Flash 9 Finally Featuring Better Video Quality

[Jason Dunn]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070824_002787.html' target='_blank'>http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070824_002787.html</a><br /><br /></div><i>"According to Adobe, the next version of Flash -- Flash 9 -- will ship with dramatically expanded codec options allowing significantly better and faster video...video streaming is again a hot idea and Flash 8's choices of the H.263 or VP6 codecs just aren't enough. Most implementations of H.263 are limited to 320-by-240, and VP6, though very efficient, just isn't a mainstream technology. In that respect it is like Essential Viewing's codec. But the next version of Flash video will support H.264, AAC audio, most HD frame sizes, and -- here's the most important part of all -- will work with your graphics card to make it all run faster and with less CPU load. This is a huge kick in the head to both QuickTime and Windows Media, though of course QuickTime has an important role in video production in most editing systems and in parts of the H.264 codec, itself. Windows Media and its VC-1 codec also have an enduring role in the production of professional content. But when it comes to video client software that is high performance, cross-platform, and available already in 97 percent of all computers, well Adobe wins this round easily."</i><br /><br />As much as I love the speed and simplicity of Flash-based video, the quality in 99% of all the implementations I've seen <b>absolutely sucks</b>. Near the end of this article, Robert Cringely talks about what's coming in Flash 9, and it's welcome news: better quality, and better use of computer hardware. Too bad it's taken them this long to figure it out!

[jeffd]

why is this a huge kick in the head for windows media? windows media uses my video card for acceleration too. ^^

Its nice and all.. but I don't expect much from this. I HAVE seen good looking flash, MOST of the 320x240 crap-in-a-window you see (like youtube) is that way due to choice of using low bitrates.

You see, flash video has popped up all over, but sites didn't just grow an extra OC3 over night. They just used a video streaming solution that has a relatively low impact on their resources. You can upgrade it all you want, but youtube hasn't offered any higher quality video streams before, they aren't about to utilize em now.

Well.. maybe h264 using current bitrates will look better, if they actually decide to switch up.

[Jason Dunn]

Well.. maybe h264 using current bitrates will look better, if they actually decide to switch up.

That's entirely the point - h.264 will look quite a bit better at the same bit rate. Hell WMV would look better at the same bit rate! I think this will be a very good thing.