Talk:Flash Video

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You know... I came here to find an FLV to AVI converter that WASN'T spam. Googling gives you 50 different programs that all require money and are all crippled. I KNOW there is a freeware one out there, but I CAN'T FIND IT without installing questionable software for HOURS AND HOURS. A big special thanks to the people who removed useful links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.167.161.182 (talk) 01:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Internet Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the Internet. For more information, visit the project page.

Start

This article has been rated as start-class on the class scale.

High

This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

[edit] Windows Explorer Thumbnails

Is there a method to display FLV files with thumbnails of the file contents, instead of an icon of the .FLV format, at least in "thumbnail view"?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ace Frahm (talk • contribs) 04:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Not developed by Adobe

It said "developed and distributed by Adobe". That is incorrect. It was developed by Macromedia which was purchased by Adobe Systems. A young reader would see that and think the creators of Photoshop created Flash, which is misleading. Or you can change the wording to explain that correctly. Strictly speaking Adobe developed but 1 line of code in Flash.

[edit] A good flv player (os x)?

I've tried vlc and mplayer, which both won't allow me to fast-forward or reverse through a flv file ("main: INPUT_CONTROL_SET_TIME(_OFFSET) 17393000 failed"). I know this isn't the best place to ask, but can somebody pinpoint me to a *good* flv player for the mac? Thanks! :-) Sergeyy 23:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Yea i noe. wenever u try to fast forward or sumfin, the video just stops.

Riva have a player and an encoder which allows some variability, but probably not all you want.

Nope, unfortunately not, but thanks. Sergeyy 08:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

You might want to try Perian. It works for all the FLV videos I've tried. Caffeinepuppy 09:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that you should take a look at www.fidyo.com

Got English version? E. Sn0 =31337= ^Talk 22:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

i use Applian FLV Player. you can fast forward and rewind and everything. you can also use video smoothing wen scaling but its a little cpu intensive. TranscendantX (talk) 01:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External Links section needs revision

There needs to be new catagory for programs that convert both ways, such as Riva. Currently, they are listed in a way that makes it seem as if they have only one function, but some of the programs can do both flv->video and video->flv. I've put a small note there untill someone does this revision, since I can't research each program at this time. TheRaven7 14:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Riva is just a front-end to ffmpeg, so the format support is presumably the same. The list is getting a little cluttered, and I think it could be trimmed down a bit. -- Mcoder 00:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External Links - Screencast

FLV is a complex & confusing category, plus it is changing rapidly. I think we can add value by describing the various tools better & categorizing them. Added Flash Media Players + Open Source Flash sections to External links and 'See Also' ref to Screencast -HTH Awildman 23:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] vixy.net's FLV Lossless Converter

Kudos to whoever put this brilliant link on this page! I love you. --Jayshoo 10:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HTTP streaming

82.73.24.196 has repeatedly made a distinction between HTTP "progressive download" and "streaming", on the basis of "allowing random access". Random access is possible in HTTP via the range request-header, so I don't see the difference. It's just HTTP. So unless you have some reasonable explanation of the difference, I'm going to remove these comments and just list HTTP. -- Mcoder 02:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

+ FMS can also stream via HTTP port 80 to bypass RTMP blocks on firewalls. In this case the RTMP is tunneled within HTTP. But there's still a difference between progressive download (no server-client interaction) and streaming (both via HTTP or RTMP).

Ok, but wouldn't that be RTMP-in-HTTP, rather than "HTTP streaming"? To me, HTTP streaming just means you send an HTTP header and get back a stream of data, which is exactly the same thing as progressive download. That's just the way HTTP works. -- Mcoder 02:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I was confused by this section as well, I tried to clarify HTTP streaming. AFAIK, HTTP streaming doesn't tunnel RTMP, it just uses the byte range functionality defined in RFC 2616 14.35. Oasisbob 22:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The assertion that HTTP streaming uses the byte range functionality of HTTP is incorrect. It is impossible to instruct the netstream object in flash to pass the necessary HTTP client headers to the server for this to work. HTTP streaming in Flash 8 and 9 uses a special server-side process that reads the desired offset into the flv file out of a get or post request and not the byte range header. For verification of this, please review the source code for the apache, lighttpd and php scripts that enable this functionality. I would recommend that the text "using the partial download functionality of HTTP" be replaced with "using a server-side process" for the sake of technical accuracy. anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.56.11 (talk) 18:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External links

Wikipedia is not here to advertise. Those links advertise software. Please read WP:EL and WP:SPAM. _JD^talk 12:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You have deliberatly vandalised this Wikipedia entry and removed lots of useful content containing links to free software instead of pruning deliberate commercial links. Now the content in the software section does not make sense. Congratulations! I hope you feel proud of yourself destroying one of the best resources on FLV editing and transcoding on the 'net. Pat yourself on the back! 217.37.230.253 12:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here to advertise any software. I do not see anything wrong with what I have done, and another administrator concurs. We consider the inclusion of these links spam. _JD^talk 13:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You and the other Wikipedia editor are missing the point that people find the links to software useful - read the damn comments in here for proof of that! Instead of doing a cleanup (perhaps placing links to wiki pages for appropriate software or creating wiki stubs for some of the unlisted software and placing links to the wiki pages rather than direct links or pruning blatantly commercial links), you've done a hack job on the page and reduced its usefulness for the majority of visitors. Congratulations!! You're winner!!!! 217.37.230.253 13:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

If you don't lose the attitude, you won't get another reply from me. The links are spam. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not Google. We don't include links to something or favour one thing over another based on its popularity. That's it. _JD^talk 13:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

By your logic (or lack thereof) the link to Adobe's Flash product page is also spam, so why don't you delete that? Still doesn't change the fact that you've pretty much ruined this page with your hack job instead of doing a proper cleanup. Oh well. Nice job! 217.37.230.253 13:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The link to "Adobe's Flash page" isn't spam because the link, or rather what's made available by visiting the link, is what this article is about. Okay? _JD^talk 13:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The link is to details of commercial software for producing Flash and FLV files, not detail about the FLV format that this article is about. Using your logic it should be removed! 217.37.230.253 13:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC).

The link is gone. _JD^talk 13:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

There still is an entire section dedicated to the flash player, why is the flash player worthy of an entire paragraph, while competing software, even as a short link, is branded as spam? Perhaps the section should be retitled while avoiding discrimination, because, as you said before, We don't include links to something or favour one thing over another based on its popularity. Dedicating a section to it seems like playing favourites to me ;) --Rygir 06:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should check WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY and consider that administrators are chosen because of past dedication, not because they will be infallible in the future. As for your claim that the links are spam : "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam.", to me it is clear that the intention here is not to promote something but to inform everyone. I cannot find any criteria in WP:SPAM that says any link to software is spam. In any case,there clearly isn't a consensus here and simply removing content is definitly not in the spirit of things.--Rygir 05:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Explain WHY the links are spam. Also, popularity definitly is a factor that is considered (WP:NOTABILITY), with Google as a possible criterium no less (I know you were referring to it's purpose of finding links).--Rygir 06:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I cleaned up the links section and reinstated the links to what as far as I could see was free software , both conversion to and from FLV , and players for FLV files.If I missed any commercial software link please remove it.

The article without any links is a bit pointless since it doesn't even give a method of playing such files ,at a minimum it should have links for players Garda40 05:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The article isn't supposed to give a method of playing the described file; it's meant to describe the file format. The articles for WMV, WMA, RealVideo, and even MP3 do not have sections full of links that play the file format. I don't see why this article should be different, and having the links here is a violation of WP:NOT, which states that Wikipedia is not a repository of external links. The links should be removed again per WP:EL and WP:NOT. _JD^talk 08:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, links aren't evil by themselves. The article isn't just a collection of links (not allowed according to spam policy), the links are relevant and useful and have been selected with care, and should be included. If you still disagree then by all means point out exactly which rules in policy have been violated. I suggest you discuss this on a link by link basis, I would be surprised if there was one sweeping criterium that applies to any and all software links.--Rygir 06:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The articles for WMV, WMA, RealVideo, and even MP3 do not have sections full of links that play the file format. I don't see why this article should be different

Because most if not all computers come ready equipped to play such files as MP3 etc , I haven't come across people who automatically could play FLV files and have actually pointed them to this article for information

which states that Wikipedia is not a repository of external links.

And in that nowhere nowhere does it say there should be no links which you and the other editor have been doing and indcidently isn't removal of entire sections without discussion or at least a post in the talk section explaining your reason against Wikipedia policy as well. I can't figure out why you ( and the other editor )want no links at all when other editors who describe themselves as "cleaners of articles" etc have been content to remove some of the links but not every single one.Garda40 12:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it......JDtalk 12:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

If you feel the need to remove whole sections it would be appreciated if you discussed this on the articles talk page as well. --Rygir 06:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Quite how it is be discussed with editors who don't respond, after all I did explain in great detail why players should be included , is beyond me .

Congratulations on making the article useless as a source for information to non technical people ,like myself , looking for players etc , about the FLV format

Incidently per this exchange

The link is to details of commercial software for producing Flash and FLV files, not detail about the FLV format that this article is about. Using your logic it should be removed! 217.37.230.253

shouldn't those links be removed again as per your earlier reasoning or do you have some particular reason for leaving them in place Garda40 13:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not the keeper of this article. The article is not my bitch. If a link I removed has been re-added and I haven't re-removed it, it is because I haven't seen its re-addition or because I don't much care enough to remove it. A link to the developers' area of the website of the company that owns the subject of this article is nowhere near as bad as a heap of external links to strange FLV players that people haven't heard of before. Wikipedia doesn't pimp software, end of. _JD^talk 15:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Strange you made it your bitch over the last 2 days.and now you don't care and you won't remove a link that under your own logic shouldn't be there and that you already removed once.Why is it now immune to deletion by you.

a heap of external links to strange FLV players that people haven't heard of before

I'm a non technical person and I've heard of 3 of those 7 players

Wikipedia doesn't pimp software, end of

Strange it appears that now it's pimping software with those links from only one company even if it is the developer company Garda40 18:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Links to an article subject's own website should be included in articles, no matter how self-pimping they may be. Most websites' sole purpose is to self-promote. As for the other links, I also know of three of the seven players that were listed on the article, but that doesn't change the fact that Wikipedia is not here to promote software. Please read WP:EL and WP:SPAM before telling me the links should be in the article, because I'm hoping you'd be able to at least then tell me why. _JD^talk 13:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

And I'm asking how the logic of your position changed so much that links you regarded as fit for deletion just the other day suddenly changed into links that are okay even though they are self-pimping

I presume I therefore can follow through your logic of the other day and delete them then but unlike you , and the other editor , I will give a few days notice Garda40 15:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Stop making disruptive edits to FLV, and stop adding my name to the edit summaries -- I have not said that the external links that are on that article should go. Read WP:EL to see what kind of links are normally included in articles. If you continue, you will be blocked. JDtalk 17:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Well technically you didn't say it but per this exchange you agreed that those links shouldn't be there.

::::::The link to "Adobe's Flash page" isn't spam because the link, or rather what's made available by visiting the link, is what this article is about. Okay? _JD^talk 13:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC) :::::::The link is to details of commercial software for producing Flash and FLV files, not detail about the FLV format that this article is about. Using your logic it should be removed! 217.37.230.253 13:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC). ::::::::The link is gone. _JD^talk 13:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you please tell me how those current links are about the FLV format and not details of commercial software for producing Flash and FLV files even if they are from the developer Garda40 17:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

re all of the above could we maybe use the example of this page? - List of PDF software -

Hakluyt bean 02:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea, the article doesn't get dwarfed by the links and everyone has was they are looking for : information on how to work with this file format.--Rygir 06:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I personally feel that the links should remain on the page. People come to this page for information when their FLV files do not play properly.

[edit] Is FLV an open standard?

Somebody should mention explicitly that this is NOT an open standard and also point to sources to translate a FLV video to some other format. (I would do it myself if I just knew about it, but I learned about FLV just today)

Reply: It is mostly open. H.263 is open, and recent ffmpeg can decode VP6 and screen codec. You can convert FLV to other formats using ffmpeg, mencoder, VLC media player and several other programs.

FYI : Media Player Classic can play .flv files with Satsuki Decoder Pack (during install, look at video codec and check FLV1). I think it uses ffmpeg, ffdshow and vp6 codecs.

Could you tell me the exact file names please? So I can use them with the real WMP11--Coolkid602006 01:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FLV Converter section

FLV CONVERTER SECTION GONE!!! Why do you remove useful links that I put on this page? are you trying to destroy this page / or you just don't know anything about the importance of those links!

>>guys, you weren't supposed to delete the FLV Encoder section!!!<< how do we put it back now!! it took me a few weeks to find all those links and test some of those programs!This is unacceptable! You ruined this page!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.12.29.161 (talk)

FLV CONVERTER SECTION-Link >>Please do not delete the FLV Converter link section. It's a great source of info for those who are looking for a good converter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.12.29.216 (talk)

Could you restore the FLV converter apps /link section please.

I've put it back up. If anyone feels that there should be a reason to delete this section please say so.--Coolkid602006 01:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do not re-add the converter section. It is not appropriate for wikipedia. See WP:NOT and WP:EL. This has been discussed to death, and the policy is very clear. Oasisbob 21:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

== I give up =='''''''''' 'guys, I give up, there are a couple of people who are trying to ruin this page. they don't know the importance of those links, don't have enough info on FLV and keep modifying the page. it's really shameful. we should all contact Wiki and ask them to lock this page for a while, till we decide what needs to be added to this page!!!

Probably someone from Adobe who keeps taking down the links to the other converters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.216.208.20 (talk) 23:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Software Spam

People keep trying to spam software references to this article. I don't think this is appropriate. Please compare the amount of software references in other file format articles like HTML and MP3 to this one. Oasisbob 23:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

If people keep trying it (obviously not the same person repeatedly) that should be a big clue that perhaps it is expected to be in the article and therefor necessary. You just compared it to two of the most popular and best supported formats around! Obviously a list of software for those applications would be nigh endless. FLV software on the other hand is rare and sought after. The links that I know of don't fall in the category "spam" either, just because they link to software doesn't make them spam. I find it hard to believe this is all part of some linkbuilding scheme by some mischievous SEO. That said, it shouldn't be an exhaustive list (because that would qualify as spamming by quantity).

In reference to all discussion above I would like to point out that, to my knowledge, there is no policy that defines all links to (commercial) software as spam. I have 2 suggestions to improve the article and make everyone happy :

1) Every link that is added should be motivated on the talk page and reviewed by others to determine if it is indeed link spam. It is important to differentiate between spam and a genuinely useful link, I'm all too aware of that as I have strong dislike for the filth that infests my mailbox daily, as well messageboards on my own websites for example. Simply weeding out all links because you don't want to be a list of all commercial software is just too coarse. Due to the demand for the links alone I would argue that the article is more informative when they are included.

2) These circumstances should be explained in the article itself, making it obvious to anyone why this file format does contain links to software to work with it. The circumstances being that it is widely used on websites to display videos, even though there is actually very little standalone software available. This is remarkable because usually you need to build wide support to make something succesful, whereas this format is popular exactly because it is hard to use offline (and easy to integrate in websites obviously).

Finally, if you really really can't help yourself and must remove something, I suggest hunting some pokemon lifecycle descriptions or something else that is far less useful ;) .

I would make changes to the article myself, but I don't have time to do proper reference hunting and the people who made the changes earlier are more knowledgeable on the details than me no doubt, so I will leave it here as a suggestion. --Rygir 05:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Links added about the actual format

I just added two links which are not software spam ;-) but are actual links about the internal details of the format. There are a few more such pages - if we can get enough they may be enough to write a section that actually details the format in a referenceable fashion without assuming the reader has licensed access to Adobe format spec documents - David Gerard 21:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I also took off the link to Flash in general - the Adobe Devnet page on Flash and the specification licensing page should cover it from the official end of things - David Gerard 22:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice find. I agree that more concrete information about the format would be useful. Oasisbob 23:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of FLV software

- imo would be useful.

Like this: List of PDF software

Hakluyt bean 22:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Overly zealous removal of useful information

Example :

StroboScope server of www.jet-stream.nl (Netherlands), the PHP FLV streaming Player of www.rich-media-project.com (France) [1], and Streamlike players [2] all make use of HTTP streaming. An open source FLV metadata injector is made available by Buraks [3]

was changed to :

For example, Google Video supports progressive download and can seek to any part of the video before buffering is complete, whereas YouTube cannot.

with the following reason given :

cleaned up progressive download description, removed commercial links in favor of a more clear example. (Revision as of 19:56, 23 December 2006 )

Now please, explain to me how YouTube and Google Video are good replacements for commercial links, as they are commercial links themselves. Just because you don't have to pay by credit card to Google doesn't make it a non-profit organization. In fact, you even removed an open source reference! If your intent is to minimize references to commercial products then this whole page is pointless, as FLV is a commercial product. Instead, refrain making edits biased towards the most popular solutions and clean up the links that are there, by merit of the content those links refer to. That said, I like what was added, I just don't believe the reasoning behind the removal of the links that were there was entirely justified. --Rygir 06:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

While the reasoning may have been somewhat misleading, I think the channge was justified. The change removed external links to apparently non-noteable websites. In general, we should always favour notable websites over non-noteable ones and not use external links to justify the mentioning of a non-noteable website (or programs or whatever). Mentioning non-noteable things, particularly with external links comes very close to advertising which is not necessarily so with noteable things Nil Einne (talk) 18:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Google Video

Isn't Google Video the same thing as YouTube now? Douglas A. Whitfield 17:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Google purchased YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/t/about). Google Video now searches YouTube, but they are still run as separate sites. You can't sign into Google with a YouTube account, for example. CoJaBo 17:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Video to Flash

The first video to flash application came out on December 2000 (see: www.geocities.com/vid2swf). Back then people simply converted video files (AVI, MPG, MOV) to SWF. With time, Macromedia realized that people would be happy to view video content in their flash player rather than fight the format war between Microsoft(ASF, WMV), RealNetworks and Quicktime(QT, Mov), and came out with FLV. By pushing it through their automatic update mechanism, they managed to take over this market almost completely.

[edit] What About Macromedia?

Under the entry for "flash player" it reads "The Adobe Flash Player is a multimedia and application player created and distributed by Adobe Systems." stating adobe created flash is patently incorrect and should be corrected.

Yep. You're right. I changed "created" to "developed" since they are the current developers. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 03:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Instructions on How to Join FLV Files?

I can't find anywhere to else to ask.. does anyone know how to join FLV files? There doesn't seem to be a free software that does this. Hubert Shiau, AIM: hmshiau 00:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

AVIDEMUX, a free and open source video editor will read and write FLV container files. You can append files, one at a time, to an already opened initial file, and then save the resultant FLV file (with 2, 3, or more clips joined) with a new name. There are versions of Avidemux for Linux, Windows, MAC OS, and a few others. — Becksguy (talk) 03:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FLV player article

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. -- Hi Ev 19:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

Someone created FLV Converter also. Do we really need all these articles? --Mcoder 23:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Probably not. A merge of FLV Converter and FLV player into this article is worth discussing. -- Hi Ev 11:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Note: I fixed the capitalization of the "FLV player" article and set it as the main article for the "FLV Player" section of this article. There is still some information in this article that should be copied/moved into the other article, or alternately should be merged into this article. Either way works for me. -- Hi Ev 11:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Progressive Download

Is this (xmoov-php) the same as progressive download? 172.173.75.233 17:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Increase in popularity of Flash Video

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)

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)

[edit] Silent embedded Flash

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)