Is there a way I could store image url inside VTT file? For example:
WEBVTT
00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:10.000
Chapter tile goes here
thumb_0001.jpg
00:00:10.000 --> 00:00:20.000
Another chapter title
thumb_0002.jpg
I know I could write custom parser, but I am wondering is there some kind of a standard for this?
You would need to have a separate WebVTT metadata track, a player that supports them, and likely some scripting and CSS to act on the cue payload. You can see an AblePlayer demo of a few things a metadata track can do (at the 39 second mark). If you examine the wwa_meta.vtt file, you can see that it references ID selectors that happen to be in the player's page html code.
The example you give is quite similar to what is being done currently across the internet for image thumbnails. It's most commonly used for animated video previews on... adult... websites. If you Google search for ".jpg" filetype:vtt you'll find some interesting examples that take the same approach as yours.
As Murray cited already, it's not really the proper way to do it. The metadata track option he cites is much more inline with correct use of the VTT spec. However it's also not broadly supported. You could follow VTT guidelines and end up with a file that can't be read by many players.
One other option is CSS. VTT is designed to work nicely with CSS. So you could include you image as a CSS background-image. That way it's separate from the text content and (at least in theory) some players might even be able to display it properly.
My website for architectural visualization: http://www.greenshell3d.com
I noticed on the networking tab / incognito it takes 15 seconds or so to load the above-the-fold content. (most notably the image slideshow.)
Some of the images in the slideshow load at the very end instead of the beginning of the website load process. Now I understand the browser handles this order, but perhaps there is another way. As it stands, the bounce-rate is too high and I expect it is because of load time.
I've seen a jquery snippet on github that allows one to control the order of image loads - do you think this is a good option? I'd be glad to hear any opinions before investing the time to fix this.
Any ideas? Thanks!
You said you are interested in any opinions as well, so first some general thoughts: There is no page fold. The web that we produce content for exists in so many different screen sizes + resolutions that it’s impossible to say "The fold is below this big image!". Yes, Google changed the pagespeed insights tool to make people load stuff on top of the page first, but I think their wording there is really bad.
Now to your image loading issue:
The first thing I would recommend is to reduce the size of all the images. They seem to be around 280 - 300 kb per image and you have a few of them. Since there is a translucent overlay over them anyways you can probably get away with reducing the image quality without people noticing it (because they don’t see the image directly). Play around with the values here.
I would then look into optimizing the code for the slider to load the first image first, then the rest of the page and the other images asynchronously maybe after that. Another trick could be to increase the slide fade time from the first slide to other slides so the slider doesn’t change if the next image isn’t ready yet. You said you found a jQuery script to implement that, that’s where I’d start.
As a general guideline: the position of requests in the source code usually determines the load order of things on the page. If your images are requested by JavaScript at the end of the page, that lead to the images being loaded later than you want them to be loaded.
I am using a video background plugin on this site http://kimcolemanprojects.com/index.html
Its works great on all browsers, only on chrome the video doesn't show until the user clicks on the screen, which is just a white screen.
Looks like its bound to a click event but I can not work out where. I can see no events bound to this page.
Thanks for your help.
Angela
This is a strange one indeed. It only happens for me when I open your site in a background tab. There are definitely no click handlers. (See "Event Listener Breakpoints" in dev tools.) And the video element does exist and is loaded, even though it's not displaying. So I suspect it's either a bug in Chrome or a quirk in how it handles certain slow-loading pages.
One thing that seems to make it show up is to tweak the CSS in the developer tools. So try adding this to your page at the end of the body element:
<script>
$(document).ready(function() {
setTimeout(function() {
document.getElementsByTagName('video')[0].style.display = '';
}, 500);
});
</script>
That works for me when I run it in the console, so hopefully it will work in script.
Also, there are a few easy things you can do to make the page load much faster and mitigate this particular problem, even if you can't make it go away completely.
Set a dark background color. That way, when the video takes some time to load, people will be able to see the white text immediately.
Make the video MUCH smaller. It's about 21MB, which is way too big for a background. It's encoded at around 3400kb per second, which is more than you need even for HD video on the web. Try it at 1000kb or even less. Maybe 500kb. And don't include an audio track in the video file.
Save the poster image as a jpg instead of png. It's 140kb. You can get it much smaller.
Put all your scripts (except for the mobile redirect) at the bottom of the body tag. This way you can at least get the text and background color displaying without having to load your scripts.
I'm coding an app around video content and am currently playing around with HTML5's fullscreen API (I know it is still in very early stage).
Because of what my application does, the video itself isn't the only part that goes fullscreen: several elements alongside go fullscreen too, and I have noticed a great drop in performance there. The video streams ok, but other graphical elements suddenly get painfully slow. For example, a hover style typically takes about a good half second before showing up. A simple change in subtitles (I use popcorn.js) causes the video to freeze for a fraction of a second.
Any one knows why this is so? Do you experience the same? Thanks for your precious feedback.
What are some effective strategies for preventing the use of my proprietary images?
I'm talking about saving them, direct linking to them etc...
Presently I have a watermark on the image, but I'd rather not.
.NET platform preferred, but if there's a strategy that's on another platform that integrates with my existing application that'd be a bonus.
It's not possible to make it "impossible" to download. When a user visits your site you're sending them the pictures. The user will have a copy of that image in the browsers cache and he'd be able to access it even after he leaves the site ( depending on the browser, of course ). Your only real option is to watermark them :O
You could embed each image inside of a flash application, then the browser wouldn't know how to 'save' the image and wouldn't store the raw jpg in the cache folder either. They could still just press the print screen key to get a copy of the image, but it would probably be enough to stop most visitors.
Response.WriteBinary(), embedded flash, JavaScript hacks, hidden divs.
Over the years I have seen and tried every possible way to secure an image and I have come to one conclusion: If it can be seen online; it can be taken, my friend.
So, what you really should consider what the final goal of this action would really be. Prevent piracy? If a gross and oversized watermark is not your style, you can always embed hidden data (Apress had an article that looked promising on digital steganography) in images to identify them as your own later. You might only offer reduced or lower quality images.
Flickr takes the approach of placing a transparent gif layer on top of the image so if you are not logged in and right click you get their ever awesome spaceball.gif. But nothing can prevent a screenshot other than, well, just not offering the picture.
If the music industry could get you to listen to all of your music without copying or owning files they would. If television could broadcast and be certain nobody could store a copy of the cast, they probably would as well. It's the unfortunate part of sharing media with the public. The really good question here is how you can protect your material WITHOUT getting in the way of respectable users from consuming your images. Put on too much protection and nobody will go to your site/use your software (Personally if you try to disable my mouse I'll go from good user to bad nearly instantly).
using JavaScript to override the click event is the most common I have seen...
see: http://pubs.logicalexpressions.com/pub0009/LPMArticle.asp?ID=41
I figure I might as well put in my two cents.
None of the above methods will work with perhaps the exception of a watermark.
Wherever I go, I can hit print screen on my computer and paste into a graphics editor, and with a little cropping, I have your image.
The only way to overcome the watermark issue would be to use photoshop tools to remove the watermark. At this point, i think most people would just give up and pay you for your content or at a minimum go rip off somebody else.
Short answer: you can't. Whatever you display to a user is going to be available to them. You can watermark it, blur it, or offer a low-res version of it, but the bottom line is that whatever images are displayed in the user's browser are going to be available to them in some way.
It's just not possible. There is always the PrintScreen button.
Whatever is displayed, can be captured.
I would watermark them, and reduce the resolution, of the actual files, instead of doing it through an application on the user's end.
unfortunately you can always screen grab the browser and crop the image out, not perfect but it circumvents almost every solution posted here :(
Another approach I've seen that's still entirely vulnerable to screen grabs but does make right-click and cache searching sufficiently annoying is to break the image up into many little images and display them on your page tiled together to appear as though they were a single image. But as everyone has said, if they can see it, they can grab it.
Realistically you can't, unless you don't want them to see it in the first place. You could use some javascript to catch the right mouse button click, but that's really about it.
Another thought, you could possibly embed it in flash, but again, they could just take a screenshot.
Sorry. That's impossible. All you can do is make it inconvenient a la flickr.
It's just not possible. There is always the PrintScreen button.
I remember testing ImageFreeze years ago. It used a Java applet to fetch and display images. The image data and connection was encrypted and the unencrypted image wasn't stored in a temp folder or even in Java's cache.
Also, the applet constantly cleared the windows clipbrd so Print Screen didn't work.
It worked pretty good, but it had some faults.
Besides requiring Java, the JS that embedded the applet (and maybe the applet itself) was setup to not load properly in any browser that didn't give access to the windows clipbrd. This meant that it only worked in IE and only on windows.
Also, the interval the applet used to clear the clipbrd could be beaten with a really fast Print Screen and ctrl+v into Gimp. Printing the screen in other ways would work too.
Finally, Jad could decompile the applet and all/most of its files. So, if you really wanted the pics, you could poke around in the source to figure out how they did it.
In short, you can go out of your way to stop a lot of people, but usability goes down the drain and there will always be a way to get the image if the visitor can see it.
Anything you send to the client is, like, on the client. Not much you can do about it besides making somewhere between "sorta hard" and "quite hard" to save the image.
I must say in the begining that it is almost impossible to stop the
images or text being copied, but making it difficult will prevent most
of the users to steal content.. In this article I will give a easier
but effective way of protecting images with html/css. We will take a
very simple way for this… Firstly in a div we will place the image
with a given height and width. (Say 200 X 200)
Now we can place another transparent image with same height and
width and give it a margine of -200. So that it will overlap the
actual image. And when the user will try to copy this, they will end
up with the transparent gif only…
<div style=”float: left;”>
<img src=”your-image.jpg” style=”width: 200px;height: 200px;”/>
<img src=”the-dummy-image.png” style=”border: 0px solid #000; width: 200px; height: 250px; margin-left: -200px; ” />
</div>