Talk:Flash Video

message: There is also the FLV player article, but it's in need of cleanup, such as fixing the capitalization of "FLV", adding more useful information, and some rewriting.  I improved it a bit, but it still needs more work.  It's not linked to by this article.
I'm not sure if we should add a link to it here, merge it into this article, or improve it with some of the information from this article.  In any case it needs some attention. -- HiEv 19:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why that article needed to be created.  Most modern media players can play FLV.  This is summarized under Video format support in Comparison of media players. --Mcoder 23:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Probably not.  A merge of FLV Converter and FLV player into this article is worth discussing. -- HiEv 11:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[FLV player]] article 

message: Is this (xmoov-php) the same as progressive download? 172.173.75.233 17:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a form of "mediated" progressive download where a file is read through a PHP script and served in chunks. It is considered a variant of progressive download since the technique is totally transparent to the flash client. 194.219.38.13 (talk) 19:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Progressive Download 

message: The article really should include the history of how some analysts wrote a paper (circa 2004?) describing Flash as the most successfully deployed web browser plugin compared to the "format wars" between Real, Windows Media, and QuickTime.  It was noted that since Flash can deliver video (as a container format for codecs) that it was positioned to replace separate plugins for Real, WMV, and QT.  (Also that installing browser plugins is a friction for end-users, while web browsers such as IE, Firefox, and Opera all included the Flash plugin by default.)
At the same time, the article should also include citations of the criticism Flash Video receives for being slow, unresponsive, and imprecise in reinventing player control widgets and playback of video generally.  This includes the argument that many users want to access the data directly (e.g. Flash wrappers for MP3 audio) rather than having Flash act as a handler.
On a personal note, I'm still completely baffled why QuickTime, especially since it adopted MPEG-4 in leu of Sorenson for video, was positioned last instead of first compared to Real and WMV.  MPEG-4 and MP3 are open industry standard formats supported by virtually all players; what is so hard about just linking/embedding a .mp4 or .mp3 file in HTML that these were resisted so fiercely?  139.84.112.141 (talk) 20:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have reliable sources to back up your claims, then you're free to add the material to the article yourself.  Please, however, try to add material in an unbiased and neutral light (read the links I have included for more information).  As always, thanks for editing.  ~a (user • talk • contribs) 20:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Increase in popularity of Flash Video 

message: I've noticed a growing number of people, all over the internet, have serious problems with the audio not working in embedded Flash. There are a number of potential solutions (I've counted 10 so far), all of which are reported to work for some people, and none of which are reported to work for other people. The common thread seems to be a lack of interest from Adobe. It reads like there is something fundamentally broken in the way the browser plugin (and ActiveX component) talk to the rest of the audio subsystem.
So, regarding this article: I've not added anything because there are no particularly good sources out there for this — most of the discussion is on fora. But if anybody knows more about the nuts and bolts of how Flash actually outputs its video (using DShow or otherwise, etc. etc.) then perhaps that'd be interesting in this article (always bearing in mind that this isn't a "How to" and we shouldn't just copy out the fact that there's a problem, and a list of fixes). – Kieran T (talk) 13:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Silent embedded Flash 

message: The table in this section tells exactly four bits. This isn't exactly tabular data. Shouldn't this probably be rewritten into a short sentence instead? --Johannes Rössel (talk) 16:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Codec support section 

message: Those concerned about their and others' FLV player links being removed or added, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Spam#FLV Players. --AVRS (talk) 13:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spam discussion 

message: In the ruling linked from eff.org, on page 6 line 26, the judge referred people to this article for info what a 'Flash file' is. Ariel. (talk) 22:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A judge referenced this article 

message: The entire listing of players in the "FLV players" section should be purged. The "See also" section can contain a link to Comparison of media players or some similar link for those types of lists. Also see WP:EL and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. External links should not be in the body of an article (which is why I removed the linkfarm from this article) - it's not the purpose of Wikipedia to provide an internet directory of available players.   --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Following your suggestion I added a link to the section of the article... I m not sure about totally purging it though... any thoughts?Mmick66 (talk) 13:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purge list of players? 

message: I believe it would be worth noting the difference between these two formats explicitly, perhaps on both pages. As of right now, they are both described fairly similarly, and neither page makes the differences very clear.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.104.37.17 (talk) 22:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difference between FLV and SWF 

message: Why citations do I need for the bit I added?  You can find flash decompilers, and they work on swf files quite well, but not on flv.  You can Google and easily find popular flash games in the flv file format. Dream Focus (talk) 21:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh... if you can decompile it, you can then use the code to make your own game.  Regular game companies don't like that happening, and would see it is as disadvantage.  If the game maker wanted you to see their code, they'd release it.  I edited that part though so it reads "For game makers who do not wish others to access their code, the FLV format has advantages over the SWF format, as it can not be decompiled." Dream Focus (talk) 10:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Much better, but I still think citing a source in that section would be a good idea. Do you know of any gaming magazines that discuss the topic? Also, in the interest of NPOV, are there any reliable sources that discuss the advantages of plain old SWF? -W0lfie (talk) 18:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the section. Its been a month since I added the citation note. Please re-add the section if you have a source. Personally, I don't think FLVs are the same as SWF, FLVs are used to store video and audio, not run code. --Nezek (talk) 06:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I know I'm bumping but as of this present day, SWF is used for games according to Mozilla Firefox (if you go to page info, then media, and find the SWF). FLV is for higher video (H.264 and VP6) than SWF (Sorenson Spark). Website advert banners still use SWF.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Treylander (talk • contribs) 19:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flash games use flv format now 

message: According to the EFF , iMeem uses FLV to store a copy of songs. Is this important enough to include in the article? Granted, the EFF is hardly NPOV, but the use of the format as a audio only container seems rather interesting. -W0lfie (talk) 18:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  iMeem cache 

message: Why all are linked in depositfiles.com? Can't be official sites?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.24.227.207 (talk) 13:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deposit Files? 

message: An anon has just re-added a section which I removed as being a) arbitrary, b) unreferenced and c) promotional. This isn't a software catalogue; the section should be removed again. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is some ongoing edit warring here. Rather than WP:3RR, I've tagged the section as spamvertising.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A list of random external links to FLV websites is unencyclopedic and borderline spam imo. Falcon8765 (talk) 23:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not too bad to point out that freeware programs like VLC media player can play FLV files, but it risks starting a long "me too" list. It is also against standard practice to give external links in the main body of the article. I've removed this section for the time being, but don't be surprised to see it put back again.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Yes, it's back again. It's quite likely that someone has a conflict of interest here and wants a mention in the article for their software. This is an old problem, and there need to be some guidelines drawn up so that there is no circular editing on this issue.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The person who keeps on adding this should identify himself to remove doubts about conflict of interest. The list of players is unencylopedic and has clear potential for linkspam. The consensus is not to have a section that acts as a linkfarm, so please don't add this again.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please let's not keep going round in circles on this. There is no consensus to have these links, which seem to be thinly disguised spamming for commercial software. Also, it is impolite to revert without any discussion of the reasons for the decision.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  3RR warning issued. Should be pretty open-and-shut if the user continues. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "FLV players" section 

message: Mention of software that can edit flv would be useful. 89.242.107.166 (talk) 10:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Since FLV files are intended for streaming online, they are not really meant to be edited (strictly speaking, they are not even supposed to be downloaded). The best way to edit an FLV file is to convert it to AVI, WMV, MP4 etc. The article avoids listing software to prevent WP:LINKSPAM.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  FLV editors? 

message: article says, that there is a video/x-flv mime type. this needs reference, i couldn't find it. can anybody post a link? thanks. Honza801 (talk) 09:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this OK?--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

text: is webafrica.co.za really the best source of this kind of informations? i was thinking about some iana.org pages or something similar. Honza801 (talk) 09:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This was the best I could find at short notice. There is more about this at Internet media type, I'll keep looking.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: mime-type

message: I am confused by two points in the section "Delivery options". 
1. The first point says that Flash Video files can be delivered
As a standalone .FLV file. Although Flash Video files are normally delivered using a Flash player for control, the .FLV file itself is only playable with an FLV player.
What does "using a Flash Player for control" mean? And what's the connection between the first clause ("Although ...") and the second ("the .FLV file itself ...")? I don't understand the point being made.
2. The last point, about streaming delivery, ends with this sentence:
As of April 2008, there are stream recorders available for this protocol, re-encoding screencast software excluded.
I don't understand the point here. I'm not sure I even understand the terminology ("re-encoding screencast software"), so maybe that could also be clarified.
Wikiyoopi (talk) 07:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The wording here is a bit confusing. Usually Flash videos are streamed over the web and viewed in a browser with the Flash plugin. However, .flv files can also be played in some media players (eg VLC Media Player). The "phrase As of April 2008, there are stream recorders available for this protocol" seems to have been designed to avoid WP:LINKSPAM for commercial products, which has been a problem in the past. It should also be pointed out that although people often do it, downloading .flv files violates the terms of service of many websites, eg YouTube at  6C.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerning "Delivery options" 

message: is there any way to use facilities of hardware accelerators - to watch flash etc video faster without gaps etc???  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.133.226.18 (talk) 21:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: hardware acceleration

message: This is in the news today. It is a workaround which allows Flash Video on Apple devices, but games and advertisements will not work.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flash video for Apple devices 

message: Can someone please point to a source for the following information in the Flash Video article?
"Packet types enumerated as 1 is a RTMP set packet size.
 
Packet types enumerated from 3 are RTMP bytes read report, RTMP ping, RTMP server bandwidth, RTMP client bandwidth.
 
Packet types enumerated from 8 are Audio payload, Video payload.
 
Packet types enumerated from 15 are RTMP flex stream send, RTMP flex shared object, RTMP flex message, AMF metadata, shared object, RTMP invoke.
 
Packet type enumerated as 24 is an encapsulated flash video."
I have been trying to find a reference on packet types enumerated from 1, 3, 15, and 24.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.22.79.21 (talk) 19:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flash Video Structure Packets 

message: "Flash Video is the de facto standard for web-based streaming video."
That has been true for the past 13 years, but I doubt it's true any more.  
H.264/MPEG-4 AVC cites Vimeo, YouTube, and the iTunes Store as using H.264 in HTML5.  In the past month (November 2015) Amazon Instant Video has switched from DRM Flash to H.264 (or Silverlight depending on the OS).  YouTube has preferred to serve H.264 for a while now (1-2 years) and will only serve Flash content to browsers that can't play any other content.  Actually, does YouTube even serve Flash anymore?
Why is there no section about security?  Flash was the most exploited software on the web for many years before the Java browser plug-in eclipsed it.  What about end of life?  Google Chrome stopped supporting Flash altogether a few years ago.  There was a big fuss about this in the news.  It looks like someone has purged everything negative about Flash from this article!  Finally H.264 provides a comparably safe, OS and browser agnostic, high performance replacement for Flash video, yet this article only mentions it as a supported codec.
At the very least, this article needs a few words about popularity or market-share over time.  But really it's ready for an overhaul.  It almost looks like someone reverted it to a 2007 or 2011 version, but I do see one source from 2014.
--173.188.247.89 (talk) 12:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I also read the claim that it is (still) a de facto standard very skeptically. A huge amount of video is consumed on mobile devices now, for example. --X883 (talk) 18:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

text: However, it is not true that Chrome does not support Flash. In fact, it bundles it in its distribution, to ensure a new (and more-secure) version. I don’t have Flash installed on my computer, but Flash runs in Chrome just fine (just not in my other browsers). --X883 (talk) 18:29, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is badly outdated 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Flash Video. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090415032211/http://askmeflash.com/article_m.php?p=article&id=2 to http://askmeflash.com/article_m.php?p=article&id=2
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Flash Video. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090817080612/http://lists.mplayerhq.hu:80/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2009-March/065410.html to http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2009-March/065410.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100106113036/http://www.kaourantin.net/2007/08/what-just-happened-to-video-on-web_20.html to http://www.kaourantin.net/2007/08/what-just-happened-to-video-on-web_20.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:49, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "Extended from 2007 to support the ISO base media file format, Adobe branded file suffix is .f4v with the same MIME derived Internet media type of video/mp4 as the Apple file suffix of .m4v and the general file suffix of .mp4. Adobe branded file suffixes exist for .f4p which relates to media encrypted with their Adobe Access DRM scheme with .f4a and .f4b which relate respectively to .m4a and .m4b with the same MIME derived Internet media type of audio/mp4." 
- these sentences are not grammatically correct, overlong, confusing to the point of being muddled, etc. There is a lot of this on this page. I've never seen a Wikipedia page with so many ungrammatical sentences. Could someone fix this please? Thanks. This is very bad writing, extremely hard to understand, not written to communicate. The sentences need to be shorter, or the prose much clearer and easier to follow. 27.111.241.14 (talk) 04:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not-so-great prose 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Flash Video. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101118043148/http://www.mainconcept.com/products/sdks/video/flash.html to http://www.mainconcept.com/products/sdks/video/flash.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100706004744/http://www.kaourantin.net/2007/10/new-file-extensions-and-mime-types.html to http://www.kaourantin.net/2007/10/new-file-extensions-and-mime-types.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2009-March/065410.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090206142709/http://kaourantin.net/2005/08/quest-for-new-video-codec-in-flash-8.html to http://www.kaourantin.net/2005/08/quest-for-new-video-codec-in-flash-8.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified