|
|
Posted by Spex on 08/21/07 22:47
Neil Smith [MVP Digital Media] wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 16:56:08 +0100, Spex <No.spam@ta.com> wrote:
>
>>> Flash does progressive download, as does Silverlight 1.0
>>> Silverlight 1.1 will do streaming, which Fash doesn't offer.
>> Flash is a mature solution that is highly regarded by developers and end
>> users alike. Silverlight is developed by Microsoft. Which means when
>> they get bored with it you get dumped up shit creek without a paddle.
>> Nuff said...
>
>
> Well, sweeping statements aside, streaming is important if your users
> need to scrub (random access) within the video.Try jumping forward
> with chapters at 20 minutes into a 1 hour presentation from a CEO.
>
> Nuff said.
You seem quite unfamiliar with the Adobe suite. I take it you've not
seen nor used the Encore export to SWF that support full DVD
functionality including chapters.
Your chosen example is a real hoot you must be PC Guy from the Apple
ads. Do you do spreadsheets for fun? I think we've found Silverlight's
niche, CEO speeches. Great! Leave Adobe to produce a suite of software
for the production of rich multimedia and motion graphics content.
>
>
>> Flash streaming servers are not exactly necessary for the vast majority
>> of deployments are they? It is such a highend niche.
>
>
> OK my error, the subject of this group is "rec.video" rather than
> "pro.video".
You tedious twerp. So quickly you show your level.
Clearly setting up a Flash Server and maintaining it is not necessary
for many companies. Even my previous blue chip clients preferred to
lease streaming services (not just Flash) from the many highly reliable
and cost effective with guaranteed uptime.
>
>
>>> Bulk flash encoding software using On2 VP6 costs about $30-40000 which
>>> is why it's taken this long for YouTube to consider that as an option.
>> Well YouTube are encoding all new uploads as H.264 and Adobe have just
>> updated Flash to support H264 as the video codec of choice. Beta
>> available soon if not already.
>
>
>
> So of course I open my mouth, and the very same day Adobe announce
> availability, which changes the landscape and answers considerably :
>
> http://www.kaourantin.net/2007/08/what-just-happened-to-video-on-web_20.html
> http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/adobe_flash_player_moviestar_h264.php
>
> It makes for far more direct comparisons. The only downside I can now
> see is the lockin to flash streaming server for delivery of H264.
You want to see a problem where there isn't one. I think you need to do
your homework on the integration of the Adobe suite of software with the
SWF format. A half competent artist/developer can easily create easily
navigable video content that does not require a server as you keep
suggesting it does.
>
> Unless I'm not able to read correctly, that applies to progressive as
> well as streaming delivery, so it's actually a commercial as much as
> delivery decision whether to buy a flash or windows streaming server
>
> Effectively they've still shut out Darwin to stream that, and looks
> like Red5 is dead in the water until they can hack the player
> behaviour to ignore the flash server signature.
>
> Of course claiming 'licensing of H264' is mostly BS / red herring,
> since Adobe really want to make some serious cash out of Flash now
> it's so widely deployed for video.
Why wouldn't they? Are you suggesting that M$ is releasing Silverlight
out of the goodness of their hearts?
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|