There are many things in the world that are a hard call with many equally valid options. "Video for web" is NOT one of them. The standard web video format is Flash FLV.

Thanks for the heads up.

If the standard is Flash, please give me a run down on how to do it.

Cheers,

Andy

>> If the standard is Flash, please give me a run down on how to do it. <<

The easy way: Brightcove. Read the 5th post in this thread

The more difficult/expensive way (but which you have more control over):

Frameserve from Vegas using Satish Debugmode Frameserver and encode in On2 Flix Pro. Then build your player and skin with Adobe Flash Pro or with Dreamweaver.

Some helpful links:

http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flash/
http://www.adobe.com/devnet/video/
http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flash/articles/video_guide.html
http://livedocs.adobe.com/flash/8/main/wwh...e=00000092.html
http://livedocs.adobe.com/flash/9.0/UsingF...e1af6-7c9f.html
http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flash/articles/flv_tutorial.html


Or you could render direct in Vegas in H.264 and build a player for it youself or use the JW FLV Media Player but then for the time being lots of your viewers will have to update their Flash player to view it. More in this thread.

John,

You're getting delusional again.

I'm just glad Fox was able to give their viewers the most coverage of Anna Nicole's death, and the least amount of coverage of the 'war' in Iraq during the same period.

Andy, the first thing you need to determine is who's your audience?

Like John said above, if your audience is the younger tech-savvy bunch with the newest, fastest computers then maybe Flash is the way to go.

However, if your audience is older folks with older, slower computers, then Flash could prove to defeat your purpose.

Andy, the first thing you need to determine is who's your audience?

Like John said above, if your audience is the younger tech-savvy bunch with the newest, fastest computers then maybe Flash is the way to go.

However, if your audience is older folks with older, slower computers, then Flash could prove to defeat your purpose.

==============
That's why you need a variety at a website. You don't want to turn away potential customers. That is why I like the Bluecore Media website setup that I linked above. Except for SVC3 versions, it has pretty much everything and doesn't automatically tell you that you have to download something (if you don't have it already) the minute you get to their website.

Also, who decided that "The standard web video format is Flash FLV?" You Tube and the like?

John

craftech said: who decided that "The standard web video format is Flash FLV?"

According to Adobe, Flash player penetration is more or less 99% - that would seem to dictate a universally viewable web video format to me. It works on MAC, Windows, Linux and any other platform that can play flash format files. It works in IE, Firefox, Safari, Opera and any other browser that supports that plugins architecture.

Cliff Etzel - Solo Video Journalist
bluprojekt | ImmersiveVJ.com

I think using Windows Media is just foolish. You create videos to be seen. And WMP files won't play properly on huge amount of machines. QuickTime is tad better but ultimatly also fails into WMP category -- big No No.

Stick with Flash and you will be fine. Almost everyone will see you videos and almost everyone will see those without any problem.

And WMP files won't play properly on huge amount of machines. QuickTime is tad better but ultimatly also fails into WMP category -- big No No.
Patryck, the above statement is so far off, it's worth commenting on.
WMP is far and away more installed and used on a daily basis than QT that it's silly.
Flash is by far the biggest distribution method, but if you discount UGC sites, WMP is the largest by leaps. Flash enjoys the greatest breadth of compatibility, but that's not discounting the number of mom/pop computers that account for a huge number of systems out there. I can't find it at this particular moment, but if you Google around, you can find a consultant's report and CBS's response and ultimate decision following that report, which has the parent company demanding WM streams in conjunction with any other stream type.
There are *so* many more Windows-based machines in the world compared to anything else, it's not worth even debating. Quicktime is a fart in the wind compared to WMP on a global scale. And Silverlight certainly can't be discounted at all. Partners include Brightcove, Limelight Networks, Netflix and Akamai. That's a BIG chunk of streaming services right there alone.

Sources:
Streaming Media.com
Sorenson
Umedia
Akamai
Techweb
Peddie

And virtually any other tech analysis, consultant, or research site.
I didn't mean to take this subject further away from the OP...but let's get beyond the hype and back to reality.
The best technology rarely is the most accessible to the masses. One major broadcaster we work with will only accept previz in WM, BTW.

"The best technology rarely is the most accessible to the masses."

Douglas, perfect! We would all do well to pin this statement up in front of us. And, for me, the other part of this is the management of the expectations of mom n pops seeing what they see and thinking/believing it is ALL the same. Flash is DivX is WM is QT is . . . . well, it ain't. Our problem is just what to supply for THAT particular Internet broadcaster.

I recently had to deliver a Flash file. Why? Get this, the organisation in question has this as their only and preferred policy means of delivery. My content was to go on their INTRANET. I was not even allowed to supply WM. The outcome? I got hold of the IT department, that stipulated this policy, and asked if it would be okay for me to send them the AVI? Yes I could. Would they flash encode it? Yes they would. Did I want to do this? No. Not wanting to cause any friction, I would have referred to supply what my "client's" IT department wanted. it just meant I had to speak "nicely" with that dept and assure them that I could comply with the delivery of an AVI!

Now folks, I want to have a Flash encoder, that works as EASY as my £12GBp DivX encoder and as cheap as that too. I have enough on my plate getting my work videoed and edited I do NOT want to be spun and twisted around by all this encode flux. Not much to ask? Maybe it is.

On another tack - I now use SUPER for my Nokia. It is piss easy to use and just DOES it. And I have found a Forum that talks simple-Grazie-speak allowing me to understand, what IS, after all, a remarkable technology, so that I can get on with the job.

"The best technology rarely is the most accessible to the masses."

Think on people, maybe the INTERNET ain't as democratic as we would think it is. We may espouse (?) to these lofty ideals, but again, it is in the delivery of the message that, here IT, is holding the strings. It is not the content, oft it is the means of distrib where the power is found. Some of us recognise and respond to this more than others. It is when an individual can use this to gain market share that "another" type creativity can be evidenced.

Grazie

Grazie - have you tried making Flash with Super© ?

Oh REAALLLY??? - Woah ...

And to answer - NO! How does it work/come-out? Only done phone files, 3gp files.

You done it?

Grazie

Yes - hard to compare results with other encoders, but I've certainly had ok results - and to my perception, Flash isn't particularly .......... flash anyway. It's just an easy way of achieving web display at a sort of average level.

It's strange that at the same time that we're becoming enabled to output 1920x1080 video, so much stuff is also being viewed on ebay/ipods etc.

For what it's worth, I can second Douglas' comments. My corporate clients always ask for WMV first, then, if necessary, Quicktime. Rarely do they request (much less demand) Flash.

For what it's worth, I can second Douglas' comments. My corporate clients always ask for WMV first, then, if necessary, Quicktime. Rarely do they request (much less demand) Flash.
==================
Exactly,
That is why I asked the question above - "who decided that "The standard web video format is Flash FLV?" You Tube and the like?"

It is You Tube and others like it that have become a phenom for internet users to upload all sorts of things. Those video hosting services use flash because they can cram more of them in less space. That doesn't carry over to every other type of website particularly where the aim is NOT to entertain, but to sell something or someone. You want to have media choices that everyone can play. Not everyone can play flash video well, especially when you want to present quality video. That requires more computing power than a lot of people have. They also can't typically download flash videos unlike WMV and QT to save for later or to show someone else who may not be there when they first spot it.

And also, read Rob Mack's response to Nick's test videos on that post from today.

John

I'm working on a project at the moment where the client is delivering thousands of daily video streams. They primarily use wmv, but only because this is the old video system they've inherited. They hate it. They have a few 'pockets' of their site where they are starting to switch over to FLV and are very happy with the change.

My daily experience with FLV versus WMV is that the flash files are much easier to work with, to embed, to incorporate with other elements in multimedia, and the quality is indistinguishable to the wmvs. On the other hand I've used flvs for years now and certainly know them better than wmvs so I'm biased in that regard.

But since I'm encoding both formats every day I don't buy for a moment that flvs are of inferior quality. Somebody *might* be able to prove it in a lab, but that's irrelevant to me, the clients and I believe 99% of web users. I'm processing both wmv and flv web video files at an average all-up bitrate of 320kbps and can't see any obvious quality difference. (Horrible little 320 x 240 files, but that's another story)

My comments about FLV assume of course that you're using a decent codec. Cheap codecs *will* produce poor flv video. Horrible video in fact. But no surprise there surely ? Anyone in business offering to process videos for the web would want to have a decent encoder using the best codec. That's currently the full vbr On2 codec for Sorenson or Flix.

I just posted a similar, but longer OT post. Much of the above is relevant to my question about 'which format to choose'.

I used wma in the past and am comfortable with the quality being on par with the others. I don't have to deal with older computers, so bandwidth and cpu power aren't generally an issue.

My problem has more to do with making the playback non linear. We want to be able to jump to different videos and marks in the video.

From my standpoint, I'm looking for what will take the least amount of programing to make this happen.

Right now, put marks in vegas, render as wma and when it comes up in the player, you can go to >view>marks and you will see all the chapters. Pick one and it starts playing at that point.

With flash, I will have to learn action script, and that appears to be a least a 3-5 days of learning just to get started. I have been successful getting h.264 to play, but don't have a clue what to do for markers yet.

Anybody have experience programing your playback for markers or chapter points?

Spot, there is a reason why youtube became so popular and ultimately sold for so much -- the reason? They were one of the first ones to implement the ease of use and the fact that that flash was installed on almost all the machines. There were many "cute video sites" that implemented whole range of other non-flash technology before (WMP, QT, RP) but there were popular only with young teens who didn't mind frequent lock up, corrupted downloads, troubles playing the videos, crashed browsers etc. Only when Youtube decided to implement Flash and watching videos was sure "one click away" without any need to ponder "will i have to open WMP to view it?", "will it stream right away?" "will it crash my browser?" that the video sharing became more popular and accepted by general public.

My original delivery format of the videos was QT because the player looked more attractive and professional as compared to WMP and even though i was delivering videos to young, tech savvy people on the Macs i still was getting 25-30% failure rate (people who couldn't see my videos). It was unacceptable as that %30 meant that 1/3 of my potential clients couldn't see my skills. It wasn't until i switched to Flash that almost %100 can see my videos. Thus you see why i'm such a champion of the technology.

[i]My original delivery format of the videos was QT because the player looked more attractive and professional as compared to WMP and even though i was delivering videos to young, tech savvy people on the Macs i still was getting 25-30% failure rate (people who couldn't see my videos). It was unacceptable as that %30 meant that 1/3 of my potential clients couldn't see my skills. It wasn't until i switched to Flash that almost %100 can see my videos. Thus you see why i'm such a champion of the technology. [/I]

I don't disagree with your position on the technology. What I disagree with is that you've presented that WMV is less ubiquitous than Quicktime, and less than Flash. Flash is more ubiquitous as an install base, but far less as a delivery codec, once UGC sites are discounted, as they should be for targeted delivery. WMV is by far and wide the most ubiquitous format, regardless of quality, ease of use, or our opinions on what it should or shouldn't be. I'm a champion of both Silverlight and Flash, among other things. But...my opinion doesn't change the nature of the beast, nor the install base of what players are being used for delivery to the widest masses. When that is the topic of discussion, WMV/Windows Media, still owns the world. For now.

Hi Andy,

I've found that, if you're serious about video on the Web, you need to be familiar with ALL THREE (four, if you count h.264) systems.

Since there is no "standard" that is universally accepted yet, you need to take into account, primarily, your audience. You will find it wise to consider the following.

(1) Their typical connection speed.
(2) Their likely platform (Mac, Windows, Linux)
(3) Their likely machine sophistication.
(4) The necessary video/audio quality of your presentation.
(5) The material you are presenting.

For instance, my primary audience is video and audio professionals, Film producers, training companies, corporations, and advertising agencies - I use Vegas and Final cut pro to showcse my work as a voice-over talent. I know that most of these people will have a fairly high-speed connection and a newer sophisticated machine.

However, this group of individuals is divided into two groups, Windows and Mac. My clients and potential clients that work out of Hollywood, or who are in advertising are most likely to be on Macs. On the other hand, my "corporate" and training clients are almost exclusively on Windows machines. I can count on anyone with a Mac to be able to play h.264, and to NOT be able to play .wmv. Everyone with a recent Windows machine can play .wmv, and, unless they have Quicktime (a surprising number of "corporate" machines don't) the CAN'T play h.264.

So, I've pretty much standardized on Flash

Example, both SD and HD samples: DocumentaryNarration.com

If you're using Flash .flv, however, it's important to make sure your creating Flash 8 (On2) .flv files, not Flash 7 (Sorenson) .flv files. Many of the so-called "discount" encoders use the old Flash 7 .flv encoding, which is not anywhere near as good as Flash 8. Most of the people I know who havre been disappointed with Flash, I've discovered were encoding to Flash 7.

In another year, or so, h.264 Flash should be a viable method.

But Spot, that is not the case! Just because WMP comes with every WIndows machine it doesn't mean every windows machine can play wmv files no problem. My position is what VOGu said above. All things concidered Flash is seen by everyone and QT and WMV is not.

So far I haven't seen a reaction to my suggestion that a variety be presented to a website visitor. I had suggested QT and WMV and also Flash as long as one isn't immediately hit with a warning that they have to download something before they go any further.

I linked Blucore Media above for an example and no reaction.

So why does it have to be one or the other thereby fueling a debate over formats (again)?

Does anyone else think it is a good idea to play multiple choice?

John