wmv9, flash8, sorenson

genie wrote on 4/17/2006, 4:17 AM

Hi,

Has anybody compared file size outputs between wmv9 and Flash 8.
I am interersted in creating video files for the net and have just downloaded the trial version of Flash 8 to play with as a comparison to wmv9.
I am really only interested at the moment in the video files aspect so maybe if I wanted to go the Flash path I should just buy Sorenson for creating the flash video files as I presume they play in the normal Flash 8 player. Sorenson is much cheaper than the full Flash 8 Pro.
Pity Vegas 6 doesn't render flash 8 but I guess that is just a daydream.

Genie

Comments

ClipMan wrote on 4/17/2006, 6:22 AM
... smaller files in Flash 8 BUT not everyone has the player and they won't play in earlier versions, I'm told ... me, I'd stick with wmv8 or 9 ... been using them for years ... great control of size/quality with the Windows Media Encoder and if you're streaming anyway, the not-so-big difference in file size is not that great a factor ... anyway, the key to small file sizes is more dependant on the source material than in the various compression schemes ... shooting clips for the web is much different than shooting for other media ...
VOGuy wrote on 4/17/2006, 8:15 AM
I have some comparisons located at:
www.hd-vo.com/stream

-Travis
Jay Gladwell wrote on 4/17/2006, 9:12 AM

Good job, Travis! Based on my viewing, I'd have to vote for the Windows Media file. Granted, it gave a smaller image, but it looked far better than the other two.


genie wrote on 4/17/2006, 4:06 PM

Interesting angle clipman - 'shooting clips for the web is much different than shooting for other media'
I don't get what you mean - you mean SD instead of HD to reduce pixel size or what else? Maybe shooting in perfect lighting so that the bit rate could be reduced to the minimum without losing image quality - ummmmm, what else?

thanks Reece.
genie wrote on 4/17/2006, 4:07 PM

thanks Travis for those clips - I'll study them in detail as soon as I get some time.

Genie
ClipMan wrote on 4/17/2006, 4:26 PM
" ... I don't get what you mean ..."

I'm talking about eliminating the detail in backdrops and minimizing unecessary movements .... using different stationary camera angles as opposed to any pan and zoom ... and certain colours take longer to render as well. Try putting a one minute dark navy solid colour from the media generator on a track and time the render in .wmv ... then do exactly the same with a very light blue .... there are other things as well but this gives you an idea ... if you know you're shooting exclusively for the web, then you take a significantly different approach to how you set up the shoot ...