YouTube Transitioning To HTML5, Flash In Jeopardy

[j0ndafr3ak]

Maybe it's a plugin setting, but I've noticed that the flash player plugin uses the gpu to render videos, whereas html5 uses the cpu. How do I know that? Because I've built a p4 build with an amd hd6570. Videos at 720p on YouTube are smooth when played with flash player (cpu around at 20-30%) while with html5 they are choppy and unwatchable with the cpu bumping up to 100%. I know, it's a p4 but Its weakness showed the difference.

 

[jasonkaler]

Maybe it's a plugin setting, but I've noticed that the flash player plugin uses the gpu to render videos, whereas html5 uses the cpu. How do I know that? Because I've built a p4 build with an amd hd6570. Videos at 720p on YouTube are smooth when played with flash player (cpu around at 20-30%) while with html5 they are choppy and unwatchable with the cpu bumping up to 100%. I know, it's a p4 but Its weakness showed the difference.

HTML5 is just a standard. It's actually your browser that will choose if it uses your cpu or gpu.
Most modern browsers will use the gpu.

 

[j0ndafr3ak]

HTML5 is just a standard. It's actually your browser that will choose if it uses your cpu or gpu.
Most modern browsers will use the gpu.

Yes, but doesn't HTML5 use a video plugin? I use Chrome btw

 

[Christiaan Lourens]

HTML5 is just a standard. It's actually your browser that will choose if it uses your cpu or gpu.
Most modern browsers will use the gpu.

Yes, but doesn't HTML5 use a video plugin? I use Chrome btw

No it doesn't use any plugin it's not Java or Flash...

 

[garygordon]

RIP Steve Jobs, you where right all along.

 

[j0ndafr3ak]

HTML5 is just a standard. It's actually your browser that will choose if it uses your cpu or gpu.
Most modern browsers will use the gpu.

Yes, but doesn't HTML5 use a video plugin? I use Chrome btw

No it doesn't use any plugin it's not Java or Flash...

and how then is the video decoded when played?

 

[IInuyasha74]

HTML5 is just a standard. It's actually your browser that will choose if it uses your cpu or gpu.
Most modern browsers will use the gpu.

Yes, but doesn't HTML5 use a video plugin? I use Chrome btw

No it doesn't use any plugin it's not Java or Flash...

and how then is the video decoded when played?

There is a mixture of right and wrong here. HTML5 does not have the typical plugins, it does have API layers. Videos in HTML5 don't actually use HTML5 code, they use CSS3 and Javascript for video playback, which then in turn use codecs. Depending on your system, the GPU may have built in codecs that allow for accelerated decoding of the content, but not all graphics processors have acceleration for all codecs. In fact very few have acceleration for VP9 used by Youtube by default now, where as your GPU should have acceleration for H.264 which is likely what Flash Player defaulted too. For VP9, your CPU would be stuck doing the decoding, and VP9 is more intensive on CPU/GPU to begin since they are making more work for the CPU/GPU putting the image back together in order to have greater bandwidth. So you are in one of the cases where you want Flash, or at least to set HTML5 to use H.264, and not to use VP9 which most of the world could do.

You should be able to change this setting on Youtube somewhere.

 

[j0ndafr3ak]

There is a mixture of right and wrong here. HTML5 does not have the typical plugins, it does have API layers. Videos in HTML5 don't actually use HTML5 code, they use CSS3 and Javascript for video playback, which then in turn use codecs. Depending on your system, the GPU may have built in codecs that allow for accelerated decoding of the content, but not all graphics processors have acceleration for all codecs. In fact very few have acceleration for VP9 used by Youtube by default now, where as your GPU should have acceleration for H.264 which is likely what Flash Player defaulted too. For VP9, your CPU would be stuck doing the decoding, and VP9 is more intensive on CPU/GPU to begin since they are making more work for the CPU/GPU putting the image back together in order to have greater bandwidth. So you are in one of the cases where you want Flash, or at least to set HTML5 to use H.264, and not to use VP9 which most of the world could do.

You should be able to change this setting on Youtube somewhere.

thanks for the reply... I went through all the account settings, but there's nothing on the plugin selection, or choose between html5 and flashplayer.. i'll see if i can find something on google..

EDIT: https://www.youtube.com/html5 this link will let you choose whether you want to use the new html5 video player or the standard one and, based on the browser used, it'll show you which codecs are supported.. atm, chrome won't let you choose between the two video players, IE will though and doesn't support webm and vp9, h.264 only. i guess i'll use IE for youtube for now

 

[SyncroScales]

'mortuum' DRM on youtube is already happening. There are videos that you can only watch and not offline.

It is a problem when a person cannot download a video or audio from youtube and other places online when people put up personal footage/video or promo material.

I also do not like how I recieve messages for videos eg: on yahoo videos that "are not available in my region". So to see videos I have to resort to other methods.

I have also noticed that certain political videos that are nto inline with the agenda pushed in mainstream media are more commonly giving me "This video is not available in your region." Eg: Messages talking about SOPA, FIPA, FIPPA, TTP, TTIP, TIPPA, CETA, CISPA, TAFTA, etc.

I cannot even watch this video on some links. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpbOEoRrHyU#t=759

 

[bit_user]

Anyway I've read a lot of comparisons and generally HEVC beats the stuffing out of VP9.

This is true. Quoting from a comparison (http://iphome.hhi.de/marpe/download/Performance_HEVC_VP9_X264_PCS_2013_preprint.pdf) done a little more than 1 year ago:

A performance comparison of H.265/MPEG-HEVC, VP9, and H.264/MPEG-AVC encoders was presented. According to the experimental results, the coding efficiency of VP9 was shown to be inferior to both H.264/MPEG-AVC and H.265/MPEG-HEVC with an average bit-rate overhead at the same objective quality
of 8.4% and 79.4%, respectively. Also, it was shown that the VP9 encoding times are larger by a factor of
more than 100 compared to those of the x264 encoder.

Granted, video encoders are moving targets, and there has probably been some improvement, most likely in VP9 encoding times.

However, the biggest issue with VP9 is that it's controlled by one company: Google. It's not patent-free, and it's only royalty-free to whom and for as long as Google chooses to make it so. They might not place any restrictions on it, at present, but that doesn't mean they can't or won't.

I'd much rather pay a small license fee to an international consortium with a straight-forward business model (i.e. the MPEG Licensing Authority) and use technology that's an international standard.

Google pushing its own proprietary technologies like this looks a lot to me like the game that Microsoft was so famous for playing. At best, Google's motives might be simply to avoid having to pay license fees, itself. At worst, it could be part of an anti-competitive strategy.