I would use MPEG1 format. It's not the best quality, but almost every computer is already equiped to view it.

Thanks for the quick response.

I don't see the need to do Real if 99% of computers have Windows Media Player (WMP) or QT. That being the case, my question is: Is there a format that plays perfectly on both WMP and QT?

Robert

I think i'd suggest two formats. MPEG-1 is the most indifferent format since just about anything made in the last 10 years or more will play it. However, it doesn't do well at very low bitrates. I'd create a MPEG-1 file at something like 600Kbps for those who want higher quality, and then also a WMV file at 256Kbps or so for those who want something that will download substantially faster. Put both options on the site and let folks choose.

I would try to avoid MPEG-1 if at all possible, the main reason is that the file sizes are simply too large for web-based content. Windows media player can play both wmv and MPEG files and since the wmv files are smaller in size for web based content it is definately a better choice.

I'd reccomend QT, WMV AND Real. Why Real (which i don't like anyway)? well, QT covers Mac. WMV covers anyone with WMP 8 or above. But, any Win 95, 98, NT, or 2k computer that hasn't upgraded to WMP 8 (and Win 95/98 can't, or is it they can't run WMV 9) won't be able to run the videos. All of these OS's DO include Real support though. You can download the real encoder for free and it will make files compatible with Real Video, which is what Win95 & 98 support natively (not real media, as in the real media format. Real Video is older).

But you can't please everybody. :)

The Real media player is evil incarnate. But apparently the latest version doesn't hijack your system. Still... I think you'd be fine with Windows Media Player and Quicktime.

Windows Media Player: the latest codecs (which are excellent quality, for free) aren't very backwards compatible, but the quality from WMP is excellent and it should work kind of well on most Windows machines.
Quicktime: Once you download the player, it works on every machine I've tried. MPEG1 actually failed on one computer I've seen, but I've never seen QT fail. But you need the player. With good instructions, I think people can figure it out. As far as quality goes, WMP has a slight edge or is equal to Quicktime with the sorenson pro codec (you have to pay for it).

Windows Media is the conclusion I am gradually embracing as I get more expertise in this area.

I THINK that any Windows machine running Windows Media Player 7 or higher (W98+) can play WMV9, the latest (and best) video codec. I also think I saw somewhere that, if extra steps were taken, WMV9 video could be seen with even Windows Media Player 6.4, which can run on W95. But I'm not sure about this, and the Microsoft folks seem to make it difficult to get this kind of information (a conspiracy, perhaps?).

Another issue is that the very best codecs are that way because they demand a lot of CPU horsepower in decoding. So maybe a W95 machine wouldn't have the "oomph" to decode a WMV9 stream anyway.

WMP7 and above are *supposed* to download codecs they don't have. However, it doesn't always work- you have to try it a few times. Most people don't figure that out. So have good troubleshooting instructions. I'd probably try to get people to use Quicktime.

WMP7 isn't supposed to work with 95/98/98SE, but you can hack it to work. Most people I'm guessing wouldn't be able to figure it out.

I used to have a Celeron733/Win98SE and it would have trouble with divX (not enough horsepower) and WMV9. It plays WMV7 and WMV8 ok if I remember correctly.

I believe the standard video format will be swf. You can embed it in pages, design your own player, easily make a bandwidth sniffer, and run progressive download rather than true streaming.

Not a terribly popular view among the video hardcore, but I believe it's becoming the main choice among web designers.

My 2c

You can't render to .swf format from Vegas.

There are avi->swf converters available -- for example, WildForm's "Flix" program -- but in my experience they don't work with avi clips that were rendered from Vegas. (On the WildForm user forum there are some posts about Vegas-rendered avi clips not working with Flix; you have to render from Vegas UNCOMPRESSED for them to work, meaning you have HUGE files to work with.)

Anyway, the point is, .swf is not an option with Vegas, unless you're willing to jump through extra hoops and acquire extra software conversion packages.

I realise that - and it's a bit sad. However, I've had excellent success rendering as Quicktime mov or even wmv then converting from that in either Flix or Sorenson Squeeze.

As for having to buy another software app for this step, then I think that's inevitable anyway. I can't seriously believe anyone would consider for even a second posting a Vegas-output media file of whatever format on the web !!

Vegas output is simply not well enough optimised - it doesn't matter what format you choose. Posting a raw Vegas output file on the web would be very sloppy indeed. Decent compression software can typically crunch to about 20% of the original size or less with no obvious degradation.

The other point about swf format is that the installed base of flashplayers (at least as far as version 6) is far, far greater than the installed player base of any other format.

Producing WMV8 or 9, and other formats (mov, MPEG) from Vegas can produce excellent results (not sure what you mean by a "raw Vegas output file").

I not only considered "for even a second" posting a Vegas-output file on the web, I actually did it, and am happy with results. You'll find many others do this regularly - the Chienworks site is full of 'em.

The el-cheapo Screenblast cut-down version of Vegas, which has recently been re-hashed, includes output to Flash, so it's not unreasonable to expect the next full version to do this.

And flashplayers are much rarer than WMP, which is on every Windows PC.

Apart from that, I agree with everything you said.

I've just started posting some videos on my website using solely WMV 9 but not everybody is able to view the videos. There are also still a lot of people without high speed internet connection. After reading this thread, I'm thinking of posting 3 versions of each video: Real Media at 56Kb/s, Quick Time at 100Kb/s and WMV 9 at 256Kb/s.

Is this a good solution?

Cheers,
Aldo.