I have RealOne Player version 2.0 (Build 6.0.11.853)on XP and Real Player 8 Basic version 6.0.0.584 on Windows 2000 and they both worked without any problem. Try these versions as these are the latest ones and make sure you have the MPEG video plug-in installed.

The streaming file and the low resolution files are exactly the same and the above mentioned versions of Real Player with the right video plug-in should not have any problems playing either of the file.

The medium resolution and the high resolution files require either Windows Media Player or Real Player. I also tried the two videos with Windows Media Player version 8.00.00.4487 on XP and version 7.01.00.3055 on Windows 2000. They both worked fine.

Please let me know if it works for you.

Thanks a lot.

Raheel

Doooooood!!! You're asking us for a favor to look at your videos, but you dont make it easy, we have to jump through some hoops in order to see them... Make it easy man.
Why you can play them ana other s cant? I duno. Do you have them on web server with streaming enabled? If this server is on you local net, then it might work for you but not for others. I'm sure very few willing to install such crappy thing as RealOne player, it's a hellraiser
Good luck

Yes - I really don't like RealOne. If I see a video requiring this I don't open it. There are many other options that make viewing others creations possible - please think about it.

Regards,

Grazie

Yep. RO=0.
Once did. Never again.

I think I could use some suggestions here as I am not a web expert. The site is not internal or inside any firewall or such. It is publicly accessable and does support streaming. Looking at the web stats I can see that a large percentage of people does not have any problems streaming or downloading.....but it is not good if anyone faces problems......

I would really appreciate if anyone can recommend and advice the following

1) In addition to (or as a replacement of) Real Player, what other player should I render the video for?

2) What is best format for streaming (if not using Real Media format)?

Thanks for your advice in advance.....

Contrary to the opinion above. I find Windows media 9 codec is fantastic.

You can see some streams at http://www.2behold.com
W

Agreed. All of the formats Rebel has don't work on my Win2K Pro, WM8 (and RealPlayer8) equipped PC. RP8 throws an error, WMP throws an exception on the medium and large files.

Maybe we need a secret decoder ring to watch the video. Rebel, your audio formats work with no problem, just your video is problematic.

I didn't have any problem watching the stream or downloading the 16 MB version. I agree that Windows Media or Quicktime is a better choice than Real One. The latest Real player is so full of ad popups, UIDs and cookies that I find it useless for playing media.

What do I think of it? Incredibly professionally done IF you can overlook the quasi-anti-semitic propaganda mixed in with it. I've got an idea for your next project. Since you live in the freest country in the World, how about a video that is against dictators who dip their people in acid, put them feet-first through meat-grinders, steal the people's money to put in Swiss bank accounts and let the children starve to death while they build magnificent castles for themselves and their sons!

Hey, other than that, sincerely, very well done!

I had no problem playing the video, however I to, don't like real player one. As for the message of this video, and like most protestors, it dosen't make any sense. Make a video about Saddam! Make one saying how evil he is, what he does to his own people. I wish people would open their eyes and see what is really going on instead of blaming the US. Good video editing though:)

Paul, didnt I already do that video ?

http://www.sonicfoundry.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?MessageID=170736&Replies=11&Page=1

You were the only one who would give me an opinion. =)

- Ray
ray@undergroundplanet.com
www.undergroundplanet.com

Same here. We do a fair amount of streaming, and have been really pleased with 9. For compatibility, we have clients that only want 8, but the difference in quality is substantial.

The editing was good, but I have to ask myself if the purpose of the message was about the editing; or was it really about spreading your anti-war rhetoric. Let's keep this forum free of politics.

So does this mean we need to place limits on our art? Last time I looked we still have the freedom to express ourselves even if we don't agree with administration policy.

Anyway, I had no problem with Real Media or Windows media. Creative editing, nice guitar work, I'd like to see something more interesting done with the titles. Thanks for sharing.

Thanks for all the comments. Honestly and sincerely, there was no intention to disucss the political contents of the video itself, rather get some input and feedback about the editing, transitions, music sync'ing, mixing and such so that I could learn some new techniques and new ideas for my next project from the most learned folks and experts on this forum - I am a newbie in the digital video editing domain and doing/learning it just as a hobby not as a profession.

Good to know that at least not everyone is having problems with the Windows Media Player or the Real Player......

Exactly,
The discussion is about the technical and artistic aspects of the video not whether one agrees with the message or not.
I still can't play it though.

John

Ok, I was able to view the video by downloading the Real One Player (against my better judgement). Quicktime would have been a better choice although there are some things about Quicktime I don't like either. Let's face it, all of them want to compete for exclusive media player and as a result they do some things to the system which I don't approve of. But anyway on to the evaluation:

1. Visually, it wasn't bad. But I didn't like having to read the scrolling footnotes at the same time as trying to read the messages,slogans, and banners and also look at the images presented in the footage. It looked confusing. A better method would have been to use a Voice Over.

2. There was too much footage of you playing rock guitar. It took away from the message you were trying to convey and gave it a teenage appeal rather than a broad one, unless young people WERE the intended audience.
You could have set up some scenes where you were a part of the scene interacting with people within the context the theme. A FEW scenes here and there with you playing would have been enough especially if they conveyed an image of political and sociological expression through music. Carlos Santana does that quite well among others.

3. Artistically speaking the message was lost because it lacked a method of conveying validity. When you showed a few seconds of a taped interview of Madeline Albright, that gave the message some validity in that SOME of what you were trying to say was confirmed by a person with credentials. The rest of it was a confusing stream of accusatory statements with nothing to give them validity. A headline from an article in Ha'aretz (a prominent Israeli newspaper) or a headline from the BBC in contrast to lets say CBS to show how the war is presented in a different light depending upon which part of the world you live in would have lended some validity to the arguments. There are websites which have some credibility which may give you ideas for some of the statements particularly with the United Nations and the ICC such as this one:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/membship/veto.htm
which shows exactly which countries have used veto power most often and which links to the entire issue of UN Security Council reform.

4. Finally, there were entirely too many statements in the video. If you are using a wonderful editing program such as Vegas, then why not try several videos with LESS to say, but done more effectively especially since much of what you are trying to say is so controversial.

PS: I am now going to remove Real One Player because even though I custom installed it and didn't give it permission to do anything I just got a pop-up from Zone Alarm saying that the program was trying to access the internet. Incredible!

As I looked at the video, I didn't really feel like I reacted in the way that was intended. There was a lot of peace protest video, then a lot of video of the armed forces kicking butt. It seems like you're "pro-peace", but the footage of the military attacks make our soldiers look like heros (which they of course are). The printed messages didn't fit with the images. You would probably get more of the reaction you are looking for from footage of burned out hospitals and bombing victims. That would make a lot of us angry of course, but art is supposed to elicit emotional reactions. As it was, it didn't have much impact on me.

One of the things I've noticed is that when one attempts to make "art" out of a situation or human condition, trying to convey a certain point of view is quite difficult. The best art always seems to "write itself" and have no regard whatsoever for any preconcieved ideas or popular opinions. True art art suffers with the painfulness of decisions and choices rather than taking the easy path of ignoring the opposing side of an issue. Showing one side of an issue isn't art, it's just advertising;)

As far as the the streaming video goes, the quality of the Real Video would have impressed the heck out of me six months ago, but from what I've seen lately, and from the experiments I've done myself, Windows media player 9 video is far better. I like it better than Mpeg 4 or "DivX" as well.

Laurence Kingston