6 ms·

No matter what codec will eventually be widely adopted, I hope native video support for browsers will lead to better video players. Right now, I have issues wit

by bbx 13y ago

No matter what codec will eventually be widely adopted, I hope native video support for browsers will lead to better video players. Right now, I have issues with YouTube (loading speed, quality switching back and forth between 480p, 720p and 240p), Vimeo (still can't jump to a desired position, loads incredibly slowly), various Flash embedded players (won't load, or will reset to 0:00 when trying to change the current position), auto-playing videos, lack of controls, usability issues... I usually end up downloading the video with a Firefox add-on to watch it later. Or just stop bothering and close the tab.

cbhl 13y ago
I've never seen any of those issues -- are you sure your Internet provider isn't throttling video packets with DPI or something?
- redthrowaway 13y ago
  I get the same, and it's not dependent on ISP. Many (most?) flash players are buggy resource hogs, and the html5 implementations I've seen don't feel ready for primetime yet.
  - actionscripted 13y ago
    (Former) Flash nerd here. The problems with plackback and scrubbing are absolutely the fault of the Flash player and there's really nothing you can do about it short of hacking your own video handling into the SWF format. There are a lot of low-level network-related problems in Flash. I have zero real proof, but I know for a long time Adobe (Macromedia) was pushing their streaming server and didn't really put a lot of effort into handling streaming/buffering without it and I suspect this just never got fixed as things were "good enough".
    - krilnon 13y ago
      To be fair, there weren't many (any?) standardized alternatives back then. There was no particular incentive for Adobe to support, say, Red5 when there was no standard to gather around. Apple's HLS is a pretty recent attempt at moving toward a documented standard. If you're talking about streaming .flvs off of a regular Apache setup, then it shouldn't be surprising that scrubbing and seeking are troublesome: static file servers weren't build for that use case. What would you have preferred Adobe to have done?
    - theblackswan 13y ago
      I will partly agree as sometime the problem is due to flash as for scrubbing it must pass on the time and accept the nearest Key frame. But most of the time it is related to netwrok, bandwidth and server packet dispatches. While seeking a new timeline the network and the backend server has to be very receptive. For very popular videos only key frames positions can be cached to enhance experience. We at our video website have made a genuine attempt to optimize these issues. http://bquobe.com/ http://bquobe.com/ let me know your feedback on our buffering and seeking.
wyck 13y ago
This has nothing to do with the codec, the quality issues are bandwidth related, most providers no not want to fork out cash to buffer your video's anymore.
- GhotiFish 13y ago
  they most certainly are player related. I can easily avoid every problem the parent has described on a low quality DSL connection by downloading the video directly and watching the partial download in a native video player. The state of video players on the internet is just flat out terrible. Given how restrictive the policies and philosophies are around downloading the videos and watching them directly, browser players arn't actually competing with native players. I don't think normal people realize just how terrible they are. I can't imagine this situation ever getting better.
  - Amadou 13y ago
    It is yet another hidden price of DRM. The W3C's embrace of DRM won't help either.
  - michaelmior 13y ago
    Not that I disagree, but the argument that it's not bandwidth-related isn't refuted by saying you don't have issues by downloading the video and then playing it with another player.
    - GhotiFish 13y ago
      I said I don't have issues downloading video and playing with another player in low bandwith scenarios.
      - michaelmior 13y ago
        But you said you partially downloaded the video, and then played it? Perhaps I'm missing something, but it sounds like the equivalent of pausing the Flash player and waiting for it to buffer.
Synaesthesia 13y ago
The best experience is from a Safari extension called Youtube-5. It uses so much less CPU power and is so much smoother, it really puts Flash based players to shame, and shows how good the experience could, and should be.
WalterSear 13y ago
I had all those problems until I dropped my ATT DSL for a local provider.
cataflam 13y ago
As others have said in answer, it's absolutely the fault of the various Flash embedded players. It's somewhat easy to prove if you write your own player (not in Flash) to bypass the Flash player of sites like YouTube, Twitch, etc. The experience becomes perfectly smooth (as long as you have the average bandwidth), the video starts quickly, jumping to another point in the video is almost instant.
ChrisNorstrom 13y ago
Use Chrome, install a YouTube buffering plugin that buffers all the way.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
JohnTHaller 13y ago
If you're using a provider like Time Warner that has well-known and longstanding issues between it and Google's caching servers, that could be your issue. Myself and fellow Time Warnians in much of NYC spent about 2 years nearly unable to play anything above 480p. Google was sending everyone from certain blocks of Time Warner to the same caching server and it would get overloaded. There were a couple tricks you could implement at the OS level that would block the overloaded Google servers and get better video, but if you weren't using a router that supported those blocks, you were out of luck on your Xbox, Playstation, etc. Note that things seem to be working better this year, though.
theblackswan 13y ago
Youtube is using adaptive bitrates which keeps checking the connection and push the quality 480,720p etc, but the process is error prone and do too much of polling thus killing user experience. We at our video website: http://bquobe.com/ http://bquobe.com/ have tried to overcome these problems by just generating network token once and streaming accordingly. We have also optimized buffer and random timeline seeking. Currently, the bug for video starting from 0.00s when quality is toggled exists. We would be fixing it soon. There wont be much of a difference with native h264 support just probably limited and related to html5 applications.
unicornporn 13y ago
Blame DASH and learn how to disable it. http://lifehacker.com/preload-entire-youtube-videos-by-disabling-dash-playbac-1186454034 http://lifehacker.com/preload-entire-youtube-videos-by-disab...

by bbx 13y ago

cbhl 13y ago

I've never seen any of those issues -- are you sure your Internet provider isn't throttling video packets with DPI or something?

redthrowaway 13y ago
I get the same, and it's not dependent on ISP. Many (most?) flash players are buggy resource hogs, and the html5 implementations I've seen don't feel ready for primetime yet.
- actionscripted 13y ago
  (Former) Flash nerd here. The problems with plackback and scrubbing are absolutely the fault of the Flash player and there's really nothing you can do about it short of hacking your own video handling into the SWF format. There are a lot of low-level network-related problems in Flash. I have zero real proof, but I know for a long time Adobe (Macromedia) was pushing their streaming server and didn't really put a lot of effort into handling streaming/buffering without it and I suspect this just never got fixed as things were "good enough".
  - krilnon 13y ago
    To be fair, there weren't many (any?) standardized alternatives back then. There was no particular incentive for Adobe to support, say, Red5 when there was no standard to gather around. Apple's HLS is a pretty recent attempt at moving toward a documented standard. If you're talking about streaming .flvs off of a regular Apache setup, then it shouldn't be surprising that scrubbing and seeking are troublesome: static file servers weren't build for that use case. What would you have preferred Adobe to have done?
  - theblackswan 13y ago
    I will partly agree as sometime the problem is due to flash as for scrubbing it must pass on the time and accept the nearest Key frame. But most of the time it is related to netwrok, bandwidth and server packet dispatches. While seeking a new timeline the network and the backend server has to be very receptive. For very popular videos only key frames positions can be cached to enhance experience. We at our video website have made a genuine attempt to optimize these issues. http://bquobe.com/ http://bquobe.com/ let me know your feedback on our buffering and seeking.

wyck 13y ago

This has nothing to do with the codec, the quality issues are bandwidth related, most providers no not want to fork out cash to buffer your video's anymore.

GhotiFish 13y ago
they most certainly are player related. I can easily avoid every problem the parent has described on a low quality DSL connection by downloading the video directly and watching the partial download in a native video player. The state of video players on the internet is just flat out terrible. Given how restrictive the policies and philosophies are around downloading the videos and watching them directly, browser players arn't actually competing with native players. I don't think normal people realize just how terrible they are. I can't imagine this situation ever getting better.
- Amadou 13y ago
  It is yet another hidden price of DRM. The W3C's embrace of DRM won't help either.
- michaelmior 13y ago
  Not that I disagree, but the argument that it's not bandwidth-related isn't refuted by saying you don't have issues by downloading the video and then playing it with another player.
  - GhotiFish 13y ago
    I said I don't have issues downloading video and playing with another player in low bandwith scenarios.
    - michaelmior 13y ago
      But you said you partially downloaded the video, and then played it? Perhaps I'm missing something, but it sounds like the equivalent of pausing the Flash player and waiting for it to buffer.

Synaesthesia 13y ago

The best experience is from a Safari extension called Youtube-5. It uses so much less CPU power and is so much smoother, it really puts Flash based players to shame, and shows how good the experience could, and should be.

WalterSear 13y ago

I had all those problems until I dropped my ATT DSL for a local provider.

cataflam 13y ago

As others have said in answer, it's absolutely the fault of the various Flash embedded players. It's somewhat easy to prove if you write your own player (not in Flash) to bypass the Flash player of sites like YouTube, Twitch, etc. The experience becomes perfectly smooth (as long as you have the average bandwidth), the video starts quickly, jumping to another point in the video is almost instant.

ChrisNorstrom 13y ago

Use Chrome, install a YouTube buffering plugin that buffers all the way.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

JohnTHaller 13y ago

If you're using a provider like Time Warner that has well-known and longstanding issues between it and Google's caching servers, that could be your issue. Myself and fellow Time Warnians in much of NYC spent about 2 years nearly unable to play anything above 480p. Google was sending everyone from certain blocks of Time Warner to the same caching server and it would get overloaded. There were a couple tricks you could implement at the OS level that would block the overloaded Google servers and get better video, but if you weren't using a router that supported those blocks, you were out of luck on your Xbox, Playstation, etc. Note that things seem to be working better this year, though.

theblackswan 13y ago

Youtube is using adaptive bitrates which keeps checking the connection and push the quality 480,720p etc, but the process is error prone and do too much of polling thus killing user experience. We at our video website: http://bquobe.com/ http://bquobe.com/ have tried to overcome these problems by just generating network token once and streaming accordingly. We have also optimized buffer and random timeline seeking. Currently, the bug for video starting from 0.00s when quality is toggled exists. We would be fixing it soon. There wont be much of a difference with native h264 support just probably limited and related to html5 applications.

unicornporn 13y ago

Blame DASH and learn how to disable it. http://lifehacker.com/preload-entire-youtube-videos-by-disabling-dash-playbac-1186454034 http://lifehacker.com/preload-entire-youtube-videos-by-disab...