"you can play it with almost any modern media player on your computer"

Not exactly true...I just tried media player 10, for example on one of my computers, doesn't reconize .mp4 files...

As far as compatibility /or to play on more machines, better off encoding to WMV

MarkFoley, are you sure that it doesn't play mp4 files?

I recently exported an *.mp4 video, and then saw it yesterday, with my own eyes, displayed on a computer running Windows Media Player 10. I'm almost positive that you can drag and drop it right into the player. Perhaps you do not have the *.mp4 assigned? If that is the case then I am guessing that older Windows XP machines don't have the *.mp4 extension tied to Media Player. I would be very interested in reading your results after this post, as a compatibility issue would very much affect me, and I'm using *.mp4 almost exclusively now.

When dealing with clients/customers, you ALWAYS have to assume they don't have the latest/tgreatest like computer geeks would. You want to keep the format at the widest/compatible format possible....that is why I would recommend a wmv format...

MarkFoley, GREAT observation for anyone watching this thread. I do understand and have understood that client dynamic, which is why I have taken the time to slowly move to MP4. I've been dabbling in it since before Vegas added support - to me, it is THE high-quality mobile format.

Back to the issue, I would recommend MPEG-2 over WMV, unless you don't mind disregarding many to most of the Mac users out there, and I will admit there are many cases where I do :) ... but EVERYONE EVEN GRANDMA can play MPEG-2 files.

Jonathan, not exactly true about MPEG2. I know lots of folks who don't have MPEG-2 codecs on their computers. MPEG1 is almost completely universal, but I'd say there's still a very substantial number of folks who can't view MPEG2.

One aspect that Leslie didn't relate is if the client wants people to spend tons of time downloading a DVD-quality file or if the client wants to sacrifice quality to get the smallest and fastest download possible. If it's the former then not much beats MPEG2. If it's the latter then WMV or Flash are probably best.

There are Windows Media components for Quicktime available from Microsoft for download. I am not sure how many MAC users install them though. I would recommend rendering to BOTH .wmv and .mov and make them available side by side on the web page. This is very common.

John

thanks for the quick responses gentlemen, greatly appriciated....

speaking on behalf of the client (who doesn't - like most clients - understand the first thing about video and the web), i am assuming that downloading time is not a major factor, he reckons everyone has fast adsl or better. we know that isn't true, but....

i would like the following; half screen size, as small a download as possible, and of course, at the best possible quality. the subject matter is a talking head interspersed with 'ken burns' style tracking over paintings - so no real fast action, but plenty of slow horizontal / vertical movement. original is pal dv.

have access to most forms of encoding, just don't know which to go with.

jonathan, i read with interest your opinion re mp4, but i am worried about general playback on various 'older' computers, don't give a toss about mac's (sorry, i even own a couple, but for the demographics they don't rate...), so am hesitant.

can any one point me to file size comparisons?

you're a bunch of heroes,

leslie

What is your target file size? Also, if you are worried about "older" computers you should stick with .wmv (Windows Media 9) and .mov (using Sorenson 3).

John

I agree that wmv is the way to go for viewing over the net.

Here's an example of a movie done as wmv. The movie is 28 minutes long and the file size is just over 52mb. On my computer at least, using a dsl internet connection, the movie starts playing after 1% is downloaded. The screen resolution is 320 x 240 at 240kbs. I think the quality is still aceptable even if viewed at 200% using Windows media player (10).

The Movie Box

This is a capture I took off tv and have the mpg2 version saved to dvd for my collection.

Note: I'm not saying this is the ideal size/bitrate...just offering it as a comparison. It's a matter of getting a reasonable quality video at a reasonable filesize for download...of course, acceptable quality is always in the eye of the beholder.

Doc

but EVERYONE EVEN GRANDMA can play MPEG-2 files.

Not if Grandma doesn't have a DVD-ROM drive on her computer, or does but no one installed any DVD playing software.

Rob

Grandma doesn't need to, because it's not a DVD, it's just MPEG-2. She can play it as long as she's running Windows 2000 or greater. Plus the compression is great when you're not leaving the settings at near-perfect.

And to everyone: all right, all right, all right, you guys can have your *.WMV, *.tear*! Don't you wish the Madison team would cave in as easily as I do when you all teamed up?

Last Defense: come to think of it, what if ushere used *.flv??? Then his client wouldn't need anything more than a browser and flash, which is expected if he has the internet. Every Jim and Jane site these days uses flvplayer.swf (the flash player interface). Yea, yea, come to think of it, FLV is a way better way to go than WMV, but errr, Vegas doesn't export to FLV that I know of. You'd have to learn how to export to *.flv, *.sigh*, so WMV it is....

Grandma doesn't need to, because it's not a DVD, it's just MPEG-2.

She needs an MPEG2 decoder, which does not come standard with a Windows machine unless a DVD playing app has been installed. It's a licensing issue; companies can't just go putting MPEG2 decoders wherever they want. They're supposed to account (and pay) for every copy that goes out.

That said, I'm with you on the FLV idea -- assuming they're okay just watching the video and don't need to download it. That's my preferred way of putting video online.

Rob

All right, it's official. Vegas MUST add FLV support. The time is NOW.

The TIME is NOW!!!

make your voice heard. make those fonts larger

Actually, i'm starting to see more and more people uninstall flash, or ask me to uninstall it for them. In about 99.99% of the cases (at a rough guestimate) it usually ends up making browsing the web a worse experience. The most notable uses for flash are advertising or unecessary sidebars. Most folks are very very happy if those things don't show up anymore. For most valid page display uses people are just as happy or happier with the much faster loading static HTML version instead of the flash version. And for those sites that offer their content in only flash, well, most folks i know are more than willing to forego those few sites in favor of an all-around improved web experience. I only have flash installed on my fastest PC, and it's a dog. I grit my teeth and debate clicking the back button every time i hit a flash page. It's a nice idea, but when all is said and done, the majority of the use of flash on the 'net is a very negative user experience.

So, i wouldn't even count on people having a flash player installed in their browser anymore.

On the other hand, i can't remember the last time i came across a PC less than 6 years old that didn't have a WMV player installed.

I haven't seen the sucky Flash sites you're talking about in quite a while.

The overuse was popular in the beginning, I have described some ultimate horror examples here in the past, including one that I think will never be surpassed (a rapidly kaputted dot-com company called Three Ring Circus, the site was ooocircus.com and could only be viewed at all in the previous version of Flash, they were not in the search engines or in the phone books, so no prospective customers could ever reach them).

Today, 98% of all PCs have Flash, and it currently seems to be the most popular video format, and it's cross-platform, too.

I agree the WMV codec for the QT player works seamlessly, but anyone accessing your video on a public Mac at a school, etc., won't be able to install this, but they'll have the Flash already installed.

Well, there are still people / companies that build their sites entirely or almost entirely out of Flash. While I do visit them, I wish they would tone it down and use HTML and CSS -- yes, I'm including served up content from things like ASP, PHP, and Coldfusion; I don't care where it comes from, as long as it's accessible -- for the main content and leave Flash to (small, unobtrusive) ads and embedded videos. I don't do websites in Flash, but I do like to embed videos ( with controls and set to not auto-start) as FLV.

As for a trend in people uninstalling Flash, dunno. I suppose it's possible, but I haven't noticed one. I'm not even sure the average web user would know how to uninstall a browser plug-in. And consider the popularity of Google Video, YouTube, etc -- isn't that what they're all using, FLV or a branded version of it?

At any rate, I don't see much advantage in uninstalling Flash. For sites that use it in a way you don't like, just get outta there. Turning off Flash doesn't magically let you view their content, and it also rules out any Flash-encoded content you do want to see.

That said, I have been thinking about including alternative WMV (or something) links for my FLV files. Just in case. :)

Rob

You can offer flv for downloading too. Just zip up a flash player ( as a projector ) file and a flv file together, they download it unzip and double click the flash file. ( assuming you have or know how to create a flash player )

If you create a projector file from flash they don't even need to have flash installed on their pc, because projector file includes the player, so you get 100% compatibility ( on pc a least ). The only problem you may have is if people don't know how to unzip. This is included with XP, but some people with very old PCs may still have older OS and no way / knowledge of what to do.

Jonathan -

I agree with you in every case, except...

you would NOT believe the state of most corporate computer systems. They are OLD - they are TIRED and they do NOT have the latest, even the NEAR latest software.

This is because when a major corporation (think Fortune 100) commits to a new computer they will buy a Grillion of them. Everything must be exactly the same so the IT guys can manage them. They will not "go for" the DVD player, if it costs a dollar more, because one dollar times a grillion equals...
and that's part of the way you are judged at a big corp - by how much money you can SAVE...
"so let them download Flash, Quicktime, etc." - Whoops! NOPE!!
Most big corps have firewalls installed that won't let you install ANYTHING on your corp computer. They are scared that some innocent in book keeping will crash the entire system with a well designed virus.
On my own site, I still use WMV files - not everyone has the latest Flash, and definitely not everyone LOVES the latest flash.
When I deliver for my big clients, I still suggest MPG 1.
It's the worst of the lot, but it works everywhere - and although no one has really ever asked me why the stuff looks so crappy (I don't DO crappy work, BTW) - the second they get a "It won't work on my computer call" - they are on the phone to me.
My longevity in this biz is based on minimum BS for my clients. If it works - it's good. If it's well shot and directed, you can tell. The best compression scheme (and they change every week) will not disguise bad "moviemaking".

To the original poster - it depends on who your target audience is.
If you are marketing to a young, hip, "Ipod" type crowd - consider MPEG4 with a link to download it, if you don't have it.
If you are working for a big corp, make the MPG1, show it to them and ask what they think.
v

Too many people have trouble installing flash player on their computers expecially when the installer tries to overwrite existing flash files. Including a flash player in a video you are charging someone for sounds like a bad idea, especially if they have a major problem with it. I would not include ANY software with a sale for that reason.
Personally, I find flash to be of low quality on many sites including Google video. All one has to do is to upload a decent looking wmv video or equivalent to one of the video hosting sites and then compare their flv version to the one you uploaded. The quality of the flash version will almost invariably deteriorate because of the settings they use.
I have flash player installed only for Firefox. I keep it far away from IE.

John

Personally, I find flash to be of low quality on many sites including Google video.

Well, yeah.

1. When you upload a video to Google video, they do the encoding -- or rather, their cookie-cutter, these-settings-must-be-right-for-everyone web application does.

2. By default, Google Video scales the video during playback to fit the viewer's browser window. You have to hit an icon on their player window to show the video at its encoded / intended resolution. This is a "feature" of Google's customized player, by the way -- the icon isn't on most Flash players, and most Flash players don't display a video at 1.5x to 2x the size it's meant to be displayed at. (Unless the web developer set it that way.)

These are not issues with FLV, they're issues with the systems / people using it.

Add to that, so many Google videos are made, in the first place, but people who don't know what they're doing, so the source material either was crap or was encoded as crap before it was even uploaded. ;-)

If I put an FLV online, I do the encoding myself, and its displayed at the size it's supposed to be displayed. And if I was "charging" someone for a video, obviously I'd first discuss with them what format is best for them. :)

Rob

>>>>Including a flash player in a video you are charging someone for sounds like a bad idea, especially if they have a major problem with it. I would not include ANY software with a sale for that reason. <<<<

That's what the projector file is for. To include flash player, so you can distribute whatever you made in flash wihout end users having to have flash or having to install anything. The player itself is contained in that file with your content, so I don't even know whether this falls within player distribution, because you are not distributing their player, only your content can be viewed through that file, and nothing is installed on users PC ( I'm pretty sure that is still the way it is ).

The original post doesn't mention anything about charging for video. MacroMedia used to have a licensing fee, a long time ago, whether this is still the case I don't know, but I know there are many other apps that enable you to create windowless versions of projector, or applications with customized windows and features for your projector files. In other words, it's easy enough to check with Adobe what the situaton is, but it seems everybody has been doing this for a long time, paid and free content.

Anway, I believe even distributing the player installer itself is free, just requires an agreement , and you can do this on-line in a few minutes.