6 ms·

Adobe releases Flash to HTML5 converter

106 points by siddhant 16y ago

BoppreH 16y ago
Now we will have a great environment to work with when HTML5 gets solid acceptance. Can we stop with the silly demos, people complaining "it doesn't work on my browser!" and articles on how a couple of tags would kill Flash? I for one can't wait to have the best of both worlds. EDIT: The adobe page on Wallaby links to a "release notes" wiki page and a forum board. Both are suspiciously empty.
shadowpwner 16y ago
Wow.. I wonder what extent the animations stay the same after the conversion. Can anyone throw up a before and after?
- dools 16y ago
  I can certainly throw up at the thought of a Flash to HTML5 converter ...
thailandstartup 16y ago
http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/wallaby/ http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/wallaby/ >"Wallaby" is the codename for an experimental technology that converts the artwork and animation contained in Adobe® Flash® Professional (FLA) files into HTML. Not quite as exciting as a SWF -> HTML5 converter. I wonder about the feasability of that.
- jcitme 16y ago
  uneditable html, probably.
  - nailer 16y ago
    Did you actually look at the converted HTML?
- balakk 16y ago
  Would be probably similar to the HTML output from Microsoft Word.
bane 16y ago
Next up, endless complaint about how Adobe's javascript code is slow, or they're doing something horrible to the canvas or some other B.S. (I can't wait for my quad core computer to grind to a halt with dozens of unblockable canvas advertisements wallpapering every website I go to from now on...sigh, the end is near)
- jmah 16y ago
  Unblockable? No, you'd block them just as you block JPEG and GIF banners (and crappy iframes) now.
  - JonnieCache 16y ago
    If anything it should be easier to block them as it's simpler to inspect the inside of a javascript/canvas banner than a flash one, from the context of a browser extension.
- bobds 16y ago
  NoScript to the rescue, it can block all kinds of embedded content, even custom fonts.
  - damncabbage 16y ago
    Or entire websites! (Thanks for the javascript ball of mud, Gawker.)
program 16y ago
I'm playing with the tool and it seems that actionscript 3 isn't supported.
- thailandstartup 16y ago
  How about Actionscript 2? Flash basically has two VMs . . . one is used to run legacy content (up to Flash 8, AS2), the other for newer content (Flash 9+, AS3). But my reading of the project page suggested it was just converting graphical and animation elements in .FLA files.
  - program 16y ago
    I have tried different .fla and if there is a line of actionscript (even if not used) the conversion fails. http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2011/03/wallaby-flash-to-html5-conversion-tool-now-available.html http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2011/03/wallaby-flash-to-html5-...
    - tsta 16y ago
      Same here. I have tried all the samples from http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flash/samples.html http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flash/samples.html - and everytime the result is "FLA version not supported"
tomelders 16y ago
What don't Adobe get? It's not that Flash is bad "just" because it's not HTML5, it's also bad because it enables crap things. HTML5 or not, that's always going to be the case.
- iron_ball 16y ago
  HTML (1 through 5) enable "crap things" too. As long as skilled users can create quality products, who cares what everyone else does?
  - tomelders 16y ago
    But it's not skilled users using it? Nor is it an informed public using it. Even if those two ingredients did come together, Flash itself would still be a resource hungry, unstable dog.
- andybak 16y ago
  This kind of knee-jerk anti-Flash thing is getting tiresome. We get it. You don't like animated ads. I don't like them either. You can make annoying animations using any technology. Are you seriously implying that animation/interactivity in general is a bad thing? I seriously doubt that. Stop blaming the tools. Use Adblock and get over it.
  - wlievens 16y ago
    Flash is great when used for the right purpose. HTML is great when used for the right purpose, too. Some may overlap; no problem as competition is good for tech. What bothers people is the fact that sometimes entire websites that would work perfectly in HTML are built in Flash.
    - andybak 16y ago
      I quite agree but Apple's anti-Flash play has almost certainly made this a thing of the past. OP seems to be saying something different and altogether less defensible: "Anything made with Flash is bad". This is denying an entire range of applications that are currently unfeasible with HTML-based technologies.
jasonkester 16y ago
Testing it out, it seems to be a dialog that accepts .fla files and tells you it can't convert them. At least that's all I could get it to do with any of my Flash projects. Has anybody managed to find a subset of Flash that it will actually convert?
- NetMonkey 16y ago
  It worked pretty well with an animation from an old project: Html5: http://enwire.dk/Wallaby/Html5/ http://enwire.dk/Wallaby/Html5/ Flash: http://enwire.dk/Wallaby/Flash/ http://enwire.dk/Wallaby/Flash/ At least it works in Chrome but it looks kinda funny in IE9. For basic animations it could probably be useful.
  - nailer 16y ago
    Looking at it in Chrome (no love in FF3, but I suspect FF4 willchnage that) I'm actually impressed. That's a reasonable 1.0 effort.
    - andybak 16y ago
      FF4 isn't slated to support CSS animations AFAIK
  - joakin 16y ago
    Having some Chrome about:flags turned on this hanged my machine... Lesson learned!
  - 83457 16y ago
    Actually looks better to me in chrome/html5 than flash.
- prr 16y ago
  I managed to get one of my designers' fla animations to compile... ...into a very static (non animated) page. Apparently it doesn't do dynamic masks, which pretty much rules out any Flash design project I have ever worked on since about 2001. Also, how is this better than http://smokescreen.us/ http://smokescreen.us/?
Newky 16y ago
Regardless of performance at this point, I still can't see how this can be a negative thing. Hat's off to Adobe for now, as I can't see anything evil in this.
- mlok 16y ago
  Two possible negative things : 1. It could be the Microsoft scenario : Embrace. Extend. Extinguish. 2. This tool could be used to spread FUD : "Look this is my project converted into html5, it looked much better in Flash"
  - Newky 16y ago
    This could really easily happen, and I take your points on board. Hopefully they are only doing the first 2 e's of point 1 and they can prove to be a notable addition to html5. Maybe I am being overly optimistic.
  - andybak 16y ago
    How is 1 even possible when they don't control the platform?
  - windsurfer 16y ago
    1 is impossible because Adobe does not control the platform. 2 isn't really possible since Adobe could easily be proven wrong. Adobe is very much in favour of HTML5, and they only care about their development tools. By releasing a converter, they improve their expensive toos.
  - queenOfEngland 16y ago
    Adobe makes authoring tools, and directly makes no money on Flash Player: If advertisers need a way to attack every iOS user with ads, Adobe wants to be there with a tool. However I laugh at point #2 -- it is simply inconceivable that Flash, with over a decade of a head start in heavy animation, actually does look better in many cases (which it does) -- it has to be FUD.
    - 16y ago
zrgiu 16y ago
when action script will easily be converted to html5, then all mobile apps will finally move to the cloud
andybak 16y ago
Currently Webkit only (uses CSS3 animation with the Webkit prefix). Did a fairly good job on a keyframe/tween animation I'd done. There were a few problems with masked images but I imagine that could be fixed. Most features are supported where the HTML/CSS equivalent exists. No support for any Actionscript conversion (oh if only AS3 hadn't decided to reinvent itself as Java 2 this might have been possible). Questions: 1. How modular is the code produced? Could I easily use Flash to create chunks of animation but then control them via Javascript? 2. Will Mozilla ever support CSS Animation? Last I heard they weren't too keen on it. 3. IE? Scratch that. I'm not even going to ask.
- bdonlan 16y ago
  Compiling Java to JavaScript is far from impossible - GWT manages to do it, for example. I don't know if Adobe is willing to go that far, though...
  - andybak 16y ago
    True. Compilation isn't an ideal solution however as you end up with code that's not human readable or editable. I wanted to make the point that Javascript and Actionscript used to be so similar that some form of conversion that left the code usable might have been possible.
    - streptomycin 16y ago
      > Compilation isn't an ideal solution however as you end up with code that's not human readable or editable Sounds pretty ideal for Adobe.
- sudont 16y ago
  "Webkit only" Most likely targeting certain mobile platforms that don't support Flash, so that they can still claim their tool is "write once, build everywhere," even if one build target isn't. Kudos, I'm happy to see Adobe move back towards building tools rather than platforms.
- xiongchiamiov 16y ago
marcamillion 16y ago
I have not read this article, but I would never use this. I hate these converters that take one language and 'port' them to another one. Especially any made by Adobe.
- gloob 16y ago
  I'm actually a big fan of compilers, but maybe I'm just old.
ItsBilly 16y ago
http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/Wallaby#Release_Notes http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/Wallaby#Release_Notes "Actionscript 1,2 - Unsupported" "Actionscript 3 - Unsupported" Then it's not Flash. I really don't have a need to convert any animations from 2002 into the hippest standards. I've never thought to myself "Boy, All Your Base is still really funny, but if only the underlying technology that powered it was open and modern....."

106 points by siddhant 16y ago

Now we will have a great environment to work with when HTML5 gets solid acceptance. Can we stop with the silly demos, people complaining "it doesn't work on my browser!" and articles on how a couple of tags would kill Flash? I for one can't wait to have the best of both worlds. EDIT: The adobe page on Wallaby links to a "release notes" wiki page and a forum board. Both are suspiciously empty.

shadowpwner 16y ago

Wow.. I wonder what extent the animations stay the same after the conversion. Can anyone throw up a before and after?

dools 16y ago
I can certainly throw up at the thought of a Flash to HTML5 converter ...

thailandstartup 16y ago

http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/wallaby/ http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/wallaby/ >"Wallaby" is the codename for an experimental technology that converts the artwork and animation contained in Adobe® Flash® Professional (FLA) files into HTML. Not quite as exciting as a SWF -> HTML5 converter. I wonder about the feasability of that.

jcitme 16y ago
uneditable html, probably.
- nailer 16y ago
  Did you actually look at the converted HTML?
balakk 16y ago
Would be probably similar to the HTML output from Microsoft Word.

bane 16y ago

Next up, endless complaint about how Adobe's javascript code is slow, or they're doing something horrible to the canvas or some other B.S. (I can't wait for my quad core computer to grind to a halt with dozens of unblockable canvas advertisements wallpapering every website I go to from now on...sigh, the end is near)

jmah 16y ago
Unblockable? No, you'd block them just as you block JPEG and GIF banners (and crappy iframes) now.
- JonnieCache 16y ago
  If anything it should be easier to block them as it's simpler to inspect the inside of a javascript/canvas banner than a flash one, from the context of a browser extension.
bobds 16y ago
NoScript to the rescue, it can block all kinds of embedded content, even custom fonts.
- damncabbage 16y ago
  Or entire websites! (Thanks for the javascript ball of mud, Gawker.)

program 16y ago

I'm playing with the tool and it seems that actionscript 3 isn't supported.

thailandstartup 16y ago
How about Actionscript 2? Flash basically has two VMs . . . one is used to run legacy content (up to Flash 8, AS2), the other for newer content (Flash 9+, AS3). But my reading of the project page suggested it was just converting graphical and animation elements in .FLA files.
- program 16y ago
  I have tried different .fla and if there is a line of actionscript (even if not used) the conversion fails. http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2011/03/wallaby-flash-to-html5-conversion-tool-now-available.html http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2011/03/wallaby-flash-to-html5-...
  - tsta 16y ago
    Same here. I have tried all the samples from http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flash/samples.html http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flash/samples.html - and everytime the result is "FLA version not supported"

tomelders 16y ago

What don't Adobe get? It's not that Flash is bad "just" because it's not HTML5, it's also bad because it enables crap things. HTML5 or not, that's always going to be the case.

iron_ball 16y ago
HTML (1 through 5) enable "crap things" too. As long as skilled users can create quality products, who cares what everyone else does?
- tomelders 16y ago
  But it's not skilled users using it? Nor is it an informed public using it. Even if those two ingredients did come together, Flash itself would still be a resource hungry, unstable dog.
andybak 16y ago
This kind of knee-jerk anti-Flash thing is getting tiresome. We get it. You don't like animated ads. I don't like them either. You can make annoying animations using any technology. Are you seriously implying that animation/interactivity in general is a bad thing? I seriously doubt that. Stop blaming the tools. Use Adblock and get over it.
- wlievens 16y ago
  Flash is great when used for the right purpose. HTML is great when used for the right purpose, too. Some may overlap; no problem as competition is good for tech. What bothers people is the fact that sometimes entire websites that would work perfectly in HTML are built in Flash.
  - andybak 16y ago
    I quite agree but Apple's anti-Flash play has almost certainly made this a thing of the past. OP seems to be saying something different and altogether less defensible: "Anything made with Flash is bad". This is denying an entire range of applications that are currently unfeasible with HTML-based technologies.

jasonkester 16y ago

Testing it out, it seems to be a dialog that accepts .fla files and tells you it can't convert them. At least that's all I could get it to do with any of my Flash projects. Has anybody managed to find a subset of Flash that it will actually convert?

NetMonkey 16y ago
It worked pretty well with an animation from an old project: Html5: http://enwire.dk/Wallaby/Html5/ http://enwire.dk/Wallaby/Html5/ Flash: http://enwire.dk/Wallaby/Flash/ http://enwire.dk/Wallaby/Flash/ At least it works in Chrome but it looks kinda funny in IE9. For basic animations it could probably be useful.
- nailer 16y ago
  Looking at it in Chrome (no love in FF3, but I suspect FF4 willchnage that) I'm actually impressed. That's a reasonable 1.0 effort.
  - andybak 16y ago
    FF4 isn't slated to support CSS animations AFAIK
- joakin 16y ago
  Having some Chrome about:flags turned on this hanged my machine... Lesson learned!
- 83457 16y ago
  Actually looks better to me in chrome/html5 than flash.
prr 16y ago
I managed to get one of my designers' fla animations to compile... ...into a very static (non animated) page. Apparently it doesn't do dynamic masks, which pretty much rules out any Flash design project I have ever worked on since about 2001. Also, how is this better than http://smokescreen.us/ http://smokescreen.us/?

Newky 16y ago

Regardless of performance at this point, I still can't see how this can be a negative thing. Hat's off to Adobe for now, as I can't see anything evil in this.

mlok 16y ago
Two possible negative things : 1. It could be the Microsoft scenario : Embrace. Extend. Extinguish. 2. This tool could be used to spread FUD : "Look this is my project converted into html5, it looked much better in Flash"
- Newky 16y ago
  This could really easily happen, and I take your points on board. Hopefully they are only doing the first 2 e's of point 1 and they can prove to be a notable addition to html5. Maybe I am being overly optimistic.
- andybak 16y ago
  How is 1 even possible when they don't control the platform?
- windsurfer 16y ago
  1 is impossible because Adobe does not control the platform. 2 isn't really possible since Adobe could easily be proven wrong. Adobe is very much in favour of HTML5, and they only care about their development tools. By releasing a converter, they improve their expensive toos.
- queenOfEngland 16y ago
  Adobe makes authoring tools, and directly makes no money on Flash Player: If advertisers need a way to attack every iOS user with ads, Adobe wants to be there with a tool. However I laugh at point #2 -- it is simply inconceivable that Flash, with over a decade of a head start in heavy animation, actually does look better in many cases (which it does) -- it has to be FUD.
  - 16y ago

zrgiu 16y ago

when action script will easily be converted to html5, then all mobile apps will finally move to the cloud

andybak 16y ago

Currently Webkit only (uses CSS3 animation with the Webkit prefix). Did a fairly good job on a keyframe/tween animation I'd done. There were a few problems with masked images but I imagine that could be fixed. Most features are supported where the HTML/CSS equivalent exists. No support for any Actionscript conversion (oh if only AS3 hadn't decided to reinvent itself as Java 2 this might have been possible). Questions: 1. How modular is the code produced? Could I easily use Flash to create chunks of animation but then control them via Javascript? 2. Will Mozilla ever support CSS Animation? Last I heard they weren't too keen on it. 3. IE? Scratch that. I'm not even going to ask.

bdonlan 16y ago
Compiling Java to JavaScript is far from impossible - GWT manages to do it, for example. I don't know if Adobe is willing to go that far, though...
- andybak 16y ago
  True. Compilation isn't an ideal solution however as you end up with code that's not human readable or editable. I wanted to make the point that Javascript and Actionscript used to be so similar that some form of conversion that left the code usable might have been possible.
  - streptomycin 16y ago
    > Compilation isn't an ideal solution however as you end up with code that's not human readable or editable Sounds pretty ideal for Adobe.
sudont 16y ago
"Webkit only" Most likely targeting certain mobile platforms that don't support Flash, so that they can still claim their tool is "write once, build everywhere," even if one build target isn't. Kudos, I'm happy to see Adobe move back towards building tools rather than platforms.
xiongchiamiov 16y ago

marcamillion 16y ago

I have not read this article, but I would never use this. I hate these converters that take one language and 'port' them to another one. Especially any made by Adobe.

gloob 16y ago
I'm actually a big fan of compilers, but maybe I'm just old.

ItsBilly 16y ago

http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/Wallaby#Release_Notes http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/Wallaby#Release_Notes "Actionscript 1,2 - Unsupported" "Actionscript 3 - Unsupported" Then it's not Flash. I really don't have a need to convert any animations from 2002 into the hippest standards. I've never thought to myself "Boy, All Your Base is still really funny, but if only the underlying technology that powered it was open and modern....."