I can't watch Periscope without flash:
Since Periscope is pretty new and hype I find it a pity flash is required. My best guess then is that they simply can't.
But what is the technical restriction if one?
I can't say for sure about their own technical restrictions but they are serving the video in chunks of .ts files. It is not impossible for HTML5-based player to handle MPEG-TS streams so I can only assume this is a temporary solution.
Example of an HTML5 player handling .ts format is THEOPlayer. Also DailyMotion released an open-source JavaScript HLS streaming client. If others can already do it now, Twitter will do it soon.
Why Flash? :
It's an easy solution that works same on all browsers that it's installed onto so Edge, Chrome, Safari & Firefox etc so it will each give a consistent result to their user base without specific browser limitations (since it's a plugin).
Why assume temporary? :
First of all as you said it's still new (growing/developing). They have a few job openings for video programmers. This particular job opening requires "Ability to create an interface in HTML, CSS and JavaScript". They are currently using a Flash-based JW Player instead of a custom-made Twitter player. That will change in time.
Related
How does one go about streaming video in HTML5 ? I can go with using a single browser of the latest version if I have to.I need to be able to start playing from any location of the movie even if the entire video has not been loaded by the browser.
WebRTC ?
I've already seen this question and no one has answered.
Does not allow the viewer to skip to the middle of a video in any
browser. They must watch the video straight through start to finish,
which is not ideal.
This is the main point for streaming.
Currently if you want to use pure HTML5 and work cross-browser you are limited to progressive streaming with the <video> element.
While that still does allow the user to skip ahead via the scrubber or programatically by setting the .currentTime there will still be some buffering while the browser re-loads enough content to be comfortable playing smoothly.
Solutions like Smooth Streaming, HLS do not work across browsers today so you would require a Flash or Silverlight plugin, though with MPEG-DASH being recognized by the W3C there is some hope for the future as samples like this demonstrate http://dash-mse-test.appspot.com/release-notes.html
For today however if you want to stick with an HTML5 solution and you have source in a format the works with the browser then you should be fine
Chrome has implemented the Media Source API in the mean time. Hoping the rest will follow.
http://www.w3.org/TR/media-source/
Abstract
This specification extends HTMLMediaElement to allow JavaScript to generate media streams for playback. Allowing JavaScript to generate streams facilitates a variety of use cases like adaptive streaming and time shifting live streams.
I notice that there are many libraries out there for playing HTML5 audio, but ain't the whole idea of HTML5 audio that we don't need a library for this to work properly?
If I don't need Flash fallback, but a simple solution for streaming music (my own) that can also play each track after each other, do I then need a library like jPlayer or Soundmanager2?
I know I need different audio formats, but that's not a problem as I won't have many tracks online.
The "whole idea" of HTML5 audio is that end users and web page authors shouldn't need to rely on a browser plugin to play audio - the functionality should be included in the browser, and controllable directly from standardised HTML/JavaScript.
I haven't used an HTML5 audio library, but looking at the jPlayer and Soundmanager2 home pages, it looks like the main functionality they offer is fallbacks for browsers that don't support HTML5 audio.
I suspect they might also have some built-in custom UI for playing audio though, in case you don't like the native audio controls that browsers provide.
You could use straight-up HTML5, but you'd soon realize that has a whole host of problems.
Library's like jPlayer (which is great by the way) account for many common issues like browser support, optimization and fall-backs etc.
If you want to code all that yourself you can, but a popular library will be leaps ahead and it's the wise choice to take.
The truth is, HTML5 offers very powerful features, but its support is thin at this current moment in time. It's all to make your life easier!
HTML-5 audio actually encompasses two distinct factions at this point. One is the audio tag and the other is the Web Audio API. The former is a quick mechanism for playing an embedding audio files, the latter is a way to play,process and manipulate audio in a low-latency manner acceptable for game development and more professional environments where features like reverb effects,filters,"3D" sound and other characteristics are needed. But to answer your question, the only real reason to use a library for the HTML 5 audio tag is (in my opinion) for backward compatibility between browsers as well as ease of use for things like multi-shot file triggering and event handling.
I'm trying to build a html5 app, part of it requires the recording of audios whose length should be up to a minute and then encode it into 64 based, so I did quite a bit searching and didn't find a good answer.
Are there any ways to record an audio with Html5, Javascript or maybe local APIs on a html5 app, especially on an IOS device?
Html5 doesn't yet have a widely accepted method of recording audio. If you are targeting non-iOS, you can use flash, or any number of javascript wrappers that call out to flash( eg. http://www.sajithmr.me/jrecorder-jquery I think soundmanager2 will also work, but I'm not sure). For iOS, you still need to write an app. :(
Short answer is no for now. Because audio not yet implemented to HTML5 browsers yet.
Method is working but you can't capture any audio.
Well here is a detailed answer for you: Recording html5 audio
This may be too late for a response, but having said that, both Chrome and Firefox now fully support getUserMedia and you can use it along with the AudioContext interface if needed, to capture audio directly from the browser.
The following gitHub project records audio and saves it in MP3 format directly in the browser using just HTML5 and JS.
The audio recording is saved in base64 and can also be directly listened to from the browser after the recording is made.
The project can be found here:
https://github.com/nusofthq/Recordmp3js
and is an extension of RecorderJS that also uses libmp3lame.js.
If you wish you can read more details about the actual implementation:
http://nusofthq.com/blog/recording-mp3-using-only-html5-and-javascript-recordmp3-js/
I want to make a single web application avoiding any flash code. This application must contain videoconference, and I want to implement it in pure HTML5. It is possible? I know about websockets, but don't know really if videoconference can be implemented through them with a relative performance (at least, 24fps + sound at a right resolution, minimum 640x480), and both endpoints being web apps (both endpoints should use browser).
Thanks in advance
Anyone following up this question - on Feb 4th, 2013 they produced the solution with WEBRTC in Chrome and Firefox. For examples see https://hacks.mozilla.org/2013/02/hello-chrome-its-firefox-calling/ or http://www.html5rocks.com/en/tutorials/webrtc/basics/ or https://code.google.com/p/sipservlets/wiki/HTML5WebRTCVideoApplication
You can't really use HTML5 video for live streaming at the moment, and it doesn't have support for web cams yet.
Ericsson has modyfied a WebKit browser and is showing how this can be done with hopfully upcoming HTML5 Stream API. See Beyond HTML5 - Implementing and stream management in WebKit
It is impossible to capture web-cam images/microphone feed just through JavaScript (although there are plug-ins which let you handle output through flash), so it would be necessary for you to have some kind of application/plug-in installed.
The speed part is just for the client to worry. I mean, web sockets will be as fast as the connection permits.
You should do some research about web workers, since they would be very useful for speeding up your application (you could have microphone interface, web-cam interface and UI all with their particular worker, thus never blocking the application or rendering it unresponsive).
EDIT: the aforementioned jQuery plug-in works through the use of <canvas>.
As Jonas said, according to the situations now, we can't build video conference with HTML5. There are many limitations with browsers also. As there is no common video codec supported by all browsers. And live-streaming is also properly supported by safari only(using HTML5 video tag). As per my experience we can't build live-streaming on windows with any browser properly.
But if you wanna get some information about live streaming see https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/documentation/NetworkingInternet/Conceptual/StreamingMediaGuide/Introduction/Introduction.html
you can use this source to test your live-streaming examples
"http://xfunoonx.api.channel.livestream.com/3.0/playlist.m3u8"
This content will work only with safari on Mac.
I want so serve some videos on my site. They are available as .MP4 files gotten from a FlipShare camera.
Now I tried converting them to WMV (which succeeded, but when embedded in html in a <object id='mediaPlayer' width='320' height='285' classid='CLSID:22d6f312-b0f6-11d0-94ab-0080c74c7e95' etc' tag, users have to install an addon and the user experience of 10 Windows Media Players on the site isn't just so good.)
So then I looked at youtube and wondered how they do it, but I can't figure out what format they convert the video to.
So my question is: What format do I have to convert my video to, to show it in a player which does not need to be installed in the users browser. What tool do i need and what is the html code to embed such a video?
As you can see: starting from scratch.
PS: I often hear: This or that file extension is just a container, there can be anything inside. If you're using this in your answer, can you explain this to me, because I never understood this. For me a .cs is a c# file and a .doc a Word file, and not 'a container'.
This isn't an easy question. The basic answer is that you need to use a format that the user's computer already supports. There is no one answer to this question. YouTube encodes videos as MP4 and embeds them in the page with a Flash-based movie player, and Flash is pretty widely supported, but you'll notice that Flash isn't available on a lot of mobile platforms — so anybody using an iPhone is shut out if you go the Flash route.
HTML5 introduces the video tag, which is meant to solve this problem once and for all, but there's still a hiccup even there — most HTML5-enabled browsers support h.264-encoded video, but Mozilla supports Ogg Theora instead. YouTube is currently experimenting with a <video>-based player, so this does seem like the future.
I believe the current best practice to support the most people possible is to encode as h.264, try to serve as a <video> element, and have a Flash-based player as a fallback if that doesn't work (which can play the same h.264 file).
I'd say the most popular solution at the moment - utilized by YouTube and other major video portals - is H.264 encoded Flash-based Video. Flash can play Video since... I think Version 8 or 9, and has since gained significant market share.
My personal favourite Flash player is LongTail Player, but it isn't free for commercial use.
Here's a SO question with a list of Flash based players including open source ones.
Flash won't play on iPhone and iPad, though.
If you want to support computers with Flash Player 9 (I've seen some around, but I don't have any hard numbers) you will need to encode FLV files (which use a codec named Sorenson I think).
The upcoming alternative is HTML 5 Video but suport for that in browsers is nowhere near a major market share.
This question requires a re-answer now that it's no longer 2010 and HTML5 videos (as utilized by most video hosting sites) and chunk-based videos (sent as responses to periodic XHR requests - as utilized by Youtube) are the norm. While there is no best way to add video to your site, Flash is definitely nowhere close to even being good as of the time of writing of this answer.
The simple un-researched answer is: Just use a video tag and it'll work out!
This is simple and intuitive, and should work fine in many of your use-cases.
The researched answer is: Unfortunately, upload the video on Youtube and embed it on your site.
The pros and cons of embedding on Youtube over just having a video tag:
The pros:
Allows you to offer your video in a multitude of qualities.
Very bandwidth efficient. Youtube is bandwidth efficient for your users since it reencodes videos, and is also bandwidth efficient for you since you'll no longer be serving your videos off your own hosting.
Offers features like closed captions, automatic subs, playing at multiple speeds, full screen player, etc.
The cons:
It's a very heavily monetized service, chances are they'll want to put ads on your video if any of its content isn't 100% originally yours.
It has very strict laws/terms and conditions that you need to adhere to, at least in my opinion.
It tracks your users. If your application requires privacy and you can't rely on your users to protect themselves, then Youtube isn't ideal.
Other alternatives that mix the pros and cons of those two options are:
Using a Javascript video library to get HTML5 video along with some of the pros of using youtube, but none of its cons.
Using FFMPEG on the server side, for bandwidth issues.
Using some CDN that supports video to deliver the video, for reliability and bandwidth issues. My current favorites are ones that rely on service workers and the bittorent protocol, to stream from users to each other, but whether that suits you or not depends on your application.
Using AWS storage services to store the video, and AWS gateway/CDN services to serve it, which might be a great solution cost-wise and efficiency-wise if you don't want youtube but don't want to store videos on whatever infrastructure is serving your website.
Sources of this answer: Personal experience. As much as I didn't want to answer from experience, this question really needed a new answer! Feel free to edit it with something more concrete.
Converting your video MPEG-4 with H.264 will get you 97% coverage on current browsers across desktop and mobile, although some Android devices don't support hardware acceleration for this format. To address that you could also serve WebM with VP9 codec.
I wrote up a summary of browser support that might be useful: https://stuartk.com/posts/whats-the-best-html-video-format-to-serve/