WMV vs. QT vs. the rest....

A

Adam_Powell

Member
I am currently constructing a website.
Its a flash site and I want to know the most popular/best format for streaming video to consumers.
If you import movies into flash do you have to embed a player?
does the consumer require the codec you are using or does flashplayer translate?

do most people have QT or WMP?

do you use a standard MPEG4 codec?

any help you can give me on this would be amazing, the poll Is just so I can discover what most people have/use/prefer.

Thank you for your time,
Adam Powell.
 
Re: WMV vs. QT vs. the rest....

I think you can get the best quality/size ratio with Windows Media - but Quicktime still seems to be the most stable, and the most universal. Almost any system I've ever been on is capable of watching quicktime movies, and they play the smoothest online.

I've found in my own compressions, however, that they tend to be larger files than Windows Media, though. So it's a tradeoff really
 
Re: WMV vs. QT vs. the rest....

Once H264 comes out it'll be quicktime all the way! Until then, WMV is more efficient but quicktime is a generally nicer format.
 
Re: WMV vs. QT vs. the rest....

I find quicktime to be quite a bit more stable. WMV does ok but can be sporadic during playback.
 
Re: WMV vs. QT vs. the rest....

Sorenson does a beautiful job of compression. Best I've seen :D - but pricy :'(
 
Re: WMV vs. QT vs. the rest....

For me, Quicktime takes forEVER to start and I'm not particularly thrilled with the quality vs filesize.

Dan
 
Re: WMV vs. QT vs. the rest....

Quicktime and liked Policar said, wait to see the new MPEG4 AVC (H.264), it is very nice quality, much better than MPEG4 normal. Quicktime should play them in January.
 
Re: WMV vs. QT vs. the rest....

Real Player is used widely... BBC with its world service.. Works too!
 
Re: WMV vs. QT vs. the rest....

I can't stand Real Player, when you install it, it tries to take over your system. For any professional use, I always stay far away from Real Player.
My personal opinion, I like Quicktime for archiving my footage, but for the web I still prefer WMV, just because it looks better at smaller files, but I guess we will soon see which is king with the new Quicktime codec.
 
Re: WMV vs. QT vs. the rest....

[quote author=GenJerDan link=board=Events;num=1101165356;start=0#7 date=11/23/04 at 05:42:37]Quicktime takes forEVER to start[/quote]

Startup time also depends on how encoding was specified. QT can determine download speed. It will begin downloading but only start playing when it "knows" that the video will not be interrupted.
 
Re: WMV vs. QT vs. the rest....

during testing Im finding that when compressed through sorenson squeeze at the same BITRATE, QT is actually producing the smaller streaming(hinted) files. 3mb as opposed to 5mb,
do you think 3mb is a reasonable QT file size for streaming? dont suppose anyone knows the average? ;)
thanks for all your help so far.
Adam.
 
Re: WMV vs. QT vs. the rest....

I find wmv does a better overall job of compression and have had no problems with it on line. fine detail quality is a bit better than qt. best Ive discovered yet is divx but no one wants to run the spyware software player. I run it on my video box that doesn't go online and it kicks, best quality smallest sizes. I comprees to quicktime because it is the most common format and overall it's a good reliable player.
 
Re: WMV vs. QT vs. the rest....

thanks for all your help guys.
The problem Im facing now is when i import QT into a flash movie to stream its massive.
wheras if I put a FLV in, its fine, only problem is FLV compression is bad. :(
I guess Im gonna go ask on a Flash forum about embedding QT.
Thanks again,
Adam.
 
Re: WMV vs. QT vs. the rest....

Considering I'm on a Mac, I obviously go with QT. However, I have no complaints with file size or quality whatsover. I use the H.263 codec for everything on my site -- average around 2.3 Mb files for 30-second spots at 320x240.

Fox
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top