[whatwg] VIDEO Timeupdate event frequency.

On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 12:53 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage at gmail.com>wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 4:05 AM, Silvia Pfeiffer
> <silviapfeiffer1 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 7:28 PM, Biju <bijumaillist at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=571822
> >> > Firefox fires the timeupdate event once per frame.
> >> > Safari 5 and Chrome 6 fire every 250ms.  Opera 10.50 fires every
> 200ms.
> >>
> >>
> >> Now in firefox bug 571822 they are changing Firefox fires the
> >> timeupdate event at every 250ms
> >>
> >> But this takes away control of somebody who want to do some image
> >> process on every frame, as well as miss frames.
> >>
> >> So can we have a "newFrame" event and/or a "minTimeupdate" property to
> >> say what should be the minimum time interval between consecutive
> >> timeupdate event.
> >
> > If we have a newFrame event, might it be an idea to actually hand over
> the
> > frame data (audio + video) in the event? I would think that only ppl that
> > want to do manipulations on the media data want to have that kind of
> > resolution and it might be more efficient to just provide the data with
> the
> > event?
>
> That would actually be a rather useful property.  I have several
> examples of video/canvas integration that I show off regularly at
> talks (and will have an article about on html5doctors.com soon), where
> I just listen to the play event and start running a function every
> 20ms, stopping when I see that the video is stopped or paused.  Just
> being able to register the function with a newFrame event instead
> would be useful in terms of avoiding unnecessary computation, and
> getting the data directly rather than having to draw the video into a
> backing canvas and then ask for its ImageData would shave some of the
> complexity off of the code.
>
>
I do exactly the same thing in my demos.

If browsers are currently not fast enough to be able to process a newFrame
event, might it be possible to hook that up with a Web Worker then?

Silvia.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20100911/d8d9a39d/attachment.htm>

Received on Friday, 10 September 2010 18:22:22 UTC