or Connect
Cycling Forums › Forums › Bikes › Mountain Bikes › Carrizo Gorge ~VIDEO~
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Carrizo Gorge ~VIDEO~ - Page 3  

post #31 of 41

Re: Carrizo Gorge ~VIDEO~

"bomba" <myarse247@hotmail.com> wrote in message
newsan.2004.01.14.15.12.41.107725@hotmail.com...
> On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 09:26:54 -0500, Dan Volker wrote:
>
> > But let me address a few issues. Yes mpeg came first....as DOS came before Windows XP. Most
> > computer
users
> > can play mpegs, and most computer owners "own" PC's running a Windows operating system---which
> > means close to 90% or above, will already have
a
> > Windows Media Player installed in their computer( thanks to the
operating
> > system).
>
> But you're now in Usenet, which is full of tech savvies and geeks. Windows is still going to be in
> the majority, but not in the same ratios as perhaps the rest of the Internet.

You got me there :-) But in this group, wmp is still something most of these more capable users
can play :-)

>
> [...]
>
> > With Windows Media Videos, the player is a free download ( along with already being packaged in
> > all new 2000 and XP operating systems on new PC's), and the "base encoder" is FREE. In fact, the
> > base encoder does a better job than the encoders people are charged for--such as "Cleaner"
in
> > Adobe Premier or as used with FCP by the mac crowd. If you make a video available in WMP format,
> > it will be viewable to the end of time with the players which people already have in their computers---
> > there is no way
for
> > Microsoft to suddenly start charging for the player the way QuickTime
did
> > ( QuickTime trys to force you to "upgrade/ pay for" a Pro version of
their
> > player so you can do more with it).
>
> It may be free, but at the end of the day, it's still not multi-platform. Why choose a high
> quality proprietary format when there is a perfectly acceptable cross-platform format?

Its PC and Mac multi platform, and Solaris and many hand held PDA have a version made for them.
That's multi platform for "most" of the "known universe".

>
> > A Windows "stream server" or "MMS" server allows a Windows Media video to
>
> [...]
>
> Surely media streamers are outside the scope of someone distributing hobby videos? Bandwidth alone
> would be astronomical.

If a hobby/mountain bike video is good, I'll run it for free on my mms server, as long as the owner
doesn't mind it getting watched on www.windowsmedia.com with its attendant audience of over 15
million viewers per month. I have multiple T3 bandwidth on my mms server, so don't worry too much
about this aspect.

Regards, Dan V

>
> --
> a.m-b FAQ: http://www.j-harris.net/bike/ambfaq.htm
>
> a.bmx FAQ: http://www.t-online.de/~jharris/bmx_faq.htm
post #32 of 41

Re: Carrizo Gorge ~VIDEO~

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 08:10:59 -0500, "Dan Volker"
<dvolker@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>
>"P e t e F a g e r l i n" <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote in message

>> I know that this comment is a crock of ****:
>>
>> "You can achieve much better video quality by rendering your final video ( avi format if PC
>> based) directly to Windows Media Video, with the version 9 codec ( meaning all viewers must be
>> using the current version 9 codec--but this "is" a free download)."
>>
>> The fact that you're now qualifying your silly comment with the "progressive download" qualifier
>> and targeting the 56k audience doesn't negate the fact that your original comment is a crock of
****.
>
>First of all, I personally don't think Internet videos have much
application
>to people who use 56 k modems--you lose too much quality in any
format when
>you use a data rate so low that a 56 k user can pull the file in
within a
>reasonable time frame. I'd make them the progressive download, but
this is
>like putting a person on a hybrid to ride trails. Its a poor
compromise.

So why bring those folks into the discussion?

>Internet video can be near TV quality for people with cable or DSL.

The sky is blue.

In these
>data rate ranges ( between 1000kps and 200 kps) the quality possible
through
>Windows Media Video is better than mpeg or quicktime, or Real ( given
same
>connection speed and desire to live stream). And this is "EASY" to
prove or
>disprove, making you sound like you have your head in the sand.

No head in the sand here. Just chuckling at your claim, and subsequent qualifications.

>> p.s. This comment is still a crock of **** as well:
>>
>> "Mpegs stink for video quality compared to what you can accomplish with Windows media videos."
>>
>> Ever heard of these things called "DVDs"?
>
>Yes, and you can encode a WMV for download and playback later at much
better
>quality than the mpeg ( with the relatively low data rates) used in
DVDs.

8,000 kps is relatively low? Go figure.
post #33 of 41

Re: Carrizo Gorge ~VIDEO~

> > But you're now in Usenet, which is full of tech savvies and geeks. Windows is still going to be
> > in the majority, but not in the same ratios as perhaps the rest of the Internet.
>
> You got me there :-) But in this group, wmp is still something most of these more capable users
> can play :-)

You could also argue that people running Linux are actually the more capable users and currently
Linux users are in the minority. But who knows in the future, Linux may gain in popularity on the
Desktop. Linux as far as I know doesn't support WMP? So to support the growth of Linux and any other
"alternative" operating systems I'm going to keep my videos in MPG format. I also have 1 computer
running Win NT 4 and Microsoft does not support WMP 9 on that system. Before you ask why don't I
upgrade? I did try to go to Win 2000 with disastrous results, luckily I had a full system backup
that I was able restore. I was on the phone to Microsoft for 3 days and we never got it to work and
each time I had to reinstall the backup. They finally gave up. Since I've been in the minority
before and know what it feels like to not be able to view WMV files, I have a little sympathy for
that minority you feel you can cut out.

Just as an aside the spell check in MS Outlook suggests Wimp as the correction for WMP and Wavy
for WMV :-)

--
Pete Rissler http://web1.greatbasin.net/~rissler/ http://www.tccycling.com
post #34 of 41

Re: Carrizo Gorge ~VIDEO~

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 12:02:25 -0500, "Dan Volker"
<dvolker@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>> >Yes, and you can encode a WMV for download and playback later at
much
>> better
>> >quality than the mpeg ( with the relatively low data rates) used
in
>> DVDs.
>>
>> 8,000 kps is relatively low? Go figure.
>
>
>Actually I think it is more like between 6000kps and 4000 kps for
standard
>DVD's, but since the data rate is pushing a lossey and poorly
compressed
>file, the "actual" resolution possible with this would be more like a
wmv at
>a data rate around 2000 kps...

Set top DVD players can handle approximately 8,000 kps max.

DVDs encoded at that data rate look very good, even on 62" TVs.

>I'm glad you like Mpegs. The bottom line is that good mountain biking
videos
>"ought" to get on the Internet. I would particularly like to see more "helmet cam" Internet video
>showing major trail destinations---this
way,
>you can plan your next mountain bike trip better, with a much better
sense
>of how the trail you are considering, matches the "ideal trail
expereince"
>you are seeking out.

What kind of an idiot would waste their time doing that?

Hopefully if someone is stupid enough to waste their time doing that, they render to a universal
format, like mpeg...
post #35 of 41

Re: Carrizo Gorge ~VIDEO~

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 12:23:01 -0500, "Dan Volker"
<dvolker@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>
>"P e t e F a g e r l i n" <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote in message
>news:8bua00hg7sj5sirr7u6t56kadbgif0td3c@4ax.com...
>
>>
>> >I'm glad you like Mpegs. The bottom line is that good mountain
biking
>> videos
>> >"ought" to get on the Internet. I would particularly like to see
more
>> >"helmet cam" Internet video showing major trail
destinations---this
>> way,
>> >you can plan your next mountain bike trip better, with a much
better
>> sense
>> >of how the trail you are considering, matches the "ideal trail
>> expereince"
>> >you are seeking out.
>>
>> What kind of an idiot would waste their time doing that?
>>
>> Hopefully if someone is stupid enough to waste their time doing
that,
>> they render to a universal format, like mpeg...
>
>
>Ohhh....So you mean mpegs should be the preferred choice of idiots everywhere ? :-)

Uhhhhhh...nevermind.
post #36 of 41

Re: Carrizo Gorge ~VIDEO~

"P e t e F a g e r l i n" <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote in message
news:sira0019c89pphpgheolf5l1eblqv6f3ls@4ax.com...
> >> p.s. This comment is still a crock of **** as well:
> >>
> >> "Mpegs stink for video quality compared to what you can accomplish with Windows media videos."
> >>
> >> Ever heard of these things called "DVDs"?
> >
> >Yes, and you can encode a WMV for download and playback later at much
> better
> >quality than the mpeg ( with the relatively low data rates) used in
> DVDs.
>
> 8,000 kps is relatively low? Go figure.

Actually I think it is more like between 6000kps and 4000 kps for standard DVD's, but since the data
rate is pushing a lossey and poorly compressed file, the "actual" resolution possible with this
would be more like a wmv at a data rate around 2000 kps....but I'm just approximating. In fairness
to you, my comment about relatively low data rates for DVD's was not particularly well stated or
accurate...Taken as I am (apologetically) re-phrasing here, what I was trying to get at was that the
"hi def mode" of wmv does not limit the bandwidth for all practical purposes ( Quality based VBR) ,
and the resolution is much higher than what you get with typical DVD's. Again, this is something you
can demonstrate, but becomes a bit more esoteric since a real comparison would require a fancy 60
inch $5000 or more TV, for playback where you could tell the difference easily.

The data rates most hobbyists use for mpeg on the Internet, are much lower--and resolution does not
compare well to "same data rate" wmv files, when played back on a typical PC or through a PC with a
TV hooked up.

I'm glad you like Mpegs. The bottom line is that good mountain biking videos "ought" to get on the
Internet. I would particularly like to see more "helmet cam" Internet video showing major trail destinations---
this way, you can plan your next mountain bike trip better, with a much better sense of how the
trail you are considering, matches the "ideal trail expereince" you are seeking out. And I want to
see more "How to" type mountain bike videos on the net, where new riders can learn how to do various
drills and techniques. Whether mpg or wmv, as long as the video is good, the outcome is the
important thing. The format is just "geek ****" for OT time wasting :-) and I've wasted enough of
everyone's time on this :-)

Regards, Dan V
post #37 of 41

Re: Carrizo Gorge ~VIDEO~

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 09:27:51 -0700, Monique Y. Herman wrote:

> Free as in beer is a minor concern to me;

Weirdo

--
a.m-b FAQ: http://www.j-harris.net/bike/ambfaq.htm

b.bmx FAQ: http://www.t-online.de/~jharris/bmx_faq.htm
post #38 of 41

Re: Carrizo Gorge ~VIDEO~

"P e t e F a g e r l i n" <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote in message
news:8bua00hg7sj5sirr7u6t56kadbgif0td3c@4ax.com...

>
> >I'm glad you like Mpegs. The bottom line is that good mountain biking
> videos
> >"ought" to get on the Internet. I would particularly like to see more "helmet cam" Internet video
> >showing major trail destinations---this
> way,
> >you can plan your next mountain bike trip better, with a much better
> sense
> >of how the trail you are considering, matches the "ideal trail
> expereince"
> >you are seeking out.
>
> What kind of an idiot would waste their time doing that?
>
> Hopefully if someone is stupid enough to waste their time doing that, they render to a universal
> format, like mpeg...

Ohhh....So you mean mpegs should be the preferred choice of idiots everywhere ? :-) Considering that
most of the people I meet through work, think that we are idiots, to do what we do on mountain
bikes, maybe you have something :-)

Dan V
post #39 of 41

Re: Carrizo Gorge ~VIDEO~

Dan Volker wrote:

> "Bill Porter" <Bill@drop2reply.mountainbikebill.com> wrote in message
> news:4004d4a8.1051196861@NEWS.WEST.COX.NET...
>
>>Hey Dan, The MPG format is by far the widest/open standard out there and that is what I'll be
>>using. (Not to be confused with the desktop OS percentages) While I'm a MS geek, I am not a fan of
>>the WMV format for the purposes of my website. While the MMS server and WMP format make a lot
>>sense for many configurations, particular corporate content delivery, it is not my pick for the
>>heterogeneous nature of target "user base" (da internet).
>>
>>Bill Porter www.mountainbikebill.com
>
>
> Bill, Its your website ( cool by the way), and I'm not trying to suggest I have any right to push
> you in any direction other than where you have already gone. But since a post was made about some
> video problems---and I am "in" video production for the Internet, I decided to pitch in...maybe
> not one of my better ideas considering the responses coming back;-) But let me address a few
> issues. Yes mpeg came first....as DOS came before Windows XP. Most computer users can play mpegs,
> and most computer owners "own" PC's running a Windows operating system---which means close to 90%
> or above, will already have a Windows Media Player installed in their computer( thanks to the
> operating system). If the computer user is in the habit of watching online videos, there is a good
> chance they are using DSL or cable. So together, this says quite a bit about your "target
> market"...a PC user running windows, already has WMP, and has Broadband. The majority of the 5 to
> 10 percent outside of the Windows world, "can" use Windows Media Player if they want to download
> it ( for free). Since 56 k users have video "targeted" at them in postage stamp size, they
> typically do not experience anything close to the experience that the video is supposed to convey.
> We have "compromises" we have set up for them, but until they go Broadband, they will never really
> have a reasonable online video usage, i.e., they won't be a particularly appreciative market to
> target with online video.
>
> As to your use, you have to pay for decent mpeg compression software, as the freeware "can not"
> really give you the leverage your content deserves. Mpeg codecs like the ones made by
> "Mainconcept" are remarkably better than freeware mpeg codecs as well. So much for this really
> being an "open code" based system.
>
> With Windows Media Videos, the player is a free download ( along with already being packaged in
> all new 2000 and XP operating systems on new PC's), and the "base encoder" is FREE. In fact, the
> base encoder does a better job than the encoders people are charged for--such as "Cleaner" in
> Adobe Premier or as used with FCP by the mac crowd. If you make a video available in WMP format,
> it will be viewable to the end of time with the players which people already have in their computers---
> there is no way for Microsoft to suddenly start charging for the player the way QuickTime did (
> QuickTime trys to force you to "upgrade/ pay for" a Pro version of their player so you can do more
> with it).
>
> A Windows "stream server" or "MMS" server allows a Windows Media video to play at the fastest
> connection speed a person can get into their computer, and to do this as an "Instant On" video.
> This means no waiting for 5 minutes for a 10 minute video to play ( as on QuickTime, or MPG) , but
> instead, about 2 to 3 seconds. And it means a potential viewer of your video who gets at least
> 700kps all the time on their DSL, can watch your video at 320 by 240, with near CD quality sound,
> and they can Full Screen the playback for TV like resolution and enjoyment. If they only get
> 400kps, due to poor line performance or network sharing, the viewer can pull a 300 or 400kps
> stream, and still see 320 by 240, still sharp, and they can double it's size to make it more
> enjoyable to watch....The sound is still good. If they can only pull 150 kps, you can still give
> them a good stream, allowing nice 320 by 240 playback viewing, and good sound. Doubling won't be
> so good for this speed. All will play as Instant on, none will be jerky. Best plan for the 56k
> population is to let them have a separate file to download to their hard drive, for playback later--
> this file encoded for download as opposed to encoding for live streaming, and a data rate of
> around 125kps or so will make the download time feasible. You can give them a low res 320 by 240
> live streaming video as a preview if you want, or better res at half this size, but you really
> need them to watch the download version if you want them to experience what you "intended" your
> viewers to experience ( and what you spent so much time shooting and editing and encoding:-)
>
> Here are a couple of examples of live streaming using WMP---I'll have some mountain biking videos
> up like this in the near future... www.lake-worth.net/volks-violin.htm This is multi bit rate,
> done for a friend of mine. http://www.lake-worth.net/shark1.asx I don't remember if I did this as
> multi bit rate or not, but it plays well for most DSL users, and is a pretty cool video.
>
> Regards, Dan V
>
>

I'm downloading 'Golden Violin" as I type this. When I speed-test my cable line, it typically runs
at around 500kb/s. For some reason this video (I opted to download rather than stream) is
strolling in at
57.1kb/s. Now that it finished and I watched a little, let me tell you- it was unwatchable. At
1374bps, the sound was great. The series of still images that should have been a full-motion
video, not so good. The images were nice and clear, I have to admit that My machine is a Blue G3
running at 300mz. I can typically watch full-screen hi-res video just fine if it is in .mpg or
better yet, .mov formats.

miles
post #40 of 41

Re: Carrizo Gorge ~VIDEO~

"miles todd" <mdtodd@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:f3qNb.63851$C87.28055@twister.socal.rr.com...
>
>
> Dan Volker wrote:
>
> > "Bill Porter" <Bill@drop2reply.mountainbikebill.com> wrote in message
> > news:4004d4a8.1051196861@NEWS.WEST.COX.NET...
> >
>
> I'm downloading 'Golden Violin" as I type this. When I speed-test my cable line, it typically runs
> at around 500kb/s. For some reason this video (I opted to download rather than stream) is
> strolling in at
> 57.1kb/s. Now that it finished and I watched a little, let me tell you- it was unwatchable. At
> 1374bps, the sound was great. The series of still images that should have been a full-motion
> video, not so good. The images were nice and clear, I have to admit that My machine is a Blue
> G3 running at 300mz. I can typically watch full-screen hi-res video just fine if it is in .mpg
> or better yet, .mov formats.
>
> miles

Miles, Any chance you could try downloading the most current Windows Media Player for your Mac ?
More for my peace of mind than yours....

It is important to me that Mac users "can" watch the videos my company does, but since this is a
business based model, we are making our paychecks with the over 90% of the market which uses PC's.
The irony is, that in the video shooting side---videographers in general, as well as ad agencies and
artists, Mac users are still close to a majority---even though the consumers they make their living
from, use a PC, and have a different viewing experience of the same material than the "Mac using"
creator of it (luminance, saturation, etc)....

A windows media player can become corrupted, and stop working well. Even more likely, if you are
using an older Mac version of the windows media player, it could be far less functional than the
newer Mac version, as Microsoft has dramatically improved this latest player. The early ones were
poor. I'm also wondering about the codec---the lower 2 downloads on the page use the 7.1 codec,
which is "safer" for slower machines and potentially for cross platform compatibility for some Macs.
I would be "very" interested to hear if this is the problem.

The speed of download issue---the download server is more for 56k modem users, and is only a T1--but
its almost free for bandwidth compared to the stream server :-)

Again, the objective is to be able to get a good video out to huge numbers of people interested in
watching it, playing in as large a screen size as possible, and for it to have as close to the
camera's quality in resolution as possible. With wmv files, and the rapid development of the codecs
and technology, it is much closer than the other formats ( and Mac users will soon be getting a
player much better still than what is currently available) , and we are now finding that
interesting, niche based material ( like the Miles Todd crash video :-) could reach millions of
people because of the format and the marketing forces behind it ( such as windowsmedia.com ) . I
doubt you care how many people watch this particular video, as it is really for online friends in
usenet, but this still illustrates the idea.

Regards, Dan V
post #41 of 41

Re: Carrizo Gorge ~VIDEO~

> Could I get a few folks who have it working to tell me what they have it running on, as well as
> those having problems.

Works fine here, but the video is a little blocky.

Timex Sinclair ZX81.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mountain Bikes
This thread is locked  
Cycling Forums › Forums › Bikes › Mountain Bikes › Carrizo Gorge ~VIDEO~