Digital Web Magazine

The web professional's online magazine of choice.

The Rise of Flash Video, Part 2 : Comments

By Tom Green

October 23, 2006


Martin Westin

October 24, 2006 2:41 AM

I think there is an important point being overlooked in this article. Sure you can encode your flv to look like crap and get jerky video on low-bandwidth connections.

But come on, “The Rise of Flash Video”... the article should be explaining more about how revolutionary the integration of video and Flash graphics can be when used the right way. I have seen several campaignes where parts of the interface has been video giving a very lively impression. You have the ability to use alpha-channels together with user controlled objects placing video seemlessly in an interface.

Using Flash video just to “play a video clip” is missing the point a bit IMHO. Besides, the real showstopper for Flash video is that it uses lots and lots of CPU. Compared to “video-plugins” (wmv, qt…) video played in Flash player can really push the slightly older computers. This is as important as bandwidth problems in my book.

I would like to see a part three of this series focusing on some of these things more.

Ian Kirk

October 24, 2006 8:47 AM

Flash is great…unless you run Linux. For me this has been a Flash killer. With the speed (or lack thereof) of development of an up-to-date Linux version of the Flash player (Adobe’s promises not withstanding), I don’t use youtube (or any other such variant), because they all use the latest codecs, which aren’t available on Linux. Granted, there is an open source project (Gnash) for playing flash, but it has a long way to go. Of course, I could run some virtual Windows session, but I don’t want to run Windows. That’s why I run Linux (unless GPL3 goes through as is, then a new course of action).

Long comment short, flash is great, I agree, unless your target is the “geekier” set, then I would suggest something else.

Nick Finck

October 24, 2006 8:53 AM

Martin: I am not sure what you mean by “used the right way” ..personally I find most UI’s that have integrated Flash movies (not to be confused with appropriate use of movies as content) pretty much gratuitous and superficial to the point of having a website. If alpha channels is what you are looking for as a designer, I would recommend checking out 24-bit PNG files. I would hate to see part 3 be a exploration in how to make gratuitous “flashy” UI.

Ian Kirk

October 24, 2006 11:48 AM

I stand corrected. Adobe release the beta of FlashPlayer9 for Linux on 18 October.


October 24, 2006 4:12 PM

I totally agree that debates about which format is best can stop. You can just as easily make crappy content on something that cost thousands as something that is free.
The real point is to get Internet video to a point where you use it, your kids use it and even your parents use it. And that is going to take carefully crafted content, it’s not enough just to have the technology.
Flash has got the reach, it’s up to Flash designers and developers to make sure that reach pulls in as many folks as possible by making Flash video something worth seeing.

Sorry, comments are closed.

Media Temple

via Ad Packs