OT Streaming vs. nonstreaming web site

Michael L wrote on 7/15/2006, 7:21 PM
I use a regular web host for my videos. (high school marching band practices and performances. A total of about 40 12 minute videos). I came across this streaming host able to host video in larger format and higher bit rate.

Just wondering if anyone has had experience with streaming vs nonstreaming and if the results are worth the increased cost?

Seems like it would be worth it but just wondering.

http://streamhoster.com/streaming_services.html

Comments

jrazz wrote on 7/15/2006, 7:41 PM
It would probably not be worth it unless you are making some sort of income off what you are streaming. If you are not, then I would not pay for streaming services when people can watch wmv in a streaming-like format or simply download the file.

j razz
Jay Gladwell wrote on 7/16/2006, 10:10 AM

We just has a discussion about this a few weeks ago. Do a search using the word "streaming" and you'll find the information.

But to answer your question in a word, no, it isn't worth it (unless you're charging).


riredale wrote on 7/16/2006, 5:40 PM
I faced something similar last year. At first I used wmv to show the video clips, but found lots of compatibility problems with different browsers. I switch to the Flash video format a few months ago, and users are very happy with the results.

Note: In the past, Flash was a poor video compression method, but ever since Flash8 the compression efficiency (quality/size) is roughly comparable to wmv. The Flash player download itself is small and easy to install, and it just works.
jrazz wrote on 7/16/2006, 7:44 PM
But, the flash 8 encoder costs money while the wmv encoder is free. you can buy the on2 encoder (what flash 8 uses) but it costs money as well. You can buy a 40 dollar version but it lacks in features.

riredale,
I am curious as to what the compatibility issues were.

j razz