Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Seriously.js

seriouslyjs.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 196 posts

Re: Seriously.js

#181

Post by kmm »

smackfu wrote: post #172
tyleregeto wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've clocked many hours into After Effects, but seeing this in a browser and _interactive_ is amazing. Never would I have thought that JS and browsers would progress so much in such a short period of time.

OTOH, it's mainly possible because computers are faster so Javascript isn't a slow language anymore, and the document model is just getting out of the way and letting you manipulate pixels directly.

This isn't manipulating the pixels directly. Javascript is still way too slow to do that, and I don't think that will ever change. The real work is done by the graphics card. The Javascript only uploads a frame to the graphics card, makes it run a shader and then displays the adapted frame.

Re: Seriously.js

#182

Post by atwebb »

chacham15 wrote: post #48
atwebb wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You must be a better programmer than me.

If you write single threaded applications you cant go above 1 core and so will never hit this mark :)

It was weird timing because I was working on a multi-threaded application that was murdering my server (expected) when I made the comment.

Re: Seriously.js

#184

Post by rexreed »

brianchirls wrote: post #52

Hi, I'm the person responsible for/guilty of this. Thanks for the comments, everyone. My sympathies for the BSOD. Please keep the bug reports and questions coming. I'll try to fix/answer what I can.

This doesn't work for me at all on FireFox 22.0 on Windows XP. See here: http://imm.io/18sd9

Re: Seriously.js

#185

Post by rexreed »

danielweber wrote: post #41

"Sadly, we are unable to get Seriously.js to work on your computer. Sometimes WebGL gets a bit weird with certain graphics hardware and drivers. Please have a look here for more information."

Same here - FF 22.0 on Windows XP

Re: Seriously.js

#186

Post by daeken »

ricardobeat wrote: post #157
daeken wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is actually slightly more complicated. The existing effects work in GLSL and are just transforming single frames of video. For that effect to work, you need the previous buffer states; this means that seeking will cause the image to be different, and you need to feed the previous render state back as a texture.

Just draw the frames to a 2D canvas, without clearing it, then back to the background buffer.

You still need to remove the green-screen. This either means an expensive process on the CPU side, or pushing the frame to the GPU to remove it with a shader and then using RTT and rendering that or reading the framebuffer and drawing that to a canvas. Note, it's really not difficult to do this, it's just slightly more complex than the other effects, is all.

Re: Seriously.js

#187

Post by brianchirls »

aceperry wrote: post #88
joezydeco wrote: post #33

Wow, I've never seen all 4 cores in my machine simultaneously spin up to 90% before. Nice trick.

LOL, my old core2 duo has both cpus running over 80% on Ubuntu with a GeForce GTX260. But when I click on another tab, with the video still playing on a non-visible tab in Chrome, the cpus drop to around 20%. When I click on the video tab again, the cpu ramps up to the 80% mark again. Neat trick.

That's the nice thing about requestAnimationFrame. It's smart enough to not waste time updating if you're not looking at it.

As for 80%, umm... video driver issues? :-(

Re: Seriously.js

#188

Post by brianchirls »

michaelmior wrote: post #177
brianchirls wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds like you may have a browser addon that's creating an EMBED element as a fallback because the browser can't play the video itself. If that's not the case, do you mind writing a bug issue on github with your browser details? https://github.com/brianchirls/Seriously.js/issues Thanks

Running the latest Chrome on Mac OS X. (btw, realized my initial comment probably came off a little snarky. My apologies. From the sounds of the other comments, it's something incredibly cool!)

That's pretty weird. Is it possible you have a browser extension that's replacing the video tag with an EMBED?

Re: Seriously.js

#189

Post by michaelmior »

brianchirls wrote: post #188
michaelmior wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Running the latest Chrome on Mac OS X. (btw, realized my initial comment probably came off a little snarky. My apologies. From the sounds of the other comments, it's something incredibly cool!)

That's pretty weird. Is it possible you have a browser extension that's replacing the video tag with an EMBED?

Seems to work in Incognito. I'll let you know if I track down the extensions that's messing with things. Really awesome!

Re: Seriously.js

#190

Post by michaelmior »

brianchirls wrote: post #188
michaelmior wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Running the latest Chrome on Mac OS X. (btw, realized my initial comment probably came off a little snarky. My apologies. From the sounds of the other comments, it's something incredibly cool!)

That's pretty weird. Is it possible you have a browser extension that's replacing the video tag with an EMBED?

Looks like it was the HTML5 DivX Plus Web Player. Weird.
Post reply on HN