On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 03:22:42PM -0800, jim stockford wrote:
but haven't liked that I'm merely throwing up "<a href>" links to the
files I pull off of my digital camera.
Well, for one, all a person sees is something like:
If I were cool, I'd actually spend some time putting a screenshot from
the video there, but just don't have the time for that manual process.
These days, websites often have videos embedded as Flash objects from
sites like YouTube (mostly) and Google Video (far less often).
what's good about that? (serious question)
Watching a streaming video provides nearly-immediate gratification,
whereas downloading a large AVI (esp over dialup... Melissa's mom,
for example, is stuck with dialup at the moment) is not gratifying. :)
Again, the instant gratification is one issue.
I wish i understood why it's worth the trouble--how come
putting videos up on a web page isn't good enough?
(serious question--why bother with flash?)
Worse is fact that, once Melissa's mom had spent
downloading a video, she discovered that she couldn't even PLAY it.
Codecs are a pain in the ass. AVI is just a 'wrapper' file format,
vox mailing list