OT: Quicktime woes

groovedude wrote on 12/4/2005, 1:35 PM
I have QT6 Pro, I go to download QT 7 and it forces me to download (32MB) and install iTunes, which I don't want!

Then, I go to upgrade to QT7 Pro (full price) and for the last 20min I keep getting the same message "Can't process your credit card at this time".

I call the online store, after getting through to a human, (who says he has same prob) they direct me to customer support. The QT customer support is automated and tells me to go online to get info then hangs up.

Personally, I'd like to see Flash Video become the standard cross platform web video delivery format. I'm sure all of you are tired of having to supply so many different versions of the same content for web delivery.

For video professionals without Flash its use has been largely avoided because you'd have to buy Flash to output Flash Video--but their are some 3rd Party softwares that will do this without the need of a full Flash program.

I've been using Flash for quite some time. The new video codec is on par if not superior to other popular codecs. The Flash Player penetration is huge, more than likely your audience will already have the codec because so many sites make use of Flash. If they don't, updating is extremely simple. I use it for all my web video projects, but even so clients usually request me to provide WMV and QT.

Flash also gives you the choice of immediately streaming web video or buffering--without the need of an expensive streaming service!!! QT and WMV require buffering if streaming off your own server.

So, if you are not familiar with Flash, I'd give it another look. I wrote Flash recently telling them they need to offer a small application like QT Pro that would make it easy for video folk to convert to Flash Video. Another point is that you can provide Flash video as a download for viewers to playback from hard drive, but you'd have to convert to an executable or provide an html page with corresponding Flash files. Not the best solution, hopefully in the future their will be better support in other players for .flv (Flash video) files.

Just had to post this because I'm very happy with Flash video and would like to see it as the standard web video format instead of having to deal with several other codecs.

Comments

p@mast3rs wrote on 12/4/2005, 1:54 PM
>>>I've been using Flash for quite some time. The new video codec is on par if not superior to other popular codecs. The Flash Player penetration is huge, more than likely your audience will already have the codec because so many sites make use of Flash. If they don't, updating is extremely simple. I use it for all my web video projects, but even so clients usually request me to provide WMV and QT.>>>

This is quite arguable. H.264 AVC provides greater compression and more quality at even smaller file sizes compared to Flash's VP7 which I believe is nothing more than an Mpeg-4 ASP or SP implementation. One can also argue that WMV has far greater penetration as it is default as the most installed OS platforms (Windows).


>>>Another point is that you can provide Flash video as a download for viewers to playback from hard drive, but you'd have to convert to an executable or provide an html page with corresponding Flash files. Not the best solution, hopefully in the future their will be better support in other players for .flv (Flash video) files.>>>>>

You have hit the nail on the head why this shouldnt be pushed as any industry standard.
VP7 has improved greatly and provides acceptable quality but it definitely isnt a codec that should be pushed as the industry standard. But I seriously doubt many player developers have much interest in adding Flash support just because of the fact that Flash VP7 was designed for internet/web site viewing. Escpecially with a lot of the industry moving towards HD viewing, I just dont see how VP7 hopes to compete with emerging H.264 AVC implementations.

Check out doom9.org sometime and there you will find a group of dedicated hobbyists that spend the majority of their time testing codecs and know how to squeeze the absolute most when it comes to quality.

With that said, Flash should very well give M$ a run in the streaming department but I just dont see it ever being on the level of the AVC codecs.
groovedude wrote on 12/4/2005, 2:22 PM
No, I don't see it as an overall video codec either--I don't believe it ever will be, that's not its function.

As a streaming web video delivery system for a project with a budget, right now, I think its the best solution.

As soon as the satelite/cable providers that are feeding HD to homes, incorporate internet in the signal and we see the merging of computer/tv feeds everything will change. We'll all be able to be distributers and media networks. But it seems we are very far from this--maybe we'll never see it. I'm just concentrating on the here an now producing for the little guys.

Also, now that Adobe and Macromedia have joined, no one should underestimate their potential for future expansion into video.

If only Sony had bought Macromedia...now that would have been something!
groovedude wrote on 12/5/2005, 5:11 PM
I did some encoding tests today for a client and wanted to share them. Since you all have helped me many a time.

Long story short, Flash is half QT (.mp4) size, identical quality. WMV is the big winner in the "let's-see-how-big-we-can-get" competition.

http://joelcardinal.com/test/movie/movie.html

I probably won't keep this posted for very long so get while the gettins good.

...yes I was finally able to pay for a QT Pro upgrade...