A comment and a question on the types of video standards that Flash (and by
extension, Breeze) can use for streaming. I have determined that if a computer
has a Firewire input, then Flash on that computer can access a live video feed
from a camera that sends firewire video. I also know of a "Sony handycam" that
uses the USB 2.0 standard, and it took is seen by a Windows computer that is
USB 2.0 compliant.

So far, though, I do not think Macromedia publicizes anything about video
compatibility with Firewire or USB 2.0. It does have a useful camera
compatibility matrix and it is very helpful, but it lists webcams only and has
caveats and all manner of wherefore's and what for's.

Does anyone know of something more definitive from Macromedia about
compatibility with Firewire or USB 2.0? Does anyone have experience in testing
video equipment with Flash using these standards?

Thanks,

Glen Gummess

It doesn't really have anything to do with the hardware or the means by which
the hardware is connected... the answer lies within the drivers for the
hardware. This is acutally a Flashplayer issue rather than an FCS/FMS/Breeze
issue.

If the Flashplayer recognizes the driver for the device as a webcam, it will
show in the cam selection list in the FP settings dialog.

Macromedia has a list of some devices that are supported, but the list is by
no means exhaustive:

http://www.macromedia.com/cfusion/knowledgebase/index.cfm?id=tn_16453

Many video cards also have drivers that are recognized by FP. For example, my
Hauppage WinTV card driver is recognized, so I can use any device connected to
the card as a broadcast source.

Okay, so it's a Flash player issue. It could be a bunch of bananas for all I
care.

Is it possible to generalize ANYTHING about USB 2.0 or Firewire with regard to
whether Flash will recognize it as a "webcam" (I prefer "video source" instead
of webcam).

In other words: If the video gets into the computer via USB 2.0, will Flash
recognize it?

If the video gets into the computer via Firewire, will Flash recognize it?

If the answer to those questions "it depends"... DEPENDS ON WHAT? What does
Flash require of a Firewire or USB 2.0 video solution to be recognized? Is it
something so mysterious that no one can tell?

Sorry to sound so frustrated, but then again: No, I'm not sorry.

Glen

There is no answer as to whether USB or firewire devices will work.
Compatibility will be on a device to device basis (or more to the point, a
dirver to driver basis).

The "it depends" question is "it depends on whether the flashplayer recognizes
the driver as a webcam device". Sometimes yes, sometimes no. If you want to
know for sure, then plug it in and see if the Flashplayer adds it to the list.
If it doesn't, then your device won't work.

Incidentally, the phrasing of your comment makes it seem as though you're
directing your frustration at the other users of the forum. That's a sure fire
way to make people stop offering advice to you.

With regard to this: "Incidentally, the phrasing of your comment makes it seem
as though you're directing your frustration at the other users of the forum.
That's a sure fire way to make people stop offering advice to you," ...

Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if
others shared the same frustration as myself.

But, you raise a legitimate issue and I need to say that, no, I am not
directing my frustration at the users who contribute to this forum. I am
sharing it.

I will not be an apologist. I use Macromedia products and swear by them.
Occasionally, though, I swear at them. Sometimes I think Macromedia designs
its applications only for those users who possess an "insider's" knowledge of
how they work, and what to do to make them work. I know it's getting better:
Breeze, for instance, is so easy to use that "it's scary," to quote one
technologically challenged client with whom I consult. And Macromedia's
documentation is robust and thorough; it's also difficult to mine as I have
indicated in other posts.

But, while Macromedia is making strides with usability for the "common
person", there is still a long way to go. There is a whole level of users who
deserve products that are virtually easy to use at first glance. Other
software companies write programs of this quality, and I could name them.
(TechSmith for instance). I know this is arguable as I am viewing this through
my own lenses, but in my line of work as an instructional designer I try to see
through the lenses of others that I am trying to train. It remains to me a sad
and unnecessarily wasteful fact that I am one of only a few persons on campus
who understand how to use Macromedia Flash, and the torturous issues of
connecting video to it. I am the *only* person who comes close to
understanding Flash Communication Server. And I don't fully comprehend it to
this date.

Thence, my frustration. It's certainly not aimed at users of this forum, who
I consider my peers. But I intend for these expressions to be provocative.
Hopefully that gets somebody's attention in the right way.

My institution (University of St. Francis, Joliet) has made significant
strides with streaming educational media to our learners, and so I can say that
if it weren't for Macromedia products, this would not be possible.

Glen Gummess,
Instructional Designer
University of St. Francis
Joliet, IL

In regards to your comment about Breeze, what should be understood is that is
it not an application in the sense of Flash or Dreamweaver, but rather an
end-user service. Breeeze was developed using Flash and FCS, and is not a
product that can be modified or reused by developers other than those on the
Breeze team. It seems easy to use becuase the Flash application (the
application interface) was well designed... but in the end, the client side of
the application is still just a bunch of Flash movies, built with the same
Flash authoring tool we have access to.


Sometimes I think Macromedia designs its applications only for those users who
possess an "insider's"


There is a whole level of users who deserve products that are virtually easy
to use at first glance.


Well, there are products similar to Flash that are easy to use as first
glance. Programs like Swish, KoolMoves, and Insane Flash Animator are all quite
easy to use, but they don't offer the same depth of features as Flash. I
suppose that's the trade off... you can have easy, or you can have robust, but
you can't have both.

I think what needs to be understood here is that we are talking about
something that is technical by nature, and there is a limit to what can be done
to reduce the technical tasks down to a novice level.

Flash and the related technologies are quite complex... you'll get no argument
from me there. Anyone with less than an expert level of skill and experience
will not be able to take full advantage of the resources the platform offers,
but I would say that's true for any sort of programming environment (take Java
for example... nothing simple there).


It remains to me a sad and unnecessarily wasteful fact that I am one of only a
few persons on campus who understand how to use Macromedia Flash, and the
torturous issues of connecting video to it. I am the *only* person who comes
close to understanding Flash Communication Server. And I don't fully comprehend
it to this date.


That is a bit troubling. Does your institution not have a computer sciences
department? While Flash and FCS are complex, they are no more complex than any
other code-centric sort of technologies, and I would assume anyone with a
programming background would adapt to using Flash and FCS quite quickly.
Actionscript (both client and server side) are ECMA based, and they follow
common OOP practices. There are a few exceptions in SSAS, but those differences
are well documented.