up vote 1 down vote favorite
1
share [g+] share [fb]

Recently YouTube and Vimeo added HTML5 players to their websites, with options to use them rather than the FLV video. I understand that HTML5 video is less CPU intensive, but what about bandwidth? So...

Given the same video on YouTube/Vimeo which format would be "cheaper" to view: HTML5 or FLV?

link|improve this question
44% accept rate
1  
FLV is a container, not a codec, and you can't embed FLV files directly in websites anyway. Maybe you're asking Flash vs HTML5? – Brendan Long Feb 15 '10 at 1:35
feedback

3 Answers

up vote 5 down vote accepted

Neither, it's totally dependant on the codec used, just as flash is. I believe they stream in the same format, though they don't have to.

link|improve this answer
feedback
up vote 2 down vote

YouTube and Vimeo both use the H.264 codec for video, be it displayed via Flash or HTML5. You're downloading the same file either way - the only thing changing is the application that's playing that file

link|improve this answer
feedback
up vote 0 down vote

Just be aware that H.264 is a proprietary codec, and you might need to pay for it someday.

link|improve this answer
feedback

Your Answer

 
or
required, but never shown
discard

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.