Question about embedded videos

LewiePLewieP Registered User regular
Does quoting an embedded video that already appears on the page increase the strain on RAM/Bandwidth, or is it a case of "once it's loaded, you can post it as many times as you want"

Does it change if it is in spoilers?


Thanks.

LewieP on

Posts

  • MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    It's almost certainly dependent on operating system and browser.

    MKR on
  • AroducAroduc regular
    edited July 2008
    Most (all?) browsers don't load the video until it's clicked, so any extra RAM/Bandwidth cost is negligable.

    Aroduc on
  • FyreWulffFyreWulff Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited July 2008
    Most if not all the browsers only need to load it once until it gets shuffled out of their cache

    If I made a post with 10 copies of a 100kb image, the final bandwidth to display them would only be 100kb and not 1MB.

    FyreWulff on
  • LewiePLewieP Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Awesome. Thanks guys.

    LewieP on
  • RamiusRamius Joined: July 19, 2000 Administrator, ClubPA admin
    edited July 2008
    I believe, but I'm not positive, that putting it in spoilers will conserve on resources. I know that youTube's implementation doesn't go to the server to fetch the preview image until the video is within the viewable area of the browser. It may also be that some browsers might not load the flash object itself when it is in a display:none element.

    Ramius on
  • KreutzKreutz Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Is that why Firefox chokes harder in YouTube threads, the further you scroll down the page?

    Kreutz on
  • Satan.Satan. __BANNED USERS
    edited July 2008
    Kreutz wrote: »
    Is that why Firefox chokes harder in YouTube threads, the further you scroll down the page?

    Well, like Ramius said, the videos don't load / preview until you scroll to them. My guess is that as this adds up, Firefox starts to choke because it's 1) Firefox and 2) Flash.

    Satan. on
  • LewiePLewieP Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Yeah, I love how Firefox 3 was supposed to fix all of Firefox's ram issues, but it kinda just didn't.

    LewieP on
  • Satan.Satan. __BANNED USERS
    edited July 2008
    LewieP wrote: »
    Yeah, I love how Firefox 3 was supposed to fix all of Firefox's ram issues, but it kinda just didn't.

    Firefox is becoming a trainwreck of a browser, it's unfortunate.

    Satan. on
  • DeShadowCDeShadowC Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    So not upgrading to 3 is a good thing?

    DeShadowC on
  • MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    I haven't had a single problem with 3.

    MKR on
  • LewiePLewieP Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    3 is certainly better than 2 imo, it's just the claim to have fixed the memory problems, but they have (in my experience) only mildly improved memory performance.

    LewieP on
  • DeShadowCDeShadowC Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    If 3 still in beta or has it been officially released yet. I haven't kept up with it.

    DeShadowC on
  • AldoAldo Hippo Hooray Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    DeShadowC wrote: »
    If 3 still in beta or has it been officially released yet. I haven't kept up with it.
    3.0.1 is officially out.

    Aldo on
  • EchoEcho Moderator mod
    edited July 2008
    Ramius wrote: »
    It may also be that some browsers might not load the flash object itself when it is in a display:none element.

    That seems to be how Firefox does it. Either that, or it just loads the basic framework but doesn't load the video preview image until it's visible.

    Echo on
    Echo wrote: »
    Let they who have not posted about their balls in the wrong thread cast the first stone.
  • JasconiusJasconius sword criminal mad onlineRegistered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Satan. wrote: »
    LewieP wrote: »
    Yeah, I love how Firefox 3 was supposed to fix all of Firefox's ram issues, but it kinda just didn't.

    Firefox is becoming a trainwreck of a browser, it's unfortunate.

    This problem has nothing to do with Firefox and everything to do with Flash and YouTube

    The YouTube player is very chunky as FLV players go, it's CPU intensive even when it's not playing a video.

    The second problem is Flash because it runs as many concurrent instances of a SWF as you tell it to and there's no limit, which is why threads with 60+ videos start to get slow. Also, the logic involved in not initializing the SWF instance until it is visible is not applied to deconstructing the SWF, and for good reason. It was not intended to do that.

    The third problem is that Flash does not cache video into the browser cache until the SWF is deconstructed. If you have a gajillion pixel tall page with hundreds of videos, Flash will sooner run out of memory than start telling the browser to cache video on the harddrive. So when you load 60 videos at up to 10MB a pop, you are going to start crashing older computers.

    Jasconius on
  • AldoAldo Hippo Hooray Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    For anyone running into the aforementioned problems: get Flash Block. Now.

    What are you waiting for? goooooo

    Aldo on
  • Satan.Satan. __BANNED USERS
    edited July 2008
    Jasconius wrote: »
    Satan. wrote: »
    LewieP wrote: »
    Yeah, I love how Firefox 3 was supposed to fix all of Firefox's ram issues, but it kinda just didn't.

    Firefox is becoming a trainwreck of a browser, it's unfortunate.

    This problem has nothing to do with Firefox and everything to do with Flash and YouTube

    I was referring more to the browser in general.

    Satan. on
Sign In or Register to comment.