Wednesday, April 23rd, 2008

OraoWeb: Quicktime + JavaScript

Category: JavaScript

We recently saw the proof of concept for a JavaScript video player in JSONVid.

Pascal Vuylsteker has paired JavaScript and Quicktime to create OraoWeb. He puts a call out to argue that Flash isn’t the only king of video and talks about the shortcomings:

  • Clean fast forward
  • Fast rewind
  • Jog Shuttle
  • Frame by frame step forward and backward
  • Direct access to any frame
  • Precise information about the currently displayed frame
  • Precise information about the amount of already downloaded data (in progressive download)
  • Selection control (constraint the navigation within the video)
  • Can read any format
  • Encrypted cache, no easy way to pirate the video, even in progressive download

He then says that he wishes Quicktime would support full screen better, and the multi-platform story isn’t as good as Flash (no Linux).

Check out his demo to see some of these features in action:


Posted by Dion Almaer at 6:10 am

3 rating from 15 votes


Comments feed TrackBack URI

*I* think, Quicktime sucks.

Comment by deadcabbit — April 23, 2008

Sorry, wa a bit harsh above – but even if he has some points there, Quicktime penetration is hundred times smaller than flash’s; wherever I worked, the designers and clients preferred flash and I myself never installed the Quicktime plugin on my machine.

Comment by deadcabbit — April 23, 2008

Simply because the designers and clients preferred flash doesn’t mean it’s the best solution. I have clients that prefer neon green flashing text but that doesn’t make them qualified to know what the hell they’re talking about.

In a quick search I was unable to find any verifiable numbers on Quicktime penetration. However, the fact that QT is available on all Macs and is installed when you connect your new iPod, and that those people wishing to watch HD movie trailers also need QT I would guess that a large number of people people probably have QT installed. For Mac and PC users I would guess over 60% – maybe more.

And to be on topic: I like this solution alot. The video was clear. The sound was very good and the playback mechanisms were spot on.

Comment by tastypopsicle — April 23, 2008

I have found that Flash video is much easier to get working on a clients system then Quicktime.

We rolled out a simulcast system four years ago. We originally went with the Quicktime solution. Our clients had major problems getting Quicktime to work on their computers. It was a constant struggle.

The Java Applet players at the time were just as bad. Our clients had to download and install Java.

MSIE was blocking all “add-ons” at the time and it was impossible to get anything working right. Not only that, but the client systems were firewalled and admin access was restricted.

We ended up using Flash video. No more downloads, no more install issues, no more problems. It just worked…and worked on all platforms.

Comment by pkenoyer — April 23, 2008

This would be so much better if it worked on the iPhone, but instead it complains about the Quicktime version. Apple’s own interface for watching videos on the iPhone is abysmal, especially if the video is of any significant length.

Comment by JonathanLeech — April 23, 2008

I suspect that Quicktime doesn’t have the distribution to make it a real competitor to Flash on the basis of “it just works” – at least, not yet – despite the quality arguments, etc. I don’t imagine YouTube would move to using QuickTime over Flash, for example.
I do like QuickTime’s excellent video quality, its ability to scrub frame-by-frame and so on, and the scriptability is nice too. (Windows Media Player is also scriptable FWIW also, of course, but not as distributed cross-platform I’d bet.) Nonetheless, creative demos like this are always cool to see.

Comment by Schill — April 23, 2008

quicktime/flash war? meh. The more tools I have at my disposal, the better. Right now with flash being the de-facto standard for web video delivery we’re in the “when everything looks like a hammer, everything looks like a nail” conundrum. Flash has it’s advantages, quicktime and others have theirs. Better scripting of quicktime is good news no matter where your preferences lie.

Comment by tack — April 23, 2008

“Quicktime penetration is hundred times smaller than flash’s;”

I’m not sure where you pulled that number from, but for that to be true QuickTime would have to be on less than 1% of machines. Considering it’s included with every Mac, and every Windows machine with iTunes installed, I would guess it’s on at least 50% of all web browsing computers.

Comment by tlrobinson — April 23, 2008

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.