
Recherche avancée
Autres articles (102)
-
HTML5 audio and video support
13 avril 2011, parMediaSPIP uses HTML5 video and audio tags to play multimedia files, taking advantage of the latest W3C innovations supported by modern browsers.
The MediaSPIP player used has been created specifically for MediaSPIP and can be easily adapted to fit in with a specific theme.
For older browsers the Flowplayer flash fallback is used.
MediaSPIP allows for media playback on major mobile platforms with the above (...) -
Librairies et binaires spécifiques au traitement vidéo et sonore
31 janvier 2010, parLes logiciels et librairies suivantes sont utilisées par SPIPmotion d’une manière ou d’une autre.
Binaires obligatoires FFMpeg : encodeur principal, permet de transcoder presque tous les types de fichiers vidéo et sonores dans les formats lisibles sur Internet. CF ce tutoriel pour son installation ; Oggz-tools : outils d’inspection de fichiers ogg ; Mediainfo : récupération d’informations depuis la plupart des formats vidéos et sonores ;
Binaires complémentaires et facultatifs flvtool2 : (...) -
Contribute to translation
13 avril 2011You can help us to improve the language used in the software interface to make MediaSPIP more accessible and user-friendly. You can also translate the interface into any language that allows it to spread to new linguistic communities.
To do this, we use the translation interface of SPIP where the all the language modules of MediaSPIP are available. Just subscribe to the mailing list and request further informantion on translation.
MediaSPIP is currently available in French and English (...)
Sur d’autres sites (7639)
-
10 Matomo Features You Possibly Didn’t Know About
28 octobre 2022, par Erin -
How to convert raw video formats to mp4/mov with CLI based tool something like ffmpeg ?
29 octobre 2022, par A_MishraWant to convert raw video formats like braw, redcode and canon raw format into mp4/mov videos with command line tool such as ffmpeg. There are dedicated softwares for conversion like DaVinci Resolve for braw format, but I am looking for something to use as service and use it within my code thus looking for CLI based solution.


-
WebRTC predictions for 2016
17 février 2016, par silviaI wrote these predictions in the first week of January and meant to publish them as encouragement to think about where WebRTC still needs some work. I’d like to be able to compare the state of WebRTC in the browser a year from now. Therefore, without further ado, here are my thoughts.
WebRTC Browser support
I’m quite optimistic when it comes to browser support for WebRTC. We have seen Edge bring in initial support last year and Apple looking to hire engineers to implement WebRTC. My prediction is that we will see the following developments in 2016 :
- Edge will become interoperable with Chrome and Firefox, i.e. it will publish VP8/VP9 and H.264/H.265 support
- Firefox of course continues to support both VP8/VP9 and H.264/H.265
- Chrome will follow the spec and implement H.264/H.265 support (to add to their already existing VP8/VP9 support)
- Safari will enter the WebRTC space but only with H.264/H.265 support
Codec Observations
With Edge and Safari entering the WebRTC space, there will be a larger focus on H.264/H.265. It will help with creating interoperability between the browsers.
However, since there are so many flavours of H.264/H.265, I expect that when different browsers are used at different endpoints, we will get poor quality video calls because of having to negotiate a common denominator. Certainly, baseline will work interoperably, but better encoding quality and lower bandwidth will only be achieved if all endpoints use the same browser.
Thus, we will get to the funny situation where we buy ourselves interoperability at the cost of video quality and bandwidth. I’d call that a “degree of interoperability” and not the best possible outcome.
I’m going to go out on a limb and say that at this stage, Google is going to consider strongly to improve the case of VP8/VP9 by improving its bandwidth adaptability : I think they will buy themselves some SVC capability and make VP9 the best quality codec for live video conferencing. Thus, when Safari eventually follows the standard and also implements VP8/VP9 support, the interoperability win of H.264/H.265 will become only temporary overshadowed by a vastly better video quality when using VP9.
The Enterprise Boundary
Like all video conferencing technology, WebRTC is having a hard time dealing with the corporate boundary : firewalls and proxies get in the way of setting up video connections from within an enterprise to people outside.
The telco world has come up with the concept of SBCs (session border controller). SBCs come packed with functionality to deal with security, signalling protocol translation, Quality of Service policing, regulatory requirements, statistics, billing, and even media service like transcoding.
SBCs are a total overkill for a world where a large number of Web applications simply want to add a WebRTC feature – probably mostly to provide a video or audio customer support service, but it could be a live training session with call-in, or an interest group conference all.
We cannot install a custom SBC solution for every WebRTC service provider in every enterprise. That’s like saying we need a custom Web proxy for every Web server. It doesn’t scale.
Cloud services thrive on their ability to sell directly to an individual in an organisation on their credit card without that individual having to ask their IT department to put special rules in place. WebRTC will not make progress in the corporate environment unless this is fixed.
We need a solution that allows all WebRTC services to get through an enterprise firewall and enterprise proxy. I think the WebRTC standards have done pretty well with firewalls and connecting to a TURN server on port 443 will do the trick most of the time. But enterprise proxies are the next frontier.
What it takes is some kind of media packet forwarding service that sits on the firewall or in a proxy and allows WebRTC media packets through – maybe with some configuration that is necessary in the browsers or the Web app to add this service as another type of TURN server.
I don’t have a full understanding of the problems involved, but I think such a solution is vital before WebRTC can go mainstream. I expect that this year we will see some clever people coming up with a solution for this and a new type of product will be born and rolled out to enterprises around the world.
Summary
So these are my predictions. In summary, they address the key areas where I think WebRTC still has to make progress : interoperability between browsers, video quality at low bitrates, and the enterprise boundary. I’m really curious to see where we stand with these a year from now.
—
It’s worth mentioning Philipp Hancke’s tweet reply to my post :
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtcweb-return/ … — we saw some clever people come up with a solution already. Now it needs to be implemented