HTML5 vs Flash: War on the Horizon

[admin]

With both YouTube and Vimeo rolling out HTML5 versions of their website (see here and here), for testing right now, the writing may be on the wall for Flash video. And this may also explain why the Apple iPad doesn't include Flash.

HTML5 will have built in support for Flash type video content, and it comes with many advantages over Flash. First of all, it will be an industry standard, meaning more and more browsers will start supporting it and you won't need to install Flash before you can use sites like YouTube and Vimeo. It also theoretically makes for smoother and a better playback experience, with instant video skipping as opposed to waiting for buffers to catch up.

The problem though is that with the YouTube/Vimeo experiments, only the Chrome and Safari browsers are supported for now. There's also no fullscreen mode, no embedding support, and uploaded videos will have to be converted (by YouTube/Vimeo) in one of the formats supported by HTML5 (namely H.264). Many of these limitations will be removed in the future, of course.

The Apple iPad won't include Flash support but will support HTML5, and so YouTube and Vimeo's HTML5 support is very much welcomed.

But what will this mean for Flash, especially in terms of video apps? Flash has been incredibly useful, but it is still a third party proprietary format that we've been dependent on for too long perhaps. Imagine having to install an add-on just to be able to view JPEG images on webpages, and with Flash type content becoming more and more integrated into websites, that's what the situation will be like without some kind of industry standard in place. And that's what HTML5 tries to deliver. Whether it succeeds or not, we'll have to wait and see.

More:

http://gizmodo.com/5454115/first-youtube-now-vimeo-how-html5-could-finally-kill-flash-video

[cynthia]

Anything that can get rid of a program that still doesn't support x64 is good in my book.

[dr_ml422]

Admin you talking about the Adobe Flash Player one has to install in order to watch some videos or clips on sites etc...?

I didn't know Flash Player didn't support x64? How am I watching videos on IE if it doesn't? I have 7 x64 Home. Unless you mean IE in x64?

[admin]

The Adobe Flash Player doesn't have a version for the 64-bit version of IE, so you'll have to use the 32-bit version of IE under 64-bit Windows to get Flash working. The next version is supposed to support it as well as GPU accelerated decoding, but 10.1 has been in beta for months without any clue as to when the final version is due.

I've tested HTML5 mode on Vimeo, and it works great. YouTube on the other hand, I'm getting pixelated video and it doesn't look too good (this is using Chrome in XP, BTW). Not all videos on YouTube will be HTML5 enabled, only the ones when it has the HTML5 logo on loading will be using HTML5.

[dr_ml422]

You mean the GPU as of now is not being fully used to it's potential because of lack of support from Adobe Flash Player? Are you talking about 64 bit specifically w/the GPU accelerated decoding? In other words using IE x64 will not as well make full use of one's GPU?

X64 is here. I still have no clue as to why software developers are not getting it yet. It's soon to be standard. Hello!

[admin]

Currently, everything is decoded via the CPU, which is very inefficient at taking on video decoding compared to graphics card GPUs. This is for all systems, not just 64-bit. I posted some test results with and without video acceleration here:

http://forum.digital-digest.com/showthread.php?t=92414

[dr_ml422]

I tested the link and finally got a straight play on the 1080 P. My CPU just hit 25%. I guess when the Adobe Flash gets updated it'll get better? I have a 9500 BFG Nvidia card and AMD Phenom II CPU Triple Core. DDR 3 Ram.

[admin]

Did you test with this video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XITHbsUUlYI

Click on the resolution selector and select 1080p (doesn't have to be fullscreen), and then wait for the video to buffer completely before playing. Do you still get the same CPU usage?

[dr_ml422]

Did you test with this video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XITHbsUUlYI

Click on the resolution selector and select 1080p (doesn't have to be fullscreen), and then wait for the video to buffer completely before playing. Do you still get the same CPU usage?

Where's the buffer that red line that fills up slowly? I thought that was the playback indicator? It stutters. Doesn't let me watch the whole thing through. Can't be anything on my end.

It does it as well in 720P. In the other settings it goes straight through. I'm watching H.264 on my PC w/no problem. Maybe from the web is different?

[admin]

Just press play and then pause the video, the light red bar will fill up (that's the buffer) and when it goes all the way to the end, press play to play the video.

If it stutters, then perhaps it's using too much CPU (have task manager open and check the CPU usage). On my C2D E8500, the CPU usage is between 40% and 60%, with no stuttering. The CPU usage is higher if you engage fullscreen mode.

Flash is not as efficient as say ffdshow or the built in Windows 7 H.264 codec, so it would be natural for even higher quality 1080p video files to work flawlessly on your system, but Flash H.264 to stutter. With 1080p H.264 files, my CPU usage is barely above 20%. And when using GPU assisted decoding (via PowerDVD 9 Ultra's DirectX VA support), CPU usage drops to around 5%. This is in XP btw, 7 may have slightly higher CPU usages for all types. This is why bringing in GPU assisted decoding for Flash is so essential, as the CPU usage will probably drop down to 5% to 10% on most systems.

[dr_ml422]

I did it. I let it fill up and pressed play. My CPU was steady at around 16% rarely spiking to no more than 20%. My CPU must be really good and I do have a nvidia 9500 GPU card so I guess it is using the Pure Video. It was a excellent picture. I didn't know you had to pause on these clips on the web to let them fill up before playing? I always thought it was a slow internet connection or something. Every time I would go to my sports site to check out the videos it would stutter at 1st then straighten out. Now I know.

BTW I'm using IE 8. Is this HTML5 being used by Google/FF already or just by Chrome/Safari? I ask only because Google.com which I use w/IE 8 has to be viewed in compatibility mode. That seemed strange as I thought Google was more advanced than IE 8. I was having issues last night w/my webcam until the compatibility kicked in and I installed 2 updates I was procrastinating with.

Or is it the other way around? IE 8 is not up to date regarding the most recent webware or w/e?

[admin]

In the latest development, Opera 10.5 Beta comes with HTML5 support, but it will only support the open source Ogg Theora codec, not H.264 that both YouTube and Vimeo are using.

The Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group (WHATWG) may have dropped the ball on designing the HTML5 standard, as they backed down from specifying which codec would be used, allowing browser makers to make the decision themselves. Ogg Theora is popular with browser makers because of its open source license, whereas H.264's licensing is costly and confusing. But H.264 has industry and hardware support, and has superior performance and quality to Ogg Theora.

More:

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Opera-10-5-Beta-Adds-More-Fuel-to-the-Fire-in-the-HTML5-Video-Dispute-134852.shtml

[dr_ml422]

Did you get a update advisory for Flash? I had one pop up on me this morning. Don't know how as my modem was off, but I think maybe they updated for the x64 or other support they were lagging on. Has it been updated 4 HTML 5?

[admin]

I think that was just a security fix. Still no sign of 10.1, other than the usual "it's coming soon" from Adobe.

[dr_ml422]

I had no idea Flash would even have security issues. Then again anything on the web can really. Maybe that's even another good reason for integration w/in the browser w/HTML 5.