W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > June 2010

[whatwg] audio and video: volume and muted as content attributes?

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 12:32:07 +1000
Message-ID: <AANLkTinBygNGLVA4MlQxAtUZqZlCRpddmSg-z3K7kTix@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 12:13 PM, Ashley Sheridan
<ash at ashleysheridan.co.uk>wrote:

>  On Thu, 2010-06-10 at 12:03 +1000, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Ashley Sheridan <
> ash at ashleysheridan.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>   On Thu, 2010-06-10 at 11:52 +1000, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
>
> I don't think that is possible in the way that the volume attribute is
> currently defined as a value between [0;1]. That is an orthogonal, but
> still important question about the volume attribute then.
>
> So, if you say 300%, I assume you mean 3 times louder than what the
> track is given as? I do wonder how to do that with the current volume
> attribute - right now the spec says that the default value set is 1.0
> [1]. It seems that means we cannot amplify a quiet audio track but
> have to rely on the user to turn up the volume on their computer? I
> would actually prefer if the default setting was something like 0.5
> and we could then turn the volume up or down in javascript or
> preferably event through a content attribute as mentioned.
>
> Cheers,
> Silvia.
>
> [1] http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/video.html#dom-media-volume
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 10:05 AM, Kevin Marks <kevinmarks at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Setting volume above 1.0 can be very useful if the original is too quiet.
> > For example, Quicktime allows a volume of 300% to amplify quiet tracks
> >
> > On May 31, 2010 11:30 PM, "Philip J?genstedt" <philipj at opera.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 01 Jun 2010 14:17:03 +0800, Silvia Pfeiffer
> > <silviapfeiffer1 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, Ju...
> >
> > This would make volume even more special, as a float that reflects as an
> > integer percentage. Just using the existing definition for reflecting a
> > float would be simpler.
> >
> >>> So, I am neither in favor or against of reflecting volume and mute as
> >>> content attributes. Im...
> >
> > I'd be fine with reflecting muted if many people think it would be useful.
> > I'm not the one to make that judgment though.
> >
> > Volume isn't a huge problem, just not as trivial as one might suspect.
> > Another thing to consider is that it is currently impossible to set volume
> > to a value outside the range [0,1] via the DOM API. With a content
> > attribute, volume="-1" and volume="1.1" would need to be handled too. I'd
> > prefer it being ignored rather than being clamped.
> >
> >>> [1]
> >>>
> >>> http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/urls.html#reflect
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Ch...
> >
> > --
> > Philip J?genstedt
> > Core Developer
> > Opera Software
>
>
>
>   Or you could just raise the volume of the audio track itself. I think
> being able to raise the volume like this (beyond 100% of what it is) with
> script just makes it something more likely to be abused (think how the TV
> adverts always seem twice as loud as the programs they surround) and so will
> end up getting blocked more often.
>
>
>
>
>  That requires editing the resource. Think about it from a process
> point-of-view: you're a Web developer and have been given a set of media
> resources to put on a Website. As you put it all together, you notice that
> the volume of the different files is different and thus playing them back
> next to each other will create a very confusing user experience. Do you
> really want to shoot the files back to the production to adjust the volume
> settings so they are all similar? If you're under time pressure, you'd
> probably much prefer just setting a volume attribute on each so they all
> play back with the same level.
>
>
>
>  Your example of TV ads being louder than the rest of the program is
> indeed a production issue but would not replicable through a volume setting
> for the resource, since that volume applies to the whole resource and not
> just to the ad clip inside it. I don't think that kind of abuse would
> originate from JavaScript - it already originates from production and
> doesn't really apply to this issue.
>
>
>
>  Cheers,
>
>  Silvia.
>
>
>
>
> If, like you mentioned in your example, all the media files are of
> different volumes, then your script would have to somehow detect the actual
> real volume of them in order to give the right level of adjustment for
> normalisation, something which I don't believe is possible just at the
> moment.
>


It is possible, but not necessary. You can just make some changes yourself -
after all, it's only done once, since the resources won't change.



> If I was in such a situation, yes I would most likely send them back to the
> post production team, or at the very least normalise them myself with ffmpeg
> or some similar tool.
>

Yes, sure you can. But should it be the only possibility?



> It would be like sourcing a bunch of images for a website and using canvas
> to applying a filter to adjust the light volumes of them all. Sure, it might
> be possible, but the images really should have been adjusted before they
> were used on the site. Why should we encourage sloppy content producers?
>

If you get the videos from different producers, how should they be able to
normalise the volume?

Silvia.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20100610/988b6977/attachment-0001.htm>
Received on Wednesday, 9 June 2010 19:32:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:59:24 UTC