HTML5 <video> and <audio> support for several browsers


C

cwdjrxyz

I now have a page at http://www.cwdjr.net/html5/layoutDemoWithIEfix3.html
that uses valid html5 code and gives examples of use of <video> and
<audio> of html5 for media only. In the first place, most browsers now
will offer only one or two house video or audio formats, and these are
not the same in various browsers. Thus you have to provide at least 3
format choices for video and audio for all 7 of the browsers that
could use <video> and <audio>. I use a Microsoft conditional script
from Google to force IE 7 & 8 to render much more of html5, but alas
this script will not force them to render <video> and <audio>. Thus
you must have IE9 beta to see the <video> and <audio> media on IE. You
can check what of html5 each browser supports by going to http://www.html5test.com
on the browser being checked.

Starting with IE9 beta, the audio is a snap because it can use mp3.
However video was a lot of trouble. You need a special mp4 file
called AVC with codec H264, and an encoder for this format is not
always easy to find free or at a low price. There is/was a low cost
encoder that will do this, but I have forgotten the name of it. I used
the Sony Pro Vegas 9 to encode set up as:

Source: 5 Mbps .mpg (mpeg2)
Vegas Pro 9.0
Saved as type MainConcept AVC/AAC (.mp4), width 640, height 640, frame
rate 29.97,
field order - upper field first, pixel aspct ratio - 1.0, reference
frames 2,
variable bit rate - 2 pass, maximum bps - 2000000, average bps -
768000, YUV;
audio - 128 Kbps, stereo AAC

The video was good, but when you use it on a html page using the html5
<video> the video becomes distorted. See http://www.cwdjr.net/html5/IE9_640x480MP4avcH264.png
.. You can take this mp4 and run it through Apple's pay Pro QT player
to easily convert it to .mov for use on a Safari browser. However when
you view on Safari for Windows, the video is distorted, but in a
different way than for the mp4 on IE9 beta. See the screen shot at
http://www.cwdjr.net/html5/Safari640x480mov.png . It turns out that
this problem on both IE bata and Safari is resolved by making the
video field a square, in this case 640x640. Then the video is not
distorted, but there are blank strips at the top and bottom of the
video field.

The Chrome browser had a big black box just to the left of the video.
However this problem is solved easily by changing a little css to make
the background-color black for the division containing the video.

Since valid conventional code for media also works on html5, I intend
to use it for media until html5 is final and has a few less bugs.
Although there are $ and political reasons why some large companies
are pushing html5 so much, it is not ready for prime time for me. If
you want IE users to view video, you are going to also have to to
provide a conventional video path until most IE7 and 8 browsers are
gone, or Google or someone else can provide an expanded script to
force IE7 and 8 to support <video>.
 
Ad

Advertisements

C

cwdjrxyz

I now have a page athttp://www.cwdjr.net/html5/layoutDemoWithIEfix3.html
that uses valid html5 code and gives examples of use of <video> and
<audio> of html5 for media only. In the first place, most browsers now
will offer only one or two house video or audio formats, and these are
not the same in various browsers. Thus you have to provide at least 3
format choices for video and audio for all 7 of the browsers that
could use <video> and <audio>. I use a Microsoft conditional script
from Google to force IE 7 & 8 to render much more of html5, but alas
this script will not force them to render <video> and <audio>. Thus
you must have IE9 beta to see the <video> and <audio> media on IE. You
can check what of html5 each browser supports by going tohttp://www.html5test.com
on the browser being checked.

Starting with IE9 beta, the audio is a snap because it can use mp3.
However video was a lot of trouble. You need a special mp4 file
called  AVC with codec H264, and an encoder for this format is not
always easy to find free or at a low price. There is/was a low cost
encoder that will do this, but I have forgotten the name of it. I used
the Sony Pro Vegas 9 to encode set up as:

Source: 5 Mbps .mpg (mpeg2)
Vegas Pro 9.0
Saved as type MainConcept AVC/AAC (.mp4), width 640, height 640, frame
rate 29.97,
field order - upper field first, pixel aspct ratio - 1.0, reference
frames 2,
variable bit rate - 2 pass, maximum bps -  2000000, average bps -
768000, YUV;
audio - 128 Kbps, stereo AAC

The video was good, but when you use it on a html page using the html5
<video> the video becomes distorted. Seehttp://www.cwdjr.net/html5/IE9_640x480MP4avcH264.png
. You can take this mp4 and run it through Apple's pay Pro QT player
to easily convert it to .mov for use on a Safari browser. However when
you view on Safari for Windows, the video is distorted, but in a
different way than for the mp4 on IE9 beta. See  the screen shot athttp://www.cwdjr.net/html5/Safari640x480mov.png. It turns out that
this problem on both IE bata and Safari is resolved by making the
video field a square, in this case 640x640. Then the video is not
distorted, but there are blank strips at the top and bottom of the
video field.

The Chrome browser had a big black box just to the left of the video.
However this problem is solved easily by changing a little css to make
the background-color black for the division containing the video.

Since valid conventional code for media also works on html5, I intend
to use it for media until html5 is final and has a few less bugs.
Although there are $ and political reasons why some large companies
are pushing html5 so much, it is not ready for prime time for me. If
you want IE users to view video, you are going to also have to to
provide a conventional video path until most IE7 and 8 browsers are
gone, or Google or someone else can provide an expanded script to
force IE7 and 8 to support <video>

See my new video page at http://www.cwdjr.net/html5/layoutDemoWithIEfix4.html
..Since I have only IE9 beta on my newer computer with 64 bit Vista
and IE7 on my old computer with XP, I would like a report on how the
new page views on IE8. I would like to know if you are offered
another type of video (flash) there as it is on IE7 if you have flash
installed. The top version of Windows 7 sells for over US$300, and
other versions are less expensive, but far from cheap. I doubt if many
will upgrade from XP to Windows7 just so they can install IE9 to be
able to view html5 properly, especially since most of the more popular
browsers are free and can be used on XP, and some have supported much
of html5 for some time.

* ReplyReply
* Quote.
 
N

Neredbojias

See my new video page at
http://www.cwdjr.net/html5/layoutDemoWithIEfix4.html .Since I have
only IE9 beta on my newer computer with 64 bit Vista and IE7 on my
old computer with XP, I would like a report on how the new page views
on IE8. I would like to know if you are offered another type of video
(flash) there as it is on IE7 if you have flash installed.

Yes, you are. (I uninstalled ie9 beta.) The sound was a little
throaty, though; everybody sounded like a frog...
The top
version of Windows 7 sells for over US$300, and other versions are
less expensive, but far from cheap. I doubt if many will upgrade from
XP to Windows7 just so they can install IE9 to be able to view html5
properly, especially since most of the more popular browsers are free
and can be used on XP, and some have supported much of html5 for some
time.

I like win7, and knowing ahead of time how it is, I'd probably pay the
$300. However, I didn't have to; I got a new computer with it on it.
 
C

cwdjrxyz

Yes, you are.  (I uninstalled ie9 beta.)  The sound was a little
throaty, though; everybody sounded like a frog...

Yes, the sound is somewhat distorted. It is mono and likely was from
an optical 35 mm film track. I had better luck restoring the film
color - it was a bit faded. However it does sound as if the audio is a
bit worse than what I started with. Perhaps I had the audio volume a
bit too high on conversion to flv/swf. You can adjust the frequency
response etc, but it is very difficult to impossible to remove
distortion.
 
P

Phillip Jones

cwdjrxyz said:
Yes, you are. (I uninstalled ie9 beta.) The sound was a little
throaty, though; everybody sounded like a frog...

Yes, the sound is somewhat distorted. It is mono and likely was from
an optical 35 mm film track. I had better luck restoring the film
color - it was a bit faded. However it does sound as if the audio is a
bit worse than what I started with. Perhaps I had the audio volume a
bit too high on conversion to flv/swf. You can adjust the frequency
response etc, but it is very difficult to impossible to remove
distortion.
I like win7, and knowing ahead of time how it is, I'd probably pay the
$300. However, I didn't have to; I got a new computer with it on it.
this is what I get when going to site see Screen shot:

http://screencast.com/t/oGvvRuxrk
 
N

Neredbojias

cwdjrxyz said:
Yes, the sound is somewhat distorted. It is mono and likely was from
an optical 35 mm film track. I had better luck restoring the film
color - it was a bit faded. However it does sound as if the audio is
a bit worse than what I started with. Perhaps I had the audio volume
a bit too high on conversion to flv/swf. You can adjust the
frequency response etc, but it is very difficult to impossible to
remove distortion.

this is what I get when going to site see Screen shot:

http://screencast.com/t/oGvvRuxrk

If you are referring to the urls in my sig, it's because you are trying
to enter two (2) urls simultaneously. Try either:

http://www.neredbojias.org/

....or:

http://www.neredbojias.net/
 
Ad

Advertisements

I

idle

I now have a page at http://www.cwdjr.net/html5/layoutDemoWithIEfix3.html
that uses valid html5 code and gives examples of use of <video> and
<audio> of html5 for media only. In the first place, most browsers now
will offer only one or two house video or audio formats, and these are
not the same in various browsers. Thus you have to provide at least 3
format choices for video and audio for all 7 of the browsers that
could use <video> and <audio>. I use a Microsoft conditional script
from Google to force IE 7 & 8 to render much more of html5, but alas
this script will not force them to render <video> and <audio>. Thus
you must have IE9 beta to see the <video> and <audio> media on IE. You
can check what of html5 each browser supports by going to http://www.html5test.com
on the browser being checked.

Starting with IE9 beta, the audio is a snap because it can use mp3.
However video was a lot of trouble. You need a special mp4 file
called AVC with codec H264, and an encoder for this format is not
always easy to find free or at a low price. There is/was a low cost
encoder that will do this, but I have forgotten the name of it. I used
the Sony Pro Vegas 9 to encode set up as:

Source: 5 Mbps .mpg (mpeg2)
Vegas Pro 9.0
Saved as type MainConcept AVC/AAC (.mp4), width 640, height 640, frame
rate 29.97,
field order - upper field first, pixel aspct ratio - 1.0, reference
frames 2,
variable bit rate - 2 pass, maximum bps - 2000000, average bps -
768000, YUV;
audio - 128 Kbps, stereo AAC

The video was good, but when you use it on a html page using the html5
<video> the video becomes distorted. See http://www.cwdjr.net/html5/IE9_640x480MP4avcH264.png
. You can take this mp4 and run it through Apple's pay Pro QT player
to easily convert it to .mov for use on a Safari browser. However when
you view on Safari for Windows, the video is distorted, but in a
different way than for the mp4 on IE9 beta. See the screen shot at
http://www.cwdjr.net/html5/Safari640x480mov.png . It turns out that
this problem on both IE bata and Safari is resolved by making the
video field a square, in this case 640x640. Then the video is not
distorted, but there are blank strips at the top and bottom of the
video field.

The Chrome browser had a big black box just to the left of the video.
However this problem is solved easily by changing a little css to make
the background-color black for the division containing the video.

Since valid conventional code for media also works on html5, I intend
to use it for media until html5 is final and has a few less bugs.
Although there are $ and political reasons why some large companies
are pushing html5 so much, it is not ready for prime time for me. If
you want IE users to view video, you are going to also have to to
provide a conventional video path until most IE7 and 8 browsers are
gone, or Google or someone else can provide an expanded script to
force IE7 and 8 to support <video>.

So,
Checked and worked on Oct. 6, 2010, on latest versions of IE9-beta, Safari for Windows, Firefox, Opera, Chrome, Seamonkey,
and Flock.
What's that user percentage going to work out to be?
http://ishtml5readyyet.com/

Hmmmmm.
 
P

Phillip Jones

Neredbojias said:
If you are referring to the urls in my sig, it's because you are trying
to enter two (2) urls simultaneously. Try either:

http://www.neredbojias.org/

...or:

http://www.neredbojias.net/

Okay now looks good but my html validator show these errors

I realize that the first Item is not even used in HTML 5

But are the other legit errors

http://screencast.com/t/Swti6FvV

the second version using net looks good also but has these errors as
shown here:

http://screencast.com/t/8WQWVlAwc

again because its html5 you can discount the first error about doctype.

but are the other legit errors.
 
L

Lewis

So,
Checked and worked on Oct. 6, 2010, on latest versions of IE9-beta, Safari for Windows, Firefox, Opera, Chrome, Seamonkey,
and Flock.
What's that user percentage going to work out to be?
http://ishtml5readyyet.com/

Astroturf site from adobe?

Someone on there is advocating IE6 as a baseline standard. IE fucking 6,
the worst atrocity of a web browser to ever exist. Well, at least since
IE5.
 
N

Neredbojias

Okay now looks good but my html validator show these errors

I realize that the first Item is not even used in HTML 5

But are the other legit errors

http://screencast.com/t/Swti6FvV

the second version using net looks good also but has these errors as
shown here:

http://screencast.com/t/8WQWVlAwc

again because its html5 you can discount the first error about
doctype.

but are the other legit errors.

I'm not quite sure of the nature of _your_ html validator but both
pages validate with the w3c validator as both html5 and html4 strict
(-with the replacement of proper doctypes, of course.) The results to
which you link seem to show a problem with the &amp; construct somehow.
I'd say the errors indicated are bogus.
 
I

idle

Astroturf site from adobe?

Someone on there is advocating IE6 as a baseline standard. IE fucking 6,
the worst atrocity of a web browser to ever exist. Well, at least since
IE5.

You missed one.
I believe there may have been a 5.5 as well ;)
 
Ad

Advertisements

D

Dylan Parry

idle said:
You missed one.
I believe there may have been a 5.5 as well ;)

From what I remember, IE5.5 was a huge improvement over IE5! Even IE6
was once good (ish), but anything a decade out of date is going to cause
hell for folks.
 
P

Phillip Jones

Neredbojias said:
I'm not quite sure of the nature of _your_ html validator but both
pages validate with the w3c validator as both html5 and html4 strict
(-with the replacement of proper doctypes, of course.) The results to
which you link seem to show a problem with the&amp; construct somehow.
I'd say the errors indicated are bogus.

well the validator is based on Tidy and SGML

see this:

http://screencast.com/t/6ThE4PESCa

and:

http://screencast.com/t/nmDFppiE

Just wondering.

Your sites look great though.
 
N

Neredbojias

well the validator is based on Tidy and SGML

see this:

http://screencast.com/t/6ThE4PESCa

and:

http://screencast.com/t/nmDFppiE

Ah, I think I see; it is an HTML Tidy-thing. Alas, being completely
unfamiliar with Tidy, I can hardly comment on the efficacy of its
excretions. Perhaps someone who uses Tidy regularly and knows its
methods can enlighten us regarding the earlier output messages you
posted.
Just wondering.

Your sites look great though.

Thanks, and as I've intimated, I consider them error-free and
up-to-snuff in the html department.
 
Ad

Advertisements

C

cwdjrxyz

Ah, I think I see; it is an HTML Tidy-thing.  Alas, being completely
unfamiliar with Tidy, I can hardly comment on the efficacy of its
excretions.  Perhaps someone who uses Tidy regularly and knows its
methods can enlighten us regarding the earlier output messages you
posted.



Thanks, and as I've intimated, I consider them error-free and
up-to-snuff in the html department.

The only worthwhile validator for html, xhtml, etc is that of the w3c
which sets the standards. Since it is open source, other sites
sometimes offer about the same thing. The Doctype is all important for
validation, because it allows selection of the proper validator for
the code you use. If you go to the w3c validator at http://validator.w3.org/
you will find that both of his Neredbojias' links validate fully as
html5. Likewise, so does my link that started this thread. My link got
extra junk added after html somewhere down this thread as indicated by
the blue underline extending past the html. You either must copy the
link only through html or go back to my first post to use the link.
This sort of thing sometimes happens with multiple quotes on Usenet,
so watch for blue underlines that extend past the final .html or other
extension used.

Now Tidy is not a validator, but rather a code cleanup program. It can
be reached through the w3c valaditor, but has nothing to do with the
w3c or their validators. Some people may find Tidy useful for
housekeeping like cleanups of their web page. However, if if you use
Tidy, the code suggestions it makes do not make the page valid in some
cases. For example, validate the entry page to a major site such as
http://www.apple.com and select to also use Tidy. In the case of the
Apple site, you find it is html5 with a few errors. Tidy rewrites the
page. Now copy the page code suggested by Tidy, and select to validate
using direct input of the Tidy page into a text box available. You
will find that the Tidy page does not validate. When possible get you
page to validate first. Then, if you wish, see what Tidy gives you.
You may or may not find something in the Tidy code that will reduce
the lines of code, etc. In some cases, use of Tidy before the page is
valid may help find errors.
 
Ad

Advertisements


Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top