online vids too dark.. why ?
in [UK Mac]
|
From: zoara on 2 Mar 2010 06:50 R <me32(a)privacy.net> wrote: > zoara <me18(a)privacy.net> wrote: > > > In that case, screenshots showing a selection of players against a > > reference image might help. > > Do screenshots capture what is shown before or after > GPU gamma LUT correction has been applied? Just > wondering :) Surely a screenshot shows the actual pixels blatted onto the screen? Or am I being incredibly naive? If I'm right, we won't see what the OP is seeing due to differences in monitor setup and so on, but we *will* see a relative difference between the video and the reference image. But now I'm really not sure I've understood... Perhaps a photo of the screen would help? (I'm sorta half joking and half serious) -z- -- email: nettid1 at fastmail dot fm
From: zoara on 2 Mar 2010 06:50 Peter Ceresole <peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk> wrote: > zoara <me18(a)privacy.net> wrote: > > > I'm not overly bothered about all this > > content needing a proprietary viewer to access it, unless that > > viewer is > > crappy. Which it is, in my experience. If I was having your > > experience > > (oh, to be in CeresoleWorld) then it would bother me enough to > > discuss > > as a point of interest but not enough to get pissed off with it and > > want > > to see the back of it. > > Our experience clearly clearly differs, although it may be simply that > I > don't get excercised about the problems I do see. Probably. I'm good at getting exercised. Having said that, if you were having my experience I think you'd notice, and find it irritating. Perhaps it's because I'm on a laptop? The three irritants when using Flash are: • Battery life is reduced by up to half • It gets too hot to leave on my lap. I have one of the generation known for getting overly hot, but when you have to have an inch (no exaggeration) of newspaper on your legs just to stop the uncomfortable heat, you know something's wrong. • The fans ramp up to full, making it hard to hear the wheedly laptop speakers. I can watch half an hour of Quicktime content on my lap without it being too hot, and an hour or two at the end of the bed without recharging [1] or using external speakers. Flash video results in just 5 minutes for the former and maybe 30-45 minutes for the latter (including having to use external speakers). So yeah, it's not really just whinging for the sake of it. > As it is, my main hours using Flash are spent viewing the iPlayer, and > there I see no problems at all. Yeah. It's the iPlayer which is exactly the point where these problems surface. Nowhere else do I regularly watch Flash videos more than 5 or so minutes. Oh, and here's something that popped up in my feeds today; the guy who won pwn2own for two years running was asked which is the most secure browser + OS. Surprisingly he reckons IE8 on Windows 7 is as good as anything, so long as Flash isn't installed. He implies that the main attack vector for browsers is the Flash plugin - http://bit.ly/avOhvM -z- [1] it would be longer but I need a new battery. -- email: nettid1 at fastmail dot fm
From: Ben Shimmin on 2 Mar 2010 07:32 zoara <me18(a)privacy.net>: [...] > There's a nice (though basic) demo of a flash-style animation (ie not > just video) of an AT-AT done in pure CSS3 at http://bit.ly/9BMawP That's nice, but seriously, look at the source (the master.css file). It's utterly hideous. b. -- <bas(a)bas.me.uk> <URL:http://bas.me.uk/> `Zombies are defined by behavior and can be "explained" by many handy shortcuts: the supernatural, radiation, a virus, space visitors, secret weapons, a Harvard education and so on.' -- Roger Ebert
From: Ben Shimmin on 2 Mar 2010 07:46 zoara <me18(a)privacy.net>: > Ben Shimmin <bas(a)llamaselector.com> wrote: [...] >> (I also look at the source to these things and boggle at the >> *ridiculous* >> effort that using CSS animation and JavaScript requires to do things >> that are actually quite trivial in Flash. But hey ho.) > > Yes. That point is not to be underestimated. People are lazy (and > rightly so). However, bigger sites have CEOs who might buy an iPad then > shout at the employees when they discover their Flash-based company site > doesn't work on their new toy. That might push things a bit. "I don't > care if it's a lot of work, I can't have our bloody site look like > this!" ....at which point I would, once again, be updating my CV. Flash is way ahead of HTML5 and CSS3 as it currently stands, and ActionScript is actually a pretty decent language (despite some things missing in comparison with Java that drive me nuts. Hello, Collections). As a case in point, the kind of Flash games we all like to waste time playing would be a nightmare to write in anything other than Flash, right now. b. -- <bas(a)bas.me.uk> <URL:http://bas.me.uk/> `Zombies are defined by behavior and can be "explained" by many handy shortcuts: the supernatural, radiation, a virus, space visitors, secret weapons, a Harvard education and so on.' -- Roger Ebert
From: Peter Ceresole on 2 Mar 2010 08:15
Ben Shimmin <bas(a)llamaselector.com> wrote: > That's nice, but seriously, look at the source (the master.css file). > It's utterly hideous. Not just that, but how many browsers/OSs have Webkit? And can it be made to work, in principle, in those browsers/systems? If not, there's a serious problem. Insurmountable, even. -- Peter |