Flash Video: Reloaded
In my previous Web video story, "Web Video: What Works Now", I focused on delivery and economic models but also endorsed specific software. Shortly thereafter, a number of faithful DV readers (who kindly took the time to e-mail me and the magazine; see this month's Letters page), pointed out that I was remiss in not including Macromedia's Flash Video as a prime contender in this high-stakes arena.
No exclusion was intended. Anyone writing about Web video these days needs to put Flash Video on the same short list as QuickTime, Real, and Windows Media. As you may have noticed, Flash Video is cropping up all over the Web, from CNN (go to www.cnn.com and click Video-Now Free in the home page menu), to Comcast (www.comcast.net), or DV.com. Flash may even revitalize the Web video Dead Zone, the vast midrange of the Web video market between corporate Webcasting and casual video blogging that I described in the prior story. Figure 1 shows a Flash Video clip on the CNN home page.
Click here to see a larger image
Figure 1. Although producing Flash Video requires its own techniques and tools, Flash Video is cropping up all over the Web, and big players such as CNN are making use of it.
As I discuss Flash Video, I'll be using the original business premises and overall market perspective from the previous article. I also propose that Flash Video production with tools such as Studio MX 2004 and Flix is no more complicated than using Windows Media Encoder or QuickTime Pro, at least for producing short clips for delivery via Web pages. As you'll see, there are some interesting similarities-and some important differences. For example, although Flash Video works great in a Web browser, it still can't compete head-on with Windows Media and QT as a general-purpose desktop media solution.
In addition to reading my viewpoint on the current state of Flash Video, Click here to check out my interviews of three experienced Flash Video users-Greg Smith, Bill Knowland, and Stuart Sharpe online.
************************************
Interviews Inserted
************************************
Nels Johnson
The Dead Zone Revisited
The "Dead Zone" was defined in "Web Video: What Works Now" and "Flash Video: Reloaded" as the Web video market segment where simple, affordable streaming was to be standard fare by now but isn't.
Given how much new Flash Video is available on Web sites on which no video resided before, I have to conclude the Dead Zone may finally be coming to life. The apparent cause: the ubiquity of the Flash Player and the perception by Web developers, graphic artists, and new media videographers that Flash offers them more freedom to render Web video in inventive and non-traditional ways.
To discuss the nuts and bolts of Flash Video, its rapid rise as a viable Web video format, and its impact on the Web video landscape in general, I turned to three users of Flash Video. Greg Smith is a principal of Alkemedia Productions an interactive media company located in Denver, CO. Bill Knowland is the founder of Direct Images Interactive in San Leandro, CA. Stuart Sharpe, is a Bay Area Flash producer. My questions are in italics.
Do you consider Flash Video a heavyweight solution comparable to Windows Media, QuickTime, and Real? If so, why?
Greg: Flash Video is a great solution, and easily comparable to the others when it comes to delivering video on the Web, because that is the big identifier: Web delivery.
Flash Video gives you the ability to deliver your content as both streaming and progressive download--just like the other formats. It allows you to incorporate that video into an interactive environment--something the others do not do elegantly. And it allows you to hit a wide audience--Windows, Macintosh, Linux, and Unix computers--with the same content all playing in the widely distributed Flash player, unlike the others.
Now if you want to use the word heavyweight, then maybe Flash Video cannot measure up if you're talking about content with DRM (Digital Rights Management). However, DRM is basically important to Hollywood and a few other entities, while the rest of the business world will not be giving it a second thought, and those are the businesses that Flash Video easily can support as well as the others.
Bill: The number one reason that Flash is a heavyweight solution is that it is cross-platform and seamless. QuickTime and Windows Media favor their own platforms. In the distribution arena, until recently, I would encode Windows Media for the Windows platform and QuickTime for Mac. Once Flash Video became more mature it wasn't necessary to encode twice anymore when distributing content on the Internet.
Stuart: I consider QT a real solution, WM a partial solution, while Real and Flash Video are more distribution formats.
Putting video online in Flash format has two advantages. One, it's probably the best cross-platform plug-in coverage for just straight video. Two, there's a lot of functionality within Flash to create a dynamic, coded, graphic environment surrounding the video on a web page. So, in some ways, Flash, including video and everything else it does, is the most complete solution. If you're just concerned with video, then it's more about distribution.
How do you sell Flash Video to uninitiated developers (and technically sophisticated clients) who believe packaging Flash Video for delivery will be harder or more time-consuming than packaging and delivering WM/QT/Real?
Greg: Educating developers and clients is always going to be an uphill battle, but the easiest way is to hit them with the facts. I've created a few video clips in all four formats and I play them side by side. Once they see that the quality is all about the same, then you just need to introduce player statistics. Since 94+% of Internet users' computers have Flash installed, it normally can come up the winner.
When I work with video production people it often is a little more difficult. They look at the budget they are working with and haven't even thought about online delivery for the client. However, when I can show them how simple it is for their client to deliver with Flash Video--compared with the others--it normally is fairly easy to get them to build a buffer into their next budget for this type of delivery.
Stuart: It's all about cross-platform installed base. For maximum coverage on both Mac and Windows, and also mobile, Flash rules. Also, integrating video with other elements on the page, which may be one big Flash movie, has vast design potential.
As an independent desktop media producer, how would you describe Flash Video's evolution over the last five years?
Greg: In a word, impressive. Five years ago, Flash Video did not really exist. Sure, you could turn a video clip into hundreds of individual cells and Flash could then play it back, but as a true video delivery medium it has only existed for about three years.
In that time it has grown into a medium that can be controlled via the Flash programming language, its quality has improved greatly, due to the Sorenson and Wildform codecs, and it has become a staple in both online and CD-ROM video delivery for my company.
Bill: It's like night and day. Flash didn't really address video five years ago and didn't have the general acceptance it does today. Flash is everywhere now and Flash Video has picked up in popularity as more authoring options were introduced. Several years ago I was still using Cleaner to encode my video clips. Then when Sorenson came up with Squeeze and Spark, it made the option of quick, reliable, high quality Flash Video compression hard to resist.
How different, practically and conceptually, is embedding a Flash Player object in a Web page from embedding a WM/QT/Real player object? Is this preferable to letting the browser render the SWF/Video file without using a Web page?
Greg: Embedding a Flash Video in a Web page is extremely simple. Basically, the Flash Video Player is a SWF file and you can easily place it as you would any other media file. Within the SWF file is the code to call the correct video file and play it.
However, initially there is one catch. You have to create a Flash Video player, as there really isn't a generic general interface that the files will just play in. That's where interactive media companies come into play. We can create a custom player branded for you or your client and encode your video, delivering to you a final set of files to simply upload to your Web server and you're on your way.
Bill: We will usually save out to Flash 6 for more compatibility. You can just drop the SWF into an HTML page as if it were a graphic element. The only difference is that the SWF contains movement and can have sound. It could be a tiny element or take up the whole page. You don't have to use Flash for the interface and navigation. A Flash interface can, of course, have more dynamic navigation, so if you want to use Flash for a presentation featuring its own navigation, you can have the piece pop up within a second self-contained browser window.
Stuart: Embedding is easy for simple pages, with the Flash authoring tool's Publish command. And you just copy and past a few lines of code for more complex pages. It's much better to use an HTML page to display the SWF, in order to control playback parameters.
How effectively can you control a Flash Video clip with JavaScript or VBScript (like WM/QT/Real) or do you need to keep all your controls in the Flash app?
Greg: Since Flash Video was designed to be delivered via Flash, the majority of control is built into the player and controlled via Actionscript. This helps to keep things simple and the delivery audience wide, as JavaScript is not needed for it to work and VBScript is not supported by all browsers.
From a media-wrangling point of view, how is the Flash Video capture/encoding process similar or different from working with, say, Windows Media or QuickTime if not Real?
Greg: Getting a Flash Video ready for delivery is as simple as any of the other video delivery methods, in my opinion. I'm a Macintosh user, so I simply capture the video content via FireWire, edit as necessary, and then export to the player of choice: .flv, .mov or .wmv.
Again, since the others have standalone players, Flash Video requires me to build a player for the video to be seen. Once you have created a player, you can reuse it many times or you can create a new player for each instance. It is your choice. So it may add a little extra time the first time you go this route, but after that, the process measures up about the same.
Bill: I arrive at or stay within the QuickTime environment until final encoding to FLV or SWF. In the production and post-production environment prior to distribution, QuickTime is still king. There are so many applications that use it or rely on it, so it makes sense to master in this environment.
Stuart: In terms of wrangling media, Flash Video has its own special issues. It's not necessarily better or worse.
What are the major issues involved in Flash Video Server delivery, as opposed to delivery via HTTP?
Greg: Flash Video is easily served as progressive download from any HTTP server, just as with other video delivery platforms. Simply upload the files to your server, link to them from a Web page, and you're off and running.
If you're looking for true streaming video, then a Flash Communication Server is needed. As of this interview, I was only able to find about 18 companies that could host streaming Flash Video content, with the largest being Akamai. Akamai is huge, of course, so with them on the field, Eighteen is plenty. So I would easily say that Flash Video is a major player. Otherwise it is as easy to deliver as other streaming media.
Bill: Our clients generally prefer progressive downloads. This also avoids third-party streaming costs. If we break up our presentation into several modules, we can pseudo-stream by using ActionScript to preload upcoming modules while one is playing.
In what ways, if any, do you think Flash Video may not be as good as WM/QT/Real?
Greg: This is a really hard question to answer. I don't want to sound like I work for Macromedia or that I hate Microsoft, but I really think that Flash Video is becoming a superior product to all of the other players. I'll admit I am a Macintosh zealot and have been for years, but when it comes to delivering media to the masses, Flash is equally supported across the board and has a larger install base. QT, Real, and WMV are all competing, they have codec quirks depending on which platform you use for playback, and there always seems to be a hassle for the average end user when it comes to downloading a player and installing it. Flash has made this pretty simple and really is getting a step up on the others in the field.
Stuart: One problem is that audio sync can be off. Precise audio sync in a video clip a few minutes long, in my experience, is not precise. It seems to go slightly in and out of sync over time.
Generally speaking, what does the future of Flash Video look like?
Greg: Ah, the crystal ball question. Well, here is my wish list for Flash Video. Maybe somebody at Adobe will read this and give us all some really great tools. Flash Video in a PDF file would really make things swell. That way a person could read about something and see a demonstration right along with it. Flash Video integration with Director or even a Flash/Director hybrid product would be fabulous for the content creation community. It would allow additional delivery options and really serve a greater number of people.
I see Flash Video usage growing all across the board, from Webcasts to video email to online training, as long as the video producers are willing to embrace it and work with other outside companies to produce really great content.
Bill: Flash Video will become more sophisticated and more popular especially now that Adobe is running the show. Using Adobe products, we have already been placing SWFs into PDF to create the equivalent of a living storybook.
I am very excited about the support for alpha channels. Prior to Flash 8, to place a video element within a virtual or animated environment, you could either composite the whole piece, or if the project demanded small file size, you could chop up the presentation into little pieces to reduce the bandwidth of the video portion. With the support of alpha channels, you can drop your green screen subject or other video element right in with an alpha channel.
Can it fill the Dead Zone more effectively than the big three?
Greg: Dead Zone? What Dead Zone? There is nothing stopping even the smallest company from putting a quality sales presentation on their Web site. The Dead Zone is a myth that has been perpetuated due to the high prices certain companies are putting on their services. If a company does a little shopping, they can easily get their content created, have a great professional look, and deliver their message via video on the Web. At this time, video on the Web has never been simpler, IMHO.
Stuart: It could because of the enhanced functionality, that is dynamic, interactive Flash-based page environments. But the basic issue of getting video to look good in the first place remains, regardless of the compression and distribution technologies. Video production and editing technologies have helped, but it still takes a lot of work to make a video engaging. So, by filling in some of the distribution gaps with its wide installed base, Flash Video does help some, but it's only part of the picture.
***************************************
Main Story Continued
***************************************
What is Flash Video?
For the purposes of this article, let's define Web video as a digital, on-demand media stream emanating from a remote network server, playable by a desktop, laptop, or handheld media player. Like QuickTime, Real, and Windows Media, Flash Video fits this description because each of these technologies is basically a file format coupled with a data compression scheme, aka codec. Sorenson Spark was the original Flash Video codec, but several others (such as On2) have joined and offer specific benefits for certain types of presentations.
A Flash Video stream requires the Flash Player for rendering on a client desktop. The Flash Player, available for free at www.macromedia.com, is a browser plug-in and arguably as widely used as any of the Big Three video players (QuickTime, Real, and Windows Media). The Flash Player has achieved this mass acceptance despite the "default player" advantage that both QuickTime and Windows Media enjoy in their respective operating systems.
Many users use their Flash Players for enjoying Flash animations-a big reason for the player's ubiquity--but they can just as easily play Flash Video. As with Flash animations, simple Flash Video files usually have the file extensions .swf (ShockWave Flash) or .flv (a standalone video file controlled by a separate SWF file).
As with Real, the Flash Video engine isn't built by an OS company and is therefore unable to leverage whatever secret functions Apple and Microsoft may have made available to QuickTime and Windows Media. Given Macromedia's clout and stature in the desktop media industry, however, this may not be as big a problem for Macromedia as it is for Real. And Adobe's proposed acquisition of Macromedia should add to this clout and expand the resources available for further Flash Video development.
Why hasn't Flash Video taken the old-school video production community-as opposed to the already-on-board Web development community-by storm? I believe it's because the video production community still rules out Flash Video as relatively hard to produce, overly complicated to control in the Flash Player, and generally of lesser AV quality when rendered at comparable bitrates and frame sizes. Let's consider each of these arguments individually.
Flash Video production
Unfortunately, even if you've mastered QuickTime Pro, Real Producer, and Windows Media Encoder, and are generally well-versed in transcoding techniques, you can't use these workhorse wrangling tools to import or export Flash Video files (e.g., SWFs and FLVs). Cleaner has announced support for such I/O, as have several other companies, but according to Macromedia, there are a number of limitations. In other words, Flash Video creation is still a relatively closed process compared with using QTP, RP, and WME. This has been a problem--according to my sources--for the old-school video production community.
As a new-school Web videographer and developer, you can invest in Macromedia's Studio MX 2004 and create excellent, self-contained Flash Video (SWF) files with no more effort than it takes to use QuickTime Pro to go from AVI to QT. As of press time, Studio MX 2004 is available for $899 at the Macromedia Web site.
Another option, Flash MX 2004 Professional ($699 from Macromedia), lets you create external Flash FLV movies, which use SWFs the way WMVs use ASX files. FLVs are also used for streaming Flash Video. And other, less-expensive tools like On2's Flix (www.flix.on2.com) will become available in due course. Version 8 of Flash, perhaps released by the time this story is published, will probably have new and improved production facilities as well. If you're not comfortable getting started by yourself, you can contact one of numerous interactive media companies already expert in Flash Video production.
Here are the steps for transcoding from AVI to SWF using Studio MX 2004:
1. Fire up Studio MX and open a new Flash document (in a new project).
2. Do a File >Import >Import to Stage.
3. Check the button to import the entire video.
4. Select a bitrate (in this case 512 Kb) and start the import.
5. Increase the timeline span if prompted.
6. Wait for the import to finish. On a 2 GHz Windows XP machine, it take about three minutes for a 3-minute, 320 x 240 source file. Default target codec: Sorenson Spark.
7. Do a File >Export to a target folder with a desired filename.swf. Because the uncompressed AVI was encoded during the import, the export should be fast. You could do a File >Publish, which would offer more output choices, but we are just creating a standalone SWF file at this point.
8. Browse to the target folder and double-click the target SWF file. (In my example, I ended up with a 7 MB Sorenson Spark movie from my original 421 MB AVI file.)
9. Assuming you have the latest version of the free Flash Player installed, your target clip should render nicely, probably in your default Web browser (Figure 2).
Click here to see a larger image
Figure 2. Transcoding this truck clip to Flash Video and rendering it in a Web browser is easy. But to drive it with buttons instead of a menu requires some ActionScripting.
Where are the Start, Stop, and Pause buttons, not to mention the other UI elements normally found in the QuickTime, Real, and WM Players? Yes, the Flash Player menu lets you Play, Loop, Zoom, Rewind, etc., but, as you can see in Figure 2, you need to invoke a menu first. To control playback via button clicks, you must do some ActionScript programming back in Studio MX prior to export/publish. This is the basis of the complaint that Flash Video is overly complicated to control in the Flash Player. Writing ActionScript is roughly equivalent to writing VBScript or JavaScript to control a QuickTime, Real, or WMV clip embedded in a Web page (Figure 3). Both approaches can produce good-looking Web-based UIs, so it's almost a matter of whether you want to do your scripting sooner or later.
Figure 3. A comparison of writing JavaScript versus ActionScript for playback control. Both approaches can create good-looking UIs.
Is it valid to complain Flash Video is overly complicated to control in the Flash Player? Not really, but it does make it harder to sell Flash Video's attributes to the uninitiated. Transcoding a desktop video clip should be a simple task with a free or cheap universal utility program, right? Plenty of free samples of ActionScript code on the Web can be cloned, added to Flash Video projects, and used by old-school videographers to create controllable SWF files ready for Web site publication (assuming they're able to invest in a tool like Studio MX 2004). Note: Some Flash Video producers prefer to create FLV files (as opposed to SWF) directly from source content, then construct SWF files simply to control their FLV files.
As for the other complaint of old-school videographers-that Flash Video is generally of lesser AV quality when rendered at comparable bitrates and frame sizes--I maintain that, overall, QuickTime, Real, and Windows Media look better than the latest version of Sorenson Spark, but this is subjective and depends on the types of content used in any meaningful quality comparison. What makes this issue even more slippery is the introduction of new Flash Video codecs such as the venerable On2 (see the "Flash Video versus the On2 Codec" sidebar). My advice to anyone concerned about switching to Flash Video strictly on the basis of AV quality (at least for Web video presentation) is to stop worrying.
Flash Video in the Dead Zone
Now I want to return to the propositions from my prior story and see if adding Flash Video to the landscape changes any of my previous conclusions. My basic premise was although Web video is alive and well at the top and bottom ends of its market, there has been relatively little progress in the market midrange-the Dead Zone. I characterized the top end as affordable corporate Webcasting and the bottom as no-budget video blogging and short-clip delivery via e-mail. The Dead Zone was caused, in my opinion, by a potent mix of high production costs, arcane network protocols, lowered quality expectations, and the unpredictable evolution of the Internet itself.
Substituting Flash Video for RM, MOV, or WMV files at the bottom end is easy. Does it just work? Try it and see. Send yourself a short SWF file as an e-mail attachment and double-click the attachment when you receive it (I used MS Outlook 2003 for this test). Even if you have the Flash Player installed, you may need to do a quick file-association step. If your OS (in this case, Windows) tells you it doesn't know what to do with the attachment and gives you a list of apps with which to open it, choose the browser (i.e., Firefox or Internet Explorer) for which you have installed the Flash plug-in. If you've already associated the SWF extension with your preferred browser, that browser will open automatically and play the Flash Video file.
Assuming you have ActionScripted some control buttons, your overall experience will be almost like, say, double-clicking a WMV attachment and having the Windows Media Player render it automatically. If you operate a blog with video clips available, simply add SWF files to replace or accompany the RM, MOV, and/or WMV files already stored in your Web server's file system. Remember that you can always deliver Flash Video content in a Projector (.exe) file that runs on client desktops without a Web browser.
At the high end of the Web video market, Flash can be Webcast to large, real-time audiences (baseball fans, online concert-goers, professional groups, etc.) using Macromedia's Flash Communication Server, available as a trial version at www.macromedia .com/downloads. I don't have space to cover this product in detail, but its capabilities are explained at the Macromedia site and it is positioned to compete head-on with the dedicated QuickTime, Real, and Windows Media streaming servers.
In my prior story, I described a successful corporate Webcast for a medical devices client. Real Broadcast Networks (RBN) was engaged as the service provider but streams were available to users in QuickTime, Real, and Windows Media formats. Macromedia claims that Flash Video can handle such jobs by itself (assuming the service provider has a Flash Communication Server available) mainly because the Flash Player is essentially ubiquitous and easy to install and upgrade across all user platforms, whether the users are small players or big IT departments. It is hard to argue with this position if you have ever installed the Flash Player and, say, Windows Media 9 back to back.
Should I switch to Flash Video?
As I mentioned previously, the next version of Flash (Version 8) is imminent, and may be available to users and developers by the time this article is published. It is rumored to be a major release with greatly enhanced support not only for video production but also for Web-based data delivery across the board.
What concerns me most about the current version of Flash video, which might not change in Version 8, is if you get with the Flash program, you may do so at the expense of keeping current with the other Web video formats. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it feels like a choice-in effect, a switch. Then again, production life is never that simple, and you may still find yourself reaching back into your toolbox of Web video applications as the situation demands.
Overall, there is a lot to learn in the Flash Video tool suite, but the payoff is worth it when a big project, either in the Dead Zone or at the high end of the Web video market, is at stake.
Flash Video and the On2 Codec
Unlike Microsoft, Real, and (to some extent) Apple, Macromedia publicly licenses its codecs. Sorenson was the first and, as of April 2005, On2's VP6 codec is the latest and greatest. Most people who have seen a side-by-side comparison agree that VP6 is superior, but On2's claim that it beats the best of Apple, Microsoft, and Real could stand a bit of qualification (if not modesty). Still, VP6 does give Flash-specifically Version 8-the juice it needs to compete in the major broadcast markets. Along with licens-ing VP6 to Macromedia, On2 also recently acquired the Flix tool suite from
Nels Johnson is President of Download Recordings, Inc. , a Bay Area consulting and contract programming company specializing in desktop media. He is the author of Windows Media 9 Series by Example (CMP Books, 2003).