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

Re: WMV vs. QT vs. the rest....

If you are planning to use the video within a swf file, you DEFINITELY want to encode it in the flv format. There are numerous advantages, not the least of which is that, if imported correctly, flash won't try to recompress (i.e. double compress) your footage, which may be why you had poor quality when you did it before. If you just "import" the FLV into Flash, you are losing some of the true streaming capabilities because the flash player will try to load the entire swf file, including your movie, before it plays. The best method is to "link" to the FLV file by adding the premade media controller to your stage and telling that controller where the flv file lives on your server. The server has to recognize the .flv MIME type, something you may have to ask your host to set up like I did. This method allows the rest of your flash project, i.e. the interface, to load immediately, while waiting to stream the video until the first chunk of it is loaded. I've done this and it worked great, you can see it here:

http://www.brokenoctober.com/media_video_sept.asp

Granted the image quality is a bit booty on my example, but that's only because it's a long video with a lot of motion and the band needed it to be accessable by dial up users. I hit the trifecta of harsh web video requirements!!

By the way, future versions of the Flash video spec will allow for alpha channels, so you can key your video over live, interactive flash animation!!! Holy poo.

As for non-flash streaming, I swear by Quicktime, I've used all the popular formats and here's my take:

Real Player - Wide distribution and user base, but quicktime's user base is identical (QT has 59.2% user saturation while Real has 58.9%) I have found that encoding for quicktime is easier, has more options, and can be repurposed far better than real. Try importing your real encoded video into most apps and you'll see what I mean. QT streams easily, while getting "true" streaming behavior with Real Player requires the use of an expensive, special server setup.

WMP - Good user base (but still less than both Real AND QT at 50.8% if you can believe that!), good codec implementation and WMV9 supports true HD playback. The WMV9 codec is quite powerful, and is a good choice for high end video. In fact, I think some broadcasters are sending their digital TV signals in WM9!!

Quicktime - similar user base (no winners here) but very wide industry adoption as "the standard," something Real Player will never be able to claim. Many options for streaming, live webcasting, hidef, uncompressed, sorenson compression etc. The list goes on. When it comes to compression for the web, I have found that quicktime files hold quality better at lower bitrates, and that generally they stream in faster with fewer pauses and hiccups.

All just my 2cents...
 
Re: WMV vs. QT vs. the rest....

Thanks again guys,

I found I didn't like the compression on the FLV files and that I didn't really have enough control, mainly on the audio and as i'll be puting up mainly music videos That wouldn't have been too cool. So we've opted for streaming QT in a pop up after you select your movie in a fully interactive flash enviroment!

pop up killers are one problem, but very few things on the web are perfect.

also, the illustrations dont look so hot in 1280x1024, would it be possible for everyone just to tell me the resolution they use?

Id be very very grateful. Thanks guys.
peace and goodwill and all that christmassy stuff.
 
Re: WMV vs. QT vs. the rest....

[quote author=Adam_Powell link=board=Events;num=1101165356;start=15#21 date=12/13/04 at 02:11:04]Thanks again guys,

I found I didn't like the compression on the FLV files and that I didn't really have enough control, mainly on the audio [/quote]

What are you using to compress?

also, the illustrations dont look so hot in 1280x1024, would it be possible for everyone just to tell me the resolution they use?

you mean your graphics? usually 72.

Id be very very grateful. Thanks guys.
peace and goodwill and all that christmassy stuff.

back 2 u

Flash is generally more universal, but viewers have to have flash player 7 or 6 to see the video.

flv's are difficult to "repurpose", your video is a bit more secure. I haven't tried it myself, but it would probably be difficult for someone to take that .flv and re-edit it with another application. not the same for .mov. If you are using flvs and employing flash player 7, you do not have to embed the player.

Quicktime video looks better than flash, in most cases though.
 
Re: WMV vs. QT vs. the rest....

[quote author=Pooh link=board=Events;num=1101165356;start=15#23 date=12/13/04 at 09:02:16]
Quicktime video looks better than flash, in most cases though.
[/quote]

Unless of course you're using Sorenson Squeeze for Flash which is a standalone program that uses the Sorenson Spark Pro Codec, the same one used in the full version of Sorenson Squeeze. And the compression and quality is really awesome. It can create either FLFs or SWFs. I generally go straight to SWF.

If your footage is real long you can use "load movie" and cut it up into more manageable chunks too.
 
Re: WMV vs. QT vs. the rest....

[quote author=dvlisarrr link=board=Events;num=1101165356;start=15#24 date=12/13/04 at 09:57:10] It can create either FLFs or SWFs.  I generally go straight to SWF.
.[/quote]
I'm sure you meant .flvs...I only correct that because someone like me would probably read that and go with it.

I have spark pro..and I still think sorenson 3 ( quicktime ) kicks flash video. Flash video doesn't seem to handle heavy filtering. image quality aside, flash video seems to have an amazing future.

now here is a vent--to be in moving images, you have to know a lot these days..how to shoot it, edit it, show it on the web. that is hell of a lot of software if you are going to do it right. oh, yah, I forgot about dvd authoring..
 
Re: WMV vs. QT vs. the rest....

[quote author=Pooh link=board=Events;num=1101165356;start=15#25 date=12/13/04 at 10:11:32]
I'm sure you meant .flvs...[/quote]

OOPs! sticky fingers on the keyboard! Yeah, FLVs...

If you already have Sorenson Video 3 Pro and want SWF and FLV output, you can use Sorenson Squeeze and the advanced features of Sorenson Video 3 Pro will still be available to you from the Squeeze interface.

Hope that helps...
 
Re: WMV vs. QT vs. the rest....

[quote author=dvlisarrr link=board=Events;num=1101165356;start=15#26 date=12/13/04 at 10:27:37]

OOPs!  sticky fingers on the keyboard!  Yeah, FLVs...

If you already have Sorenson Video 3 Pro and want SWF and FLV output, you can use Sorenson Squeeze and the advanced features of Sorenson Video 3 Pro will still be available to you from the Squeeze interface.

Hope that helps...
[/quote]

That would have helped me A LOT a few months ago when I got Squeeze 4. Sorenson has great software, but their support is absolute SH-T!
 
Re: WMV vs. QT vs. the rest....

i dont mean dpi as in 72dpi,
I mean resolution your screen is set to. it doesnt really matter.

Ive also heard bad things about streaming flvs and audio synching, basically it all added to a bad impression of FLV files and I ditched the idea.

why would you take and re edit someones MOV file?

I use works version of sorenson squeeze, its a demon.
 
Back
Top