Manually chosen rendition is not taking effect on the brightcove player - brightcove

I'm changing the video rendition using the setRenditionSelectionCallback as explained here http://support.brightcove.com/en/video-cloud/docs/selecting-multi-bitrate-streaming-renditions. But seems like the rendition I choose is never being displayed, even when in the brightcove debugger I see messages like:
Attempting to change rendition that the player expects to play from (110000b/s, 400x224) to (800000b/s, 640x360)
New rendition chosen from external rendition algorithm.
Is there anything else that should be done for update the rendition that is being displayed? Or is it a know issue? I'm only updating the rendition index in the setRenditionSelectionCallback callback.
Thanks in advance for any help here! :)

I was trying to change dynamically the rendition in a progressive download account. In this kind of accounts the rendition selection is only possible at the very start.
It is possible to force a rendition change with a progressive account by using a different method, but that will restart playback (and download) from the beginning again. There's an existing plugin doing that: https://github.com/BrightcoveOS/Rendition-Selector-Plugin.

Related

Embedded youtube video with "autoplay=1". Does it count towards views?

I can cause an embed youtube video to begin playing automatically using "autoplay=1"
When a user views the embedded video does it count towards my views count?
I have attempted to test but had inconclusive results. Viewed embedded videos to not appear to consistently convert to views even when play is manually clicked.
My tests have been from a single machine and IP which may be the problem? Browser session does not seem to be relevant.
There's been some discussions regarding this topic. Here's a thread with some contradictory answers:
Does the views in the embed player count?
And here's an article about an official response from Youtube claiming that autoplay views does not count:
Youtube Says Autoplay Don't Count
Here's another one that claims that embedded videos with autoplay doesn't count:
How does YouTube video view count work?
(found through this SO answer)
Note 1: Note that there seems to exist "cheats" and bugs, but Youtube claims to be working to prevent it. This means that, if you're using their API in a regular way, your autoplay views probably doesn't count.
Note 2: The above note is simply Youtube's official statement. Who knows what's really going on. Some people (including you, OP) are getting mixed results.
The bottom line is, don't count on it (pun intended).
Short answer: NO
I found this official documentation on the subject (however it's regarding the Custom gadget development guidelines)
Rule of Thumb:
Any time a user initiates a playback using the native player controls, that playback should count. Using an API method to PLAY a video does not count. BUT, you can use cueVideoById and then have the user click a native built in play button and it will count.
Views will NOT be counted if:
The user initiates playback via an API method like playVideo or loadVideoById
The video autoplays via the autoplay parameter
You can try adding the attribute "enablejsapi=1" . This will increase the view count in youtube.com site
No. It was a long search, but the answer seems to be hidden here. Follow the link to check it out.
Taken from here.
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/171780?hl=en&ref_topic=3014330

Only show the back of the live tile in WP7?

Is there possible to only show the back of the tile when pinned to start? I think the back gives me more freedom, with the "Content" setting, so I would like to only use the back, and not the front.
No. But what you can do, is to create a custom live tile background-image, which allows you to have more content on it.
I've written a guide on how to do exactly that

Disable to download image from canvas

I added image to canvas element, but visitor than can save that image to local comp.
Is there any way to disable that option? I don't know, putting some transparent image over?
Thx
So i thought this can help you just disable rightclicks:
$('#canvas').bind("contextmenu",function(e){
return false;
});
None of this (not even image slicing) stops a user from simply copying the screen on to the clipboard and pasting it into MSpaint or any other image utility, and saving the result. Its trivial to do; And a transparency image is no impediment to this.
The only effective options that I know of are (as was said), watermarking or low quality.
*Avoid 1 pixel wide lines or dot watermarks that can be removed easily with a Photoshop filter.
~If its commercial... You could have a pay-wall, and steganographically embed the purchaser's name and or information into the image (or preview), such that if it does get used without permission, at least you know who did it.
Basicly: if your image is loaded by the Browser you can never protect the user to download it, because if the browser knows where to find the image, the user can find this out as well. So all this download protection only works for users not familiar with computers and the internet and nowadays i think most people are able to download such an image if they really want to.
If you want to prevent users to use your images for their work, you can use images with watermarks or in a lower resolution otherwise can you tell what reason do you have to prevent users from downloading?
I found this question in review of an HTML5 captcha alternative I'm developing. My goal is not to "prevent" users from downloading the image as much as blocking OCR on the image capture. To prevent it, I added a onclick event to the canvas object that resets the canvas element on click. The user can "download" it, but it no longer is the original code presented.

Custom SLider for video on iPad

I have a custom UISlider and use the currentPlaybackTime to change values of an MPMoviePlayerController object.
The problem is when i scrub at a fast rate using the slider, it doesn't respond as fast as i would like..
Is there any better way to have a fast interactive scrubber for ipad? targeting from OS 3.2
Well there are two issues, only one you can control directly.
Multimedia-content is commonly compressed using some kind of delta-compression, hence quick and exact seeking is not a trivial task to cope with. As that is common and since you can not directly change that, you will have to live with it.
the only way to increase responsiveness for seeking on the content-side (when encoding) is reducing the gop-size - that is, less p-frames between the i-frames.
when using a slider or a similar control, you could, instead of directly connecting the current playback position with it, handle any manual changes in an indirect fashion. You could run a timer based job that, whenever the slider/scrubber has been moved, tries to adjust the playback position towards that new value. Once the player is seeking, prevent the scrubber from getting feedback from the current playback location but allow it once the player is in playing state again. That way the user does not directly experience the clunky seek feedback.

Preventing a visitor from saving an image from my site

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>

Resources