Hotcooler
Member
IMO 480х360 is optimal for low res youtube... But I dont mind anyway.. since i'm on 1920х1200
Last edited by a moderator:
It's not so much the space they take up for me, it's the processing power - I tried playing a video and it ran at like 0.5 FPS.'Hotcooler' said:IMO 480х360 is optimal for low res youtube... But I dont mind anyway.. since i'm on 1920х1200
'Gruso' said:^ I didn't know about the preview image setting, that's a good feature.
Good that we talked about it
I don't have a problem with this, but (as everybody else would have done as well) I just wanted to clarify that this function is available on my site so that my effort was worthwile'Gruso' said:Don't sweat it though man, everyone has different tastes and there's no harm in having another site with the same content. There is plenty of blog duplication too (across various languages) and the duplication comes in handy when the other guys pick up something we haven't seen yet.
'gene_kultpower' said:Did you notice that you can configure the Pandora Video Vault Website to show any number of videos on one page?'banjeed' said:For the trigger-happy lot, I TOTALLY understand that there is already a video vault someone created which contains many of the videos related to the Pandora, but to be honest, I wasn't thrilled with it. I really just wanted a simple site I could scroll within to watch the videos.
And you can even configure the site to show static preview images to prevent performance/memory overkill in your browser - or you can show the videos "as they are" to klick on one to show it immediately...
:rolleyes:
haha, yes!, which is exactly why I created the alternative. I didn't want to "configure" anything to watch a left justified video box inside a rounded box, inside a another rounded box surrounded by blue highlighted text and thin black lines. As I've stated, for "my" purposes, I didn't feel like clicking a plus button 60 times to scroll through all of the videos. I just wanted a big dump of videos displayed in a scrollable window. I'm very impressed with the video vault..it's just not for me.
And for the rest. I'll go with 480x360 as that seems to be the popular resolution. Off to work now, I'll probably have time later tonight.
'Hotcooler' said:QUOTE
isn't that the resolution that "high quality" provides?
yep.
And Firefox was always a memory black hole.. And BTW video page is working quite bad in Opera.. sucking quite a lot of memory and umm.. closing kinda slowly
That's not true, I've been using it since the alphas and it wasn't until round about 2.0 that it started to be unreasonable. Before that it was definitely better than the competition.
Speaking of embedded video, I have this YouTotem script in GreaseMonkey that automatically replaces YouTube videos with the Firefox plugin of my choice. But I can't get it to work on this website. Does anybody else use a similar script and have any idea what I could do?'sindbad' said:My safari just locked up for about 30secs. Flash is incredibly wasteful. A neat feature for your website would be rewriting the flash embedding tags to native media plugin / <video> tags.
Do the videos run fine for you? No pauses?'Butterman' said:^^ I've got my cpu usage on my dock, it jumped to 40% for about a second when I opened the page, then went back down to ~5%
It's the advantage of not having a porn clogged HDD.'Alpha2' said:Butterman is obviously running a skynet based pc,
'Butterman' said:'Alpha2' said:Butterman is obviously running a skynet based pc,
It's the advantage of not having a porn clogged HDD.
Advantage? I don't think so. Oh well, your loss.
'Username' said:'Butterman' said:I'm a magazine guy.'Alpha2' said:Butterman is obviously running a skynet based pc,
It's the advantage of not having a porn clogged HDD.
Advantage? I don't think so. Oh well, your loss.