Youtube html5 not working...

I'm trying to see Youtube vids of html5 but the buffer wheel just keeps spinning.
Everything shows up but just won't play.

Using Firefox 6.0.2 stable disabled flash with Quick Java.

I've gone to this test site to check:
http://ctndigital.com/ctnd/lab/vp8-webm/
Just an X in the vid box.

Have you tried HTML5 and Videos like Youtube or test sites? What is your experience?

 

Firefox doesn't support h264, so if you're trying to play an h264 video, you'll need the Firefox plugin by Microsoft.

YouTube HTML5 content is currently very mixed between h264 and VP8.

 

I'm not trying to play h.264 but webm only, which is mostly supported by Firefox, supposedly.

Enabling Flash I was able to get h.264 to run, not sure how it is accomplished or why it requires flash.
Checked at this test page.
http://www.flashvideofactory.com/test/DEMO720_Heima_H264_500K.html
With Flash disabled, doesn't work. With Flash enabled, does work.

 

Works fine here on Ubuntu 11.04 with both Opera and FF 6.

 

What are you doing different than I? Am running Maverick right now with FF 6.
It's mostly not working. Should I clear my cookies?

 

The link in your O.P.: That's a VP8 file.
I can't view the video in the link straight in the Firefox 6.0.2 browser, either.
But I can open it in an external player, in my case the KMPlayer, which then uses the Haali media splitter and the VP8 libavcodec enabled thru FFDSHOW.
But trying to open it externally with the MPlayer was a no-go.

As far as YouTube webm, or being able to view that link directly in Firefox: I don't really know what the story is there.
Firefox supports Ogg-Theora .webm, rather than H264 webm, I believe, while YouTube supports H264 webm.

I know I can watch anything I want with Flash player at YouTube, and if I switch to 720p from 360p I can still watch.
I can download any of several different .flv or .mp4 H264 formats using the Video Download Helper extension, then view them on my computer using either of those two players I mentioned.
But the .webm file extension I can open only with KMPlayer, not MPlayer-- both in the browser and on my machine.

I don't seem to see any actual 'webm' option offered by YouTube when I watch videos there. Whether that's because I haven't yet 'opted-in' for webm display or not, I can't say offhand.

The whole thing is a bit confusing and sort of 'out there', I'll grant.
Don't know if what I've posted here is any sort of help to you or not. (Not sure it clears up a whole bunch for myself, for that matter.) Nor am I sure everything I've said regarding YouTube and Firefox webm support is entirely correct.

One thing I can say: The VP8 video at your link looks real nice, but it's not breathtakingly superior to any other good quality videos I've watched, regardless of format or container.
Then again, I have no cutting-edge HD monitor or hardware or software on this machine, either.

 

According to what I've read, it is mostly supported in Firefox (webM/ogg-theora) since FF4, but everyone trying to use it is having issues.

You have to join in by visiting www.youtube.com/html5
I've done that but have only been able to get the one test page to play, which was an h.264 based movie in flash.

That's putting it mildly. I haven't been able to sort this out at all and only find lots of incomplete info and conjecture.
Just a thought, I think they may be delaying to give Adobe flash more time.

 

It was quite simple for me. I agreed to test at youtube.com/html5 and then went back to youtube.com.

Chrome can play HTML5 in all the versions, while Firefox 6 does so in two.

Worked fine except that Fx CPU was higher. I've posted that already asking for others' experience on this specific aspect but

 

I can already view .H264 in a .flv container movies there no problem. In 720p, should I so choose.
And they look perfectly fine and clear, as long as the upload was well-encoded to begin with.

So, given that, where's the great superiority of HTML5/WebM?

And from that thread link:

Well, there it is. As I just mentioned above.

If I'm not going to be able to notice any visible difference between HTML5 videos and the Flash videos I'm already perfectly capable of watching, why should I be champing at the bit to have HTML5 capabilities?

If HTML5 is superior from a resource-usage or security standpoint, or simply represents the end of Flash as an all-but-required browser plugin, then great-- that's how it should be promoted.
But my understanding from the discussions/promotions of it has been that aside from any of the above, it represents a superior rendering capability that would be immediately noticeable.

So it sounds as though they've either got that latter part of it wrong, or that my understanding of what it's supposed to bring to the table has been wrong.

 

Chromium Drops Support for H.264 Codec - Chromium Blog

Youtube Continues to Support H.264 for Video on Youtube - Youtube Blog

Who is confused, Google or me?

 

It's not so much the '.H264' part of the equation as the container wrapping it.
.H264 is a mere codec. It can be inside an .avi container, .mp4 container, .flv container, .mkv container, VP8 container, etc.

Firefox originally went with Ogg/Theora ('.ogg' being another container type) for HTML5 rendering, while YouTube went with WebM, which = .VP8.

An .H264 codec being used inside .flv video files uploaded at YouTube has been happening for a long time, and any browser with the Flash plugin can render those files no problem.

So it's not really the .H264 codec per se that's at issue so much as the .VP8 wrapper/container that is .WebM, and so the issue is really whether or not Firefox's version of HTML5 will/does open the .WebM/.VP8 container and then be able to render the media inside.

At least that's my take on it, given what I've gleaned about this so far.

 

I just joined the HTML5 trial at YouTube, and I think here's the story:



Firefox appears to handle the .VP8 files in the browser at YouTube, but not the .H264 files.
And seemingly 2 different "tags" for HTML5 at YouTube, one by the name HTML5 and the other called WebM.
Anything that said "HTML5 test" (with presumably an .H264 codec) I couldn't get to play, same as you.
But anything that said "WebM test", with presumably .VP8-- I could play.

The high-pixel WebM videos take a pretty long time to load-- at least for me.

I'm now using YouTube's own embedded WebM player to view them. Not the Flash plugin, though it remains enabled.
And it seems any video in less than 720p is opened in Flash, regardless of tag, while the 720p and 1080p option videos get opened with the YouTube WebM player.

However, that ctndigital.com WebM/VP8 file still won't open-- thought there is a notation there that Firefox doesn't have "a complete range of VP8 yet".
So maybe that's the issue at that site.

Or maybe I'm wrong.
But I do know that so far the 'WebM' test videos at YouTube seem to play, while the 'HTML5' tests seem not to.
Maybe it even has something to do with the way Firefox interfaces with that YouTube WebM player that prevents the .H264 HTML from being supported.

 

Or it's the simple fact that Firefox removed all support for h264. Like I've already stated, if you want h264 in Firefox, you need to use the MS plugin.

 

Yep, in fact you already said in a nutshell what I've just been discovering for myself.

Thank you.

 

I have found the 720p requirement also. I did not expect to have to specifically choose another video resolution to get a video to play, but assumed that all I had to do was press play.

After joining the Youtube trial and choosing vids to watch, they do not just play on their own. You must specifically choose a video resolution greater than 360 to watch these vids in the WebM container. Their is no autoselection for the correct resolution because you are in the trial.
In trying to get videos to play, with flash disabled via Quickjava, some videos offered 360 and 480, by choosing 480 the video would play.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0put0_a--Ng
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdZCtwZV2Qo

I have found some videos that would not play at all because there is no video resolution choice greater than 360.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xezj7UxfgdI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2yxnEIUrio
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKzMJrQ3uqk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NoIucioKW4

Here are flash only videos as an example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yowJiQZBXrA

This is terrible because you can't use videos in any type of playlist, manual involvement is required for each video. Loading while playing is very fast compared to the flash alternative.

 

So don't disable Flash. I didn't, and found that the lower-pixel-only videos then just automatically opened in Flash.

And having Flash enabled didn't prevent the WebM player from displaying the higher-pixel videos.

 

That is a sensible response. I was testing what works with the WebM and the best way is to disable Flash. I would like to dump Flash altogether, but we are a ways from that.
For the most part I always have flash enabled, but had assumed in the Youtube trial that the WebM vids would be given preference and autochoose the correct resolution for them to play. Isn't that why I joined their trial?

 

Seems the WebM player fires up on videos of 720p or 1080p only. Maybe 480p too, if you found that to be the case.
Flash fires up for the others, apparently regardless of whether or not they've been given a WebM tag by the uploader.

And as YouTube has said, not all videos are yet available as either WebM or HTML5.