Re: Carrizo Gorge ~VIDEO~
Dan Volker wrote:
> "Bill Porter" <Bill@drop2reply.mountainbikebill.com> wrote in message
>>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.