Video compression and streamng rules...

Nestor · Post by **Nestor** » Mon Mar 15, 2004 5:23 pm

I need to compress some videos and set them into a web page.

Which is the best among the three more comon formats? I.e., Quicktime, Realplayer or Windows Media Player?

scary808 · Post by **scary808** » Mon Mar 15, 2004 6:15 pm

Stay away from real. Many people avoid thier player like the plague! I would go Quicktime or Windows.

Nestor · Post by **Nestor** » Mon Mar 15, 2004 6:21 pm

I hate real too, really hate it... for many reasons...

But, what about streaming throught FLASH? It seems a good option too, what do you think?

Post by **hubird** » Mon Mar 15, 2004 7:52 pm

On 2004-03-15 18:21, Nestor wrote:
But, what about streaming throught FLASH? It seems a good option too, what do you think?

it's the way my website builder choose to go (I put some video's with my audio tracks on the site).
he's quite positive about it, but I can't tell you the arguments at the moment.
I'll ask him, have to push him anyway to put the thing on air

_________________
Let There Be Music!

[ This Message was edited by: hubird on 2004-03-15 19:54 ]

Counterparts · Post by **Counterparts** » Tue Mar 16, 2004 3:40 am

What about mpeg encoding?

'Real' absolutely sucks, IMO...anything but that

Royston

Spirit · Post by **Spirit** » Tue Mar 16, 2004 8:47 am

I used to be totally against RealPlayer and many people still do dislike them. However, they have improved things a lot in the past couple of years and I find that format far more reliable than Quicktime which is rather flakey IMHO.

I think Flash is definitely the best option, but code in Flash MX (for Flashplayer6) rather than MX 2004 (Flashplayer 7) as the penetration of that player is still quite low.

My order of preference would be:

Flash
Real
Mediaplayer (wmv/mpeg)
Quicktime

Nestor · Post by **Nestor** » Tue Mar 16, 2004 9:17 am

That’s nice of you guys… thanks for all your answers!

I guess the problem with RealPlayer is that it has been far too intrusive in your system… the interface can be too cheesy, and all those adverts all the time make you dizy. The silly music repeating itself every time you open it is a BAD idea too. It was full of bugs and could easily mess up your entire system. I can give it another opportunity, but I think I will stay away from it, as far as there are other options.

Thanks Hubird for your information. I think I will finally go Flash, anyway it streams pretty well as far as I have experienced with it.

Hey Royston, thanks for this advice… I still think as you do… I will keep away for the moment, cheers.

Hi Spirit, I know you are an experienced user of Flash, video encoding and streaming, so I’m pretty sure your answer is based on real direct knowledge. I’m going Flash, and… its easier in many ways, no need for external software as everything is handled in Flash itself. I've got the point about version "7" and "6". Will keep this advice.

scary808 · Post by **scary808** » Tue Mar 16, 2004 5:24 pm

Come to think of it, I would do mpeg. Almost all players can view them. Do you want to prevent a full-on download? If not then go with mpeg.

Nestor · Post by **Nestor** » Tue Mar 16, 2004 10:30 pm

Ufff, things are a little more complicated that what they seem to be... becuase you actually need that your server suports it as well. You cannot jus come and start your streaming thing as you whould like, your server must be compatible, and you have to be carefull to buy the right program for the right server, because Codecs are different from server to server... Uggg... I didn't know about it.

I will definetely, absolutely, go Flash so, cos a server that supports streaming asks about 5 times a more expensive fee... Cheers.

Spirit · Post by **Spirit** » Wed Mar 17, 2004 1:31 am

Yes, I don't think there's much point going for a true streaming server. Flash progressive download is virtually identical as far as the user is concerned.

True streaming is only useful if you're going to show pieces that are 10 minutes or longer so that you can start playing at any point without needing a full download.

Flash player pentration by version:
http://www.macromedia.com/software/play ... ation.html

This one is even more interesting, but since it's a Macromedia site maybe you need to be skeptical about the figures:
http://www.macromedia.com/software/play ... kdown.html

Nestor · Post by **Nestor** » Wed Mar 17, 2004 10:50 am

Thanks for it Spirit!

In fact, I believe this numbers, I don't see the point of telling something ficticious... as there are many intelligent people out there that could say the contrary, by the own investigations.

I am affirmed in my idea of using only Flash. Cheers

scary808 · Post by **scary808** » Wed Mar 17, 2004 4:27 pm

Hey Spirit,

Any instructional books you could recommend for flash? I've been thinking of learning it.

Spirit · Post by **Spirit** » Wed Mar 17, 2004 10:12 pm

Depends what you want to do. Flash has been increasingly attacked as "bloatware". It also now seems to exist on two levels: there's the graphic interface and timeline approach; then there's the expert "actionscipt" approach which "serious" developers use to make slim code.

My personal opinion is that Flash is now more like a huge "library of options". So to learn Flash I think there are two approaches:

1) You can go into this library, sit down and start studying all the possibilities. This is a big, complex job and will take a long time to get familar with all its workings.

2) You can study Flash just long enough to get a good overview of its abailities and then concentrate on the area you need it for.

For example, it oes cartoon animations extremely well. It's also good for text effects. There's all sorts of dynamically loading components you can add and database interaction. And of course there's sound and video applications.

In all these categories there are now many Flash-based apps that take a particular slice of its functionality and present it in a *much, much more friendly* and useable manner.

So sorry that I haven't answered your question directly. I suppose the point I'm trying to make is that if you have specific things you want to achieve, then identify them and specialise in that direction straight away.

And that doesn't necessarily mean even buying Flash. For example:

Basic Flash: SwishMax
Text effects: Wildform WildFX
3D Flash: Swift 3D
Movie management: Linx
Video to swf compression: Sorrenson Squeeze
Video streaming: Flix
Slideshows: Imagematics

Now Flash MX 2004 can do everything that all these apps do, but in their particular chosen field each one of these apps is superior in functionality and ease of working than Flash.

Nestor · Post by **Nestor** » Wed Mar 17, 2004 11:55 pm

Curious term... I didn't know it, so here it is a like for those like me, that doesn not know what it means:

http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/B/bloatware.html

Post by **hubird** » Thu Mar 18, 2004 4:51 am

hey great link Nes, thanks!

valis · Post by **valis** » Thu Mar 18, 2004 5:15 am

The biggest thing about flash is that there is no standard in terms of gui so EVERY flash site has a different layout & different functionality in its navigation & controls. That and the fact that I don't generally use my DAW for random browsing but use an old p3-450 which just CRAWLS when modern 'pretty' flash sites are encountered.

Such is life

Spirit · Post by **Spirit** » Fri Mar 19, 2004 12:05 am

Valis, no offense, but critising Flash like that is a bit illogical. It's like saying you don't like pianos because some people dont know how to play them properly....

Flash is merely a tool - just like html, java, C++, coloured pencils, oil paints or wooden building blocks. What you get from it in looks, function or file size is absolutely 100% up to the skill of the operator.

[ This Message was edited by: Spirit on 2004-03-19 00:08 ]

Nestor · Post by **Nestor** » Fri Mar 19, 2004 8:21 am

Absolutely Spirt! And I despite the fact my experience with Flash is still short, I can tell it is a wonder, a truly great program with endless posibilities.

valis · Post by **valis** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 5:35 am

On 2004-03-19 00:05, Spirit wrote:
Valis, no offense, but critising Flash like that is a bit illogical. It's like saying you don't like pianos because some people dont know how to play them properly....

Flash is merely a tool - just like html, java, C++, coloured pencils, oil paints or wooden building blocks. What you get from it in looks, function or file size is absolutely 100% up to the skill of the operator.

[ This Message was edited by: Spirit on 2004-03-19 00:08 ]

To a certain extent that's true, especially when it comes to the skill of the operator determining how well something functions and how ergonomic it is. However I don't find it illogical at all, its common knowledge in the web developer community that Flash sites are often poor in the UI department since its an animation tool that's grown into a development tool. In other programming arenas there are existing standards for the application interface...

Apple is one of the strictest when it comes to their UI guidelines, the modern form of which they have wrapped into their "Aqua" label. They have a long history of shutting down developers who 'hack' or otherwise modify their "GUI" because they consider it one of the main focal points of their OS. They consider 'modeless' design and interleaved windows from multiple applications to be central to their design philosophy:
http://developer.apple.com/documentatio ... index.html

Microsoft is less totalitarian when it comes to UI development under their OS's, but also have several guidelines that they recommend you adhere to (they call it Inductive User Interface). Unlike Apple, microsoft seems to prefer more modal UI's with the foreground application having control over the desktop:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/defau ... ements.asp
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/hwdev/win ... fault.mspx

Most *nix GUIs also have similar efforts to standardize the 'look and feel' that extends beyond the core libraries of widgets & windowing calls.

Html is a bit looser than application development, but still controls are more or less standardized when it comes to form style entry. There's also a community-wide effort to adhere to somewhat standardized layouts etc. Many sites such as Webmonkey (RIP

) have done a lot encourage this and provide critique on poor design choices.

Flash on the other hand did not originally provide ANY built-in GUI controls (or guidelines) for artists to develop upon. Although Macromedia has since corrected this in the most recent versions (and there are 3rd-party solutions as well) the flash landscape is a bit scattered when it comes to consistant UI. Sometimes this doesn't matter so much especially when the goal is to HAVE a unique design/flow to your site, but it really depends on your target audience/market. If you're offering up products and/or services the lack of immediately usable controls can frustrate users.

In any case, as I've said if your goal is to be artistic or impress then who needs standards? But when I design a site for commercial use a good indicator on how well I've done in the UI department is whether my mother (who is nearly web illiterate) can navigate it without having to ask me 20 questions.

Spirit · Post by **Spirit** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 9:37 am

I agree with the "awful Flash site" part 100%. There are lots of terrible Flash sites. And the degree of awfulness you can achieve is much greater with Flash than html just because Flash gives you so many more options.

A young colleague of mine has a site which has the most amazing Flash programming - things wrap, fall, spin, whizz, dissolve and fold inward. But it's all completely pointless. And when you've sat through the huge download there's almost no content anyway.

Many other Flash sites I've seen seem to want to go with some sort of "sci-fi console" effect where you must tediously wait while text slides away to reveal the next option... Ho hum. Just show me the information please...

One reason for a lot of this is, I believe, the undue influence of designers in the GUI and architecture process.

I saw the same thing for years in print design. Let's say a page layout artist had to incorporate 500 words in a features page design. Left to themselves many artists will treat the text merely as an area of speckly black stuff they have to fit in somehow around their pretty graphics. They didn't actually care too much about readability or a heirachy of information.

Fortunately the print world is well enough organised that the worst of this is usually caught and eliminated before publication.

In the same way I think the problem with Flash is that a lot of it is design driven rather than information driven.

But in none of this do I see any reason to criticise the program that allowed it to be created.

And establishing any sort of UI standard would be pointless imho. It may help beginners by leading them toward using standard components, but that's just trainer-wheel stuff.

Again, it's 100% up to personal skill.

Enjoyable debate