Chrome 21 Adds Support for Cameras, Mics, Controllers

With Chrome 21, developers can create web apps that access your camera, microphone and gamepad without the need for plugins.

Google's Chromium Blog reports that the latest beta for its popular web browser now includes two new APIs: the getUserMedia API and the Gamepad Javascript API. The first API will grant web apps access to the end-user's camera and microphone without a plug-in. The latter API obviously adds gamepad support to Chrome.

According to Tommy Widenflycht, Google Software Engineer and Real-Time Communicator, the release of the getUserMedia API is the first step in enabling high quality video and audio communication as part of WebRTC, a powerful new real-time communications standard for the open web platform.

"getUserMedia can be combined with other platform features like CSS filters and WebGL to render effects as the <video> is captured," he explained on Monday. "For example, you can rotate the video and add hipstery filters, play a xylophone with motion detection, try on glasses with face detection, and step into a photobooth with crazy effects like 'Snow' and 'Fire.'"

As for the Gamepad Javascript API, he said it helps developers access input from any standard gamepad connected to the user’s machine, creating a richer gameplay experience. Widenflycht also added that gamepad access was actually made available for NaCl in May, and since its introduction has enabled games like AirMech. But now support can be added via JavaScript thansk to the new API.

Over on the Google Chrome Blog, the company has also listed a few new apps that take advantage of the getUserMedia API. Romuald Quantin and Magnus Dahlstrand at Stinkdigital have created a Magic Xylophone that Chrome 21 users can play just by waving their hands in front of the camera. Paul Neave has also made a photo booth app called Webcam Toy which has dozens of crazy effects to explore.

"Today’s Beta release also brings a new and improved printing experience for Google Cloud Print," said Robert Toscano, Google Software Engineer & Fine Printer. "Now your printers in Google Cloud Print are integrated right into Chrome’s print dialog, so you can easily print to your Cloud Ready printer, Google Drive, Chrome on your mobile device, or one of over 1,800 FedEx Offices."

To play with these new toys, just download Chrome Beta.

You need to be logged to post a comment

There are 23 Comments.

Other Comments

1

jryan388 , July 10, 2012 2:34 PM

Build this into the HTML spec!
1

Pherule , July 10, 2012 3:33 PM

SRWare Iron for primary webkit browser ftw. It has everything Chrome has minus the privacy issues. Autoupdates are also disabled, which is a very good thing, as it means YOU have control over what your browser does.

Oh and it's also open source, unlike Chrome.
2

Cryio , July 10, 2012 3:34 PM

It is build into the HTML5 spec. Opera already has WebRTC for example.
8

amigafan , July 10, 2012 4:32 PM

Version 21? This is getting ridiculous.
(for Firefox soon too).
9

leafblower29 , July 10, 2012 7:14 PM

PheruleSRWare Iron for primary webkit browser ftw. It has everything Chrome has minus the privacy issues. Autoupdates are also disabled, which is a very good thing, as it means YOU have control over what your browser does.Oh and it's also open source, unlike Chrome.

You do realize it's just Chromium with a few check boxes removed right?
3

victorintelr , July 10, 2012 7:55 PM

that's just part of the big picture. If one day you see your picture in an ad, it's probably 'cause chrome took it.
2

rosen380 , July 10, 2012 8:10 PM

"Version 21? This is getting ridiculous. (for Firefox soon too)."

Is it? Had they incremented by 0.5 instead of 1, they'd be at 11.0 now, would that really be less 'ridiculous'? If they went by 0.1 increments, just at 3.0. It would be the same number of updates, so what difference would it make?

As is, it seems that you are complaining that their updates [which require nothing from the user] are **too frequent**??
2

CaedenV , July 10, 2012 8:38 PM

rosen380"Version 21? This is getting ridiculous. (for Firefox soon too)."Is it? Had they incremented by 0.5 instead of 1, they'd be at 11.0 now, would that really be less 'ridiculous'? If they went by 0.1 increments, just at 3.0. It would be the same number of updates, so what difference would it make?As is, it seems that you are complaining that their updates [which require nothing from the user] are **too frequent**??

Exactly! I have been using chrome sense v11, and I cannot think of a single time that I have had to interact with the browser in any way in order to update it. I just open the browser and notice a little change here or there and think "oh, they must have updated again"... It is no big deal. What makes FF annoying is that every damn time they want to push a new version you have to interrupt what you are doing and run the stupid installer and setup, and then reinstall all of your plugins, preferences, and settings. Contrast that to Chrome which simply works, and carries over all of my preferences and plugins for each version.
5

thecolorblue , July 10, 2012 9:10 PM

How about a browser that is more efficient on the RAM... where's that update?
7

zak_mckraken , July 10, 2012 9:27 PM

In other news, viruses that turn on your webcam without your knowledge are on the rise.
2

eddieroolz , July 10, 2012 9:32 PM

Why do we even have version numbers for Chrome anyway? We all agree it has become irrelevant.
9

john_4 , July 10, 2012 10:51 PM

zak_mckrakenIn other news, viruses that turn on your webcam without your knowledge are on the rise.

Nothing that a small piece of electrical tape can't fix.
1

madooo12 , July 10, 2012 11:24 PM

so you guys trust google, the safest company and the best one to protect your privacy, that it won't use your picture in their ads or sell it to other companies
1

rosen380 , July 10, 2012 11:30 PM

...anymore than anyone trusts facebook, instagram, snapfish, etc with the billions of pictures uploaded to those sites daily? What are people doing in front of their low res webcams that a company is going to want to use in their advertising?

I think it is more likely that they'd be checking webcams for people having sex to start voyeur.google.com...

Anyways, on my Dell laptop there is a little led next to the camera that indicates that it is on, so it's not like I wouldn't know that *someone* is watching...
1

captaincharisma , July 11, 2012 12:08 AM

jryan388Build this into the HTML spec!

oh hell no. last thing we need is going to websites where they automatically turn on webcams
1

captaincharisma , July 11, 2012 12:10 AM

amigafanVersion 21? This is getting ridiculous.(for Firefox soon too).

i am on the dev build and on 22. google must be getting slow
1

scythe944 , July 11, 2012 12:20 AM

works fine in chrome 20 with the flag enabled...
3

freggo , July 11, 2012 12:58 AM

rosen380"Version 21? This is getting ridiculous. (for Firefox soon too)."Is it? Had they incremented by 0.5 instead of 1, they'd be at 11.0 now, would that really be less 'ridiculous'? If they went by 0.1 increments, just at 3.0. It would be the same number of updates, so what difference would it make?As is, it seems that you are complaining that their updates [which require nothing from the user] are **too frequent**??

Little programming background for ya...

.1 increments traditionally denote 'minor updates, fixes and changes'.
1.xx 2.xx 3.xx etc are MAJOR changes.

Apparently Browsers now have MAJOR changes every 30 days... just a load of PR bull.
1

rosen380 , July 11, 2012 1:43 AM

Sure, but Google is free to make their numbering scheme however they see fit, correct? They are free to decide what is a major vs minor update, correct?

Had they called each ~monthly update a minor update, then they could have gone .1, .2, .3 ... .11, and then once a year gone up a full increment.

Whether they did that or count each update as a major update doesn't change how frequently it is happening. My only point is that in ten years, when we are on Chrome 142 or whatever, it isn't a ridiculous version number just because it is bigger than typical version numbers.
0

freggo , July 11, 2012 1:58 AM

rosen380Sure, but Google is free to make their numbering scheme however they see fit, correct? They are free to decide what is a major vs minor update, correct? Had they called each ~monthly update a minor update, then they could have gone .1, .2, .3 ... .11, and then once a year gone up a full increment. Whether they did that or count each update as a major update doesn't change how frequently it is happening. My only point is that in ten years, when we are on Chrome 142 or whatever, it isn't a ridiculous version number just because it is bigger than typical version numbers.

From a user perspective... you can skip a minor update or two; you may want to install
the major updates. Now you simply do not know what is what.

Display more comments

Chrome 21 Adds Support for Cameras, Mics, Controllers

Tom’s guide in the world