Coderecs?

[Guest]

Is there a coderec/package that will allow one to view clearer/sharper
online video, (Youtube, Firstrowsports, etc,)?

 

[Paul]

Is there a coderec/package that will allow one to view clearer/sharper
online video, (Youtube, Firstrowsports, etc,)?

They're CODECs, which stands for Coder/Decoder.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codec

There are some issues:

1) Movie source resolution can be reduced, to reduce the
size of the download. You can't fix what is no longer
there. If the download is 20KB/sec, then the video will
be largely un-viewable. And a "better CODEC", cannot add
back information which is missing.

2) A bad CODEC can "soften" or "smooth" a video, giving
a gauze-like appearance to the result. In such a case,
a different decoder, with "less mutilation" built into
it, might give a higher quality result.

There's a limit to how much "enhancement" you can do at
your end. If the information is not in the stream in
the first place, software at your end can't magically
"invent" info to take its place.

Youtube apparently has various resolution options. A stream
may be available in more than one resolution (HD). Since I don't
use Youtube regularly, I'm the wrong person to ask about
"how to get the good stuff".

If your Internet connection only offers low bandwidth download,
then that would be another reason why the websites selected
low resolution by default for your viewing pleasure. This
is one of the reasons I can't really go crazy with video,
as my link is damn near unusable. My download rate is
around 300KB/sec, which is nothing.

Paul

 

[VanguardLH]

Is there a coderec/package that will allow one to view clearer/sharper
online video, (Youtube, Firstrowsports, etc,)?

Not a problem with the codec. You're watching a video at a site that
chooses to show you a low-resolution video. If you want higher
resolution then the site must provide you with a copy of the video at a
higher resolution.

Sometimes in Youtube there is only one resolution. Sometimes there are
other resolutions available but it's up to you to pick which one you
want to see. Higher resolution video requires higher bandwidth. If you
don't have enough bandwidth, you'll jerks and pauses in playback as your
player has to wait for more of the video stream to show up.

has 3 resolutions available: 240, 320 (default), 480.

has 2 resolutions: 240 and 360 (default)

The defaults shown above are what I get for my bandwidth when connected
at Youtube. If you have a slower connection then they'll probably
default to a lower resolution. You can select a higher resolution but
you'll suffer playback artifacts (jerkiness, synchronization, pauses).

The codec isn't going to change the resolution(s) available for a video
from a server.

 

[pjp]

Not a problem with the codec. You're watching a video at a site that
chooses to show you a low-resolution video. If you want higher
resolution then the site must provide you with a copy of the video at a
higher resolution.

Sometimes in Youtube there is only one resolution. Sometimes there are
other resolutions available but it's up to you to pick which one you
want to see. Higher resolution video requires higher bandwidth. If you
don't have enough bandwidth, you'll jerks and pauses in playback as your
player has to wait for more of the video stream to show up.

has 3 resolutions available: 240, 320 (default), 480.

has 2 resolutions: 240 and 360 (default)

The defaults shown above are what I get for my bandwidth when connected
at Youtube. If you have a slower connection then they'll probably
default to a lower resolution. You can select a higher resolution but
you'll suffer playback artifacts (jerkiness, synchronization, pauses).

The codec isn't going to change the resolution(s) available for a video
from a server.

If bandwidth is a problem, e.g. jerky playback when selecting a higher
resolution you might instead try to download the video to local pc and
then watch it. Problem there is most sites offering video specifically
try to prevent this so it's always a pita to actually save the video but
it can always be done "somehow".

 

[VanguardLH]

If bandwidth is a problem, e.g. jerky playback when selecting a higher
resolution you might instead try to download the video to local pc and
then watch it. Problem there is most sites offering video specifically
try to prevent this so it's always a pita to actually save the video but
it can always be done "somehow".

Adobe has scared a lot of authors that employed RTMPE capture in their
products. All they had to do was send a letter of intent. They didn't
take anyone to court. They even got Sourceforge to kill the rtmpdump
project over there. They got Applian to remove RTMPE from Replay Media
Capture and also got it removed from Jaksta's product. As has been
shown using Adobe's own documentation, RMTPE by itself is *not* a DRM
scheme but a means to substitute for SSL rather than incur the overhead
of SSL on the server for all content within a page.

I remember when Adobe claimed their PDF format was open for others to
use. It was as long as those using it weren't seen as considerable
contenders to Adobe. When Microsoft put PDF support into Word, Adobe
threatened Microsoft. Oh yeah, it's open unless Adobe perceives a loss
in sales and then it's not open.

If you hunt around for posts about authors trying to use RTMPE to
protect their content, they want to use only the RTMPE protocol and not
get involved with passing the SWF token. They want the pipe to be the
DRM protection instead of requiring a passkey through that pipe. They
don't realize that streaming can obtain the source from RTMPE and then
switch to RTMP to capture the stream but these authors still don't want
to use only RTMPE so they leave RTMP enabled (and then complain users
are capturing their videos via RTMP).

Many, if not most, Flash content is streamed, not downloaded as a file
to then play locally either in a handler to show inside a web browser or
using an external app. RTMP can be captured. It's RTMPE that's a
problem. Although web browsers will display the streamed content,
they're notorious for not allowing their users to capture that content
so the users can decide when to view a video when displayed on their
property. You can find web browser add-ons to capture video but they
won't capture RTMPE streams (if they did and got popular then Adobe
would threaten then and it would disappear). You can apps to capture
video streams (again not for RTMPE). There are some hacker-style tools,
like rtmpdump, to capture RTMPE streams. I haven't used rtmpdump to
know if it works or works well. There was some other companion tool
called something like URL<something> to get the URLs to the stream
source that you plugged into the command used to run rtmpdump. RMC and
Jaksta (both probably the best but both are payware) will help with RTMP
but not RTMPE.

Any screen capture tool (not screen snaphot but screen capture) will let
you record what you see so they don't have to bother about what protocol
is used to deliver the video stream. The problem with those is that if
there is any jerkiness, pixelation, audio-to-video sync errors, or
pauses in playback then those get recorded, too, and you'll see them in
playback of the recorded video from the local video file. You also have
to play the streamed video all the way to the end to record the whole
thing which also means you cannot minimize the web browser or overlay a
window atop the playing area for the video. The screen capture tool is
recording a specific area of the screen.

However, none of the stream or screen capture tools are going to improve
the resolution of the video that got delivered. If the video is linked
to a file (as relies on a handler within your web browser to play it
within the web browser) then what you download is the file and, again,
that doesn't change the resolution of the video.