sharp VS video.js

Last thing left is to use our new upload function in our server action. Since I like to upload images in single format and have some more control over them, I will additionally use sharp library. For file name, I'll generate some random string using nanoid:

blur is a technique to blur images while reducing the file size surprisingly. blur works by enlarging the pixels of the image, which reduces the details of the image, and the number of colors also decreases, thus saving storage space. Sharp is a popular image processing library in Node.js, and it supports the blur function. After going through the blur function, the image size at this point is only a few KB, which is reasonable for an image placeholder in the article.

sharp

For simplicity, I will be generating PNGs with JavaScript/Node and the Sharp image library. Any library that can convert between pixel arrays and image files will make the process quite straightforward.

There is also a library that Next.js itself uses: sharp. It can be setup as Node.js service. I even played around a little: image-proxy-service

Sharp Documentation: Link

ESLint does an amazing job in detecting floating promises. I've not had it miss one, ever. When adding this to a project, I've discovered multiple accidental bugs due to a missing "await" keyword--bugs that were extremely subtle and intermittent in many cases.

The only thing it can't do is determine that you actually did handle the promise later. Which is fine. It's a LINTING RULE, and false positives are the name of the game.

What's BAD is when you accidentally miss handling a promise at all. It's an invisible error without the linting rule.

Your other comments...don't even make sense. You're going to build a Lanczos filter by hand? Or you're only going to ... compile ImageMagick to WebAssembly?!, ... an implementation which is tremendously slower (nearly unusably so for large images) than that of Sharp:

https://www.npmjs.com/package/sharp

... which is simply an import away?

No, what you're doing is called "motivated reasoning." You've concluded that Deno is the best, and you're reinterpreting all of my complaints in convoluted ways to support your predetermined conclusion.

Standard fanboy behavior. Or troll behavior. I cite Poe's Law as why it's impossible to tell the difference.

For people who like to watch with subtitles, VLC currently doesn't support streaming to chromecast with SRT subtitles.. there are several issues for it and I believe support is slated for the next major version of Chromecast, but not sure when that will be.

The typical "workaround" is to reencode the video file to include the subtitles directly, but that sounded like too much work, so I hacked together a static page using https://videojs.com/ to embed a player and load the video and subtitles in a browser window.

Here it is in gist form if anyone has a similar issue: https://gist.github.com/HartS/9bb2721fa73b6798efcdbf5c463e87...

This was hacked together as quickly as possible for my own needs, so definitely not intended to be an example of clean code. You need to run the python server separately to serve the SRT because video-js can't load it from a file URL IIRC

Thank you! This is the kind of creative solution I was looking for. Your comment helped me find video.js which has first-party support for opening M3U8 streams.

videojs is superior to basically everything. It's also open source...

Another option is looking at https://videojs.com/ with the Vimeo video file links.

I am woring with HTML - I managed to download a (m3u8) video. by inspecting the webpage (videojs.com).

🔀 Repositório no GitHub

Now, to display the HLS stream to viewers, we’ll use HLS.js, which we installed earlier. For more UI customizations, you can check out Video.js, which uses HLS.js internally.

Maybe videojs?

You can find real-life examples of customized HTML5 video players on YouTube, the Cloudinary Video Player, JWPlayer, and Video JS. Each of these websites or frameworks utilizes the power of CSS to customize their videos or allow their users to do the same.

It looks like the IJF has switched to using the Video.js player on their portal. I'm not sure what to think of that. This could be the IJF taking more control over their IP which is ultimately a good thing. If you want to watch specific matches and see when certain actions happen then you must use their portal.