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?
...then I got some ap, and shot a big ass lazar at everyone.
|
|
|
|
|
Rockbomb
Dog fucker
2009 Nov 13 • 1943
-190 ₧
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Down Rodeo
Cap'n Moth of the Firehouse
2007 Oct 19 • 5328
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.
Everyone stares when you walk in the room, they stare when you go....
|
|
|
|
|
Rockbomb
Dog fucker
2009 Nov 13 • 1943
-190 ₧
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
sprinkles
2009 Sep 6 • 2480
10 ₧
|
What fucking img are you talking about?
...then I got some ap, and shot a big ass lazar at everyone.
|
|
|
|
|
Down Rodeo
Cap'n Moth of the Firehouse
2007 Oct 19 • 5328
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?
Everyone stares when you walk in the room, they stare when you go....
|
|
|
|
|
(Edited 2012 Jan 30 at 12:31)
2012 Jan 30 at 12:30
|
|
|
Rockbomb
Dog fucker
2009 Nov 13 • 1943
-190 ₧
|
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...
|
|
|
|
|
Down Rodeo
Cap'n Moth of the Firehouse
2007 Oct 19 • 5328
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.
Everyone stares when you walk in the room, they stare when you go....
|
|
|
|
|
the_cloud_system
polly pushy pants
2008 Aug 1 • 2834
-6 ₧
|
I am on a journey that I hope I will never finish.
|
|
|
|
|
sprinkles
2009 Sep 6 • 2480
10 ₧
|
All this shit over an image off google? lulz.
...then I got some ap, and shot a big ass lazar at everyone.
|
|
|
|
|
Down Rodeo
Cap'n Moth of the Firehouse
2007 Oct 19 • 5328
57,583 ₧
|
|
|
|
|
|
SRAW
Rocket Man
2007 Nov 6 • 2147
601 ₧
|
DR uses a 56k modem so thats why he complains and bitches and moans over trivial matters such as this, true story
|
|
|
|
|
Down Rodeo
Cap'n Moth of the Firehouse
2007 Oct 19 • 5328
57,583 ₧
|
|
|
|
|
|
sprinkles
2009 Sep 6 • 2480
10 ₧
|
I told youtube to make my videos 3d.
...then I got some ap, and shot a big ass lazar at everyone.
|
|
|
|
|
SRAW
Rocket Man
2007 Nov 6 • 2147
601 ₧
|
Down Rodeo said: When I play Battlefield, my character appears to go back in time.
That made me LoL for no reason lol
|
|
|
|
|
Down Rodeo
Cap'n Moth of the Firehouse
2007 Oct 19 • 5328
57,583 ₧
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
