Audio Playback Speed Manipulation in the Browser - javascript

I'm not asking for hand-holding (yet) but I just wanted to know if it was possible to load an audio file in Javascript (Or Python, which seems like another server-side possibility) and be able to manipulate the playback speed, both slower and faster. I'm just starting my research in this, and wondered if anyone else has messed with audio manipulation in the browser and what was the best platform to do that in (Javascript, Python, etc. seem like there might be a possibility for this).

https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/audio/raw-file/tip/webaudio/specification.html
The web audio api allows you to do exactly that.

Related

Service for recording (camera or screenrecord) directly in browser

I'm creating a service and want to implement a way for the users to easily record a video and upload it directly in the browser. I've looked into Wowza and red5. It would probably be easiest if the video would go straight to their server for perfomance. Does anyone have any experience with either one of them, or even more so, have any other alternatives that would work? I'm building the site in Django, but I'm somewhat afraid of hosting the whole service on my own service considering the performance.
Thanks.
Take a look at this article. It explains how to capture audio and video with HTML5 only. However, the browser support for this is horrible. The best and easiest way in my opinion is to make a own app with AS3 and PHP. It's fairly easy to do and gives you the best options for customization.
Building such app in AS3 (Flash) and using Wowza as a backend is simple enough.
I personally participated in such projects.

Sounds for my javascript game with pure js?

Is it possible to play a sound in my javascript game without using anything like flash or a HTML workaround?
When I searched google it gave me various plugins or ways of doing it with flash, but I'd like to do it with pure js, while being able to play many sounds parallel.
The HTML5 <audio> element has fairly decent support, and there's also an audio API (which allows advanced audio manipulation) lagging somewhat behind.
There's even a tutorial on using it in a JS game.

Language to choose for a board game (flash or HTML5/JS)

I am developing a web based multi-player board game and wondering what the best language for the UI would be? Its a board game similar to Go but a lot simpler.
I have two options flash or the much touted HTML5 with JS. I have to learn both though I have basic knowledge of JS.
The problem with flash is I have to pay for the server component but the UI development could be easier and have a richer look and feel to it. With HTML5 + JS there is no cost involved but the UI development I feel will be clunky and not smooth. This I am not sure. Any experienced devs out there care to give some advice? Are there any particular issues to worry about, look into?
EDIT: Thanks for the comments. I will go with HTML5/JS.
As far as the server side goes, I have not yet decided what to use but want to look into node.js. May be I need to post it to programmers.stackoverflow.com about how it handles load and concurrent users.
Thanks,
Pav
Go with HTML and JS, you said your game was similar to GO, well check out http://govsgo.com/.
The site is written in JavaScript, well there's not much on the front end, the backend is based on Ruby on rails, check out Railscasts #237 (http://railscasts.com/episodes/243-beanstalkd-and-stalker) for some background info on the Ruby part.
You can even do really heavy stuff these days in JavaScript, like multiplayer asteroids (http://bonsaiden.github.com/NodeGame-Shooter/), so a "simple" game like you want to build, shouldn't be problem at all.
HTML5/JS will be less compatible with your audience. A lot of people still have non-compliant browsers.
That being said, HTML5/JS would be more fun I think. :)
http://html5readiness.com/ Provided by Robert Pitt
Is your game meant to be used on the iPhone? If yes, Flash is a no-go, as it is not available on the iPhone.
My vote: HTML5/JS.
Why? Consider:
Flash is fading away. On the other hand, you will enjoy a growing audience for your game (including iPhone, iPad and Android).
Flash is more expensive.
I am confident that you can create any UI in HTML5 that you can in Flash. In fact, and presumed limitations of HTML5 may actually force you to refine your UI in a positive way.
Have you seen Grooveshark since they recreated their entire application in HTML5 instead of Flash? Check it out as a proof of concept.
HTML5/JS is easy.
Flash requires a third party plugin, HTML5 only requires an up to date browser- which requirement is better for the user? Personally, I'd rather update my browser than install a third party plugin.
Since your making a multi-user game flash is the way to go. Multi-user stuff is possible with html5/js but as Chuck says its not available in all the browsers. For the multi-user side of things you can use Red5 (which is free) or SmartFox which is not free if you have more than 100 concurrent users. I built a big project with SmartFox awhile back and I found it really easy to work with. Depending on the simplicity of your game you could roll your own socket server code with a language of your choice.
Flash is pretty hard to learn unless you know Java or classic OO (I could add a lot to that comment). I would go with JS/HTML/CSS. As Chuck said, it would be more fun.
The server is only an issue if you plan to use Flash Interactive Server which is pricey. There are open source alternatives. But you say that as if JS has this built in - it doesn't. If you want real time updates, you'll need a CometD server and those are not easy to implement. I'd go with a short poll regardless of whether it's Flash or JS.

When do you really need to use Flash?

There are a lot of flash effects that can be achieved with jQuery.So when do you really need to use Flash instead of javascript?
Quite simply, when you need to do something that jQuery can't do. This includes video/audio, complex animations, cross-browser vector graphics, multi-file uploads, etc. The list goes on.
Of course, you could always write your website in HTML/jQuery and only use Flash for the necessary parts. That way it's a win-win situation, and your application degrades gracefully for those that don't have Flash.
Flash should be considered a 'last resort' in my opinion, and it's one that is shared with many others. Some people use flashblock, so they'll never see it. Users on mobile devices won't see it either.
There are few areas left for flash currently, and HTML5 will likely eliminate one of them.
Only when I have no choice...or asked by my boss
Flash features:
Compiled byte code versus interpreted
2D and 3D geometry libraries
Animation and audio libraries
Total control over Fonts/layout/design
Binary network calls as well as Xml and JSON
I'm not crazy about Flash for brochure or forms sites but it sure is nice for online games.
If your dislike of Flash comes from a dislike of Adobe, check out the Haxe programming language. It can target the Flash runtime.
if you need something which cant be done by JQuery then go for flash. otherwise stick to JQuery.
It is good for times when you want to make screen scraping harder. A major real estate site I worked with used Flash to make it much more difficult for a competitor to scrape agent data.
Sure this could of been done with images but Flash was just easier for us to implement.
Flex, which runs on top of Flash, is a very nice platform for building applications. In my opinion, it's far better than trying to coerce HTML and JavaScript into being a platform for GUIs. Also, if you have a graphics designer, they will have a much easier time designing the look and feel with the WYSIWYG tools available in the Adobe tools.
However, for traditional web sites, I'd stick with HTML/CSS/JavaScript. Don't use Flash if all you need is simple effects.
Flash is a frontend tool that should be considered when there are requirements that make a project much easier to develop. I know that there are alot of Flash haters, and I understand the reasons. However, each developer should use the tools available to them that would allow the job to get done effectively and quickly. PHP, HTML and JS have its limits, just like AS3 does as well, but each has something that can help deliver a project.

Is it possible to optimize/shrink images before uploading?

I am working on a web application that will deal with many image uploads. Its quite likely that the users will be in areas with slow internet connections and I'm hoping to save them upload time by compressing the images before uploading.
I have seen that Aurigma Image Uploader achieves this using a java applet or active x but it's expensive and I'd rather something open source or at least a little cheaper. Ideally I'd like to roll my own if its at all possible.
I'm developing on Ruby on Rails if that makes any difference..
Thanks!
Edit just to clarify: I don't mind if the solution uses activeX or an applet (although js is ideal) - I'm just looking for something a little cheaper than Aurigma at this stage of development.
Also, it may not be feasible for users to shrink the image themselves as in many instances they will uploading directly from an internet cafe or other public internet spot.
Generally, it isn't possible to write an image compressor in JavaScript. Sorry.
You'll need to use a plugin of some sort, and as you mention, other sites use Java.
It appears to be possible to write something to encode a JPEG in ActionScript (i.e. Flash), which will reach a much larger audience than the Java plugin you mention. Here's a link to a blog post talking about PNG & JPEG encoders in ActionScript.
Here's another blog post with a demo of an inlined JPEG encoder in ActionScript.
Only if you use Flash or Silverlight (only way to be cross-platform)
http://www.jeff.wilcox.name/2008/07/fjcore-source/ may be worth a read.
Without using applets or activex (only in windows) you can't execute anything on a client pc.
Probably not, but you can always insist that image uploads over x size will not succeed.
Is this an application where you can force them to insert a smaller image. In that case you could grab the size first to verify it fits standards. This is what facebook used to do with profile pictures. If it was too big they wouldn't take it.

Categories