When the user clicks on 'Edition swf' the video plays nicely in
both FireFox and IE8. The video replaces the contents of the webpage.
Clicking the back button restores the webpage. This is exactly the
behavior I want.
When the user clicks on 'Edition flv' all that happens is that the video
downloads (without asking!) without playing.
What that page seems to say to me is that you still have a swf file,
that swf then loads the flv and plays it - the user doesn't request
the flv directly.
Right. Neither browsers nor the Flash plugin can play FLV files "bare", they must be wrapped in a SWF player skin, which provides at a minimum the interface between the video data and the plugin, or more commonly, an interface with player controls etc.
Modern browsers can play a <video> element directly which contains MPEG-4 or other formats, and IIRC, FLV is a lightly-wrapped H264 video "flavor". Maybe you want to transcode and skip Flash altogether. You'll get a wider playback audience (including iDevices) and the visitors will get dramatically better battery life/processor performance in the bargain. If you really have to support legacy browsers, you can add a fallback JavaScript layer to substitute your FLV in a SWF player interface.
Maybe you want to transcode and skip Flash altogether.
Please explain.
Flash seems to be the best compromise between compression and clarity.
I am open to other formats.
You'll get a wider playback audience (including iDevices) and the
visitors will get dramatically better battery life/processor
performance in the bargain.
Maybe you want to transcode and skip Flash altogether.
Please explain.
Convert your FLV (or, for much better quality, the original file format that was compressed into FLV) into H264 MPEG 4 and OGG.V formats, and serve them within a <video> container element in an HTML5 page. There are hundreds of examples how to code that on line, and I think I saw one earlier today in this list on another topic.
Flash seems to be the best compromise between compression and clarity.
I am open to other formats.
You'll get a wider playback audience (including iDevices) and the
visitors will get dramatically better battery life/processor
performance in the bargain.
Why would that be?
iDevices don't show Flash at all, and probably won't ever. So no amount of FLV will give you those tens of millions of eyeballs for your movies. Sites as general purpose as YouTube have realized this and serve up H264 for them, Flash for those who don't understand the standards.
Flash in general causes a dramatic spike in processor usage (to decode the format), which translates into battery drain on portable devices. It's a really serious amount of difference, adding up to 1 or more HOURS more play time on a laptop when viewing HTML5 <video> vs. Flash. On phones, the difference can be even more striking, like cutting your battery life nearly in half, due to the complete lack of hardware acceleration for FLV decoding there.