[whatwg] audio and video: volume and muted as content attributes?
Ashley Sheridan
ash at ashleysheridan.co.uk
Thu Jun 10 05:45:33 PDT 2010
On Thu, 2010-06-10 at 12:32 +1000, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
> 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 Jägenstedt" <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 Jägenstedt
> > > > 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.
>
>
There are ways that the different producers can normalise the files,
even if there are many producers. I used to work in a post production
house, so I know this is possible.
Thanks,
Ash
http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20100610/15e8a88b/attachment-0002.htm>
More information about the whatwg
mailing list