Re: [Re: [WSG] video standards?]
Original Message Subject: [WSG] video standards? From:brian cummiskey [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date:Tue, November 16, 2004 11:40 am To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- I'm producing a small video, and per request, he wants it in wmv format. What's the extent of apple/linux guys being able to view this format? are their codecs for non-windows systems? -- I think: windows media movie (.mpeg or .avi), quicktime movie (.mov), and realplayer movie (.rm?). Good question tho. later, Zulema · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ! ! b l u e w e b d e s i g n e r email : [EMAIL PROTECTED] website : http://zoblue.com/ weblog : http://blog.zoblue.com/ firefox : http://mozilla.org/products/firefox/ · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] video standards?
VLC http://www.videolan.org/vlc/ is a player that handles (most) wmv movies and is available for a large number of platforms. I'm not a video expert, but heres my understanding of the market: 1. wmv files are a MS propriety implementation of MPEG4. 2. Generally the files are considerably smaller (up to 50%), but the compression comes at the expense of picture quality. 3. mov is the most widely supported format (by default, without needing to install additional software?). 4. realmedia are a sleazy deceptive corporation who should be avoided at all costs. ./tdw On 2004-11-17 6:40 AM, brian cummiskey wrote: I'm producing a small video, and per request, he wants it in wmv format. What's the extent of apple/linux guys being able to view this format? are their codecs for non-windows systems? -- *** Are you in the Wellington area and interested in web standards? Wellington Web Standards Group inaugural meeting 9 Dec 2004. See http://webstandardsgroup.org/go/event24.cfm for details *** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] video standards?
--- brian cummiskey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm producing a small video, and per request, he wants it in wmv format. What's the extent of apple/linux guys being able to view this format? are their codecs for non-windows systems? There actually is a version of Windows Media Player (under that name, cognitive dissonance notwithstanding) for the Mac. __ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] video standards?
I dont know a whole lot about video stuff but I agree with Terrence and though Windows media is available for Mac OS, very few would install in let alone use it! .mov is a better way of going about surely. On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 12:28:34 -0800 (PST), Edwin Horneij [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- brian cummiskey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm producing a small video, and per request, he wants it in wmv format. What's the extent of apple/linux guys being able to view this format? are their codecs for non-windows systems? There actually is a version of Windows Media Player (under that name, cognitive dissonance notwithstanding) for the Mac. __ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** -- Regards, Amit Karmakar http://karmakars.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] video standards?
Hi, If the client is at all flexible, I would suggest looking into .flv. The flash video fromat is taking off like wildfire, and with the flash player penetration, it is a stable solution: http://www.flashstreamworks.com/ C On Tuesday, November 16, 2004, at 09:40 AM, brian cummiskey wrote: I'm producing a small video, and per request, he wants it in wmv format. What's the extent of apple/linux guys being able to view this format? are their codecs for non-windows systems? ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ___ Knowing is not enough, you must apply; willing is not enough, you must do. ---Bruce Lee ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] video standards?
Chris Kennon wrote: Hi, If the client is at all flexible, I would suggest looking into .flv. The flash video fromat is taking off like wildfire, and with the flash player penetration, it is a stable solution: http://www.flashstreamworks.com/ Looks great- But i don't have flash, nor have even messed around with it (frankly, i can't stand flash websites), and the software they recommend is $450. That's more than i'm getting paid for this job, and is just not profitable, nor logical, for me to spend more than my contract for something that the client doesn't want anyway. Pretty sure i'm going to stick with the wmv format, as per his request. It's his site. I recommended an mpg4 and avi/divx as an alternative format, but he only wants 1. His choice... and windows movie maker is a piece of cake to use :) With the link to the other software posted a few back, i think i will simply provice a link to get the software (like a get flash button) or something. I guess this will conclude this thread unless someone has something to change my clients mind and is practical (free? cheap? something like that) ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] video standards?
Within QuickTime there are are many codecs available, including AVI, MPEGs 1 2 and MPEG 4, etc. This is what I've found (the hard way) when dealing with video: AVI is an old MS codec that they haven't supported in years that thrill Windows users because of the small file sizes. IMHO, the quality is terrible. Windows Media player is available for both Mac OS 9 and OSX and some of us Mac users secretly harbor this player, although we never display it on our hard drives! As Terrence said, the size issue is great, the quality can be good, if you know what you're doing. I've used QuickTime Pro and MPEG 4 with the most success with both audio and video across platforms. The sizes aren't bad, but it does require the user to have the latest QT 6 plug-in. Either format would work with some experimentation. As far as Linux is concerned, I haven't a clue. I don't know about the sleaze factor of Real, but I do know that special plug-ins are required in order to convert to Real. Besides, the Real interface is, let's face it, real bad... Flash is an alternative, but will require someone with a very good understanding of how to use the program as it can be a slow and tedious process. I've mixed QT with Flash for some good results. So much depends on what exactly is involved in the small video. If you're talking just video or audio/video and/or special effects etc. There is no easy, simple answer without knowing what exactly you need. And even then, there is no easy answer. Wayne Godfrey President, Creative Director Outgate Media, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] video standards?
.mov is QuickTime and Windows users are as likely to download and install that as Mac users are to install Windows Media Player. And even if you use Windows Media Player, the issue of codecs remains - not all codecs are available for the Mac and some do not play at all or play the video with no audio. Camtasia is a case in point. In the absence of a common format, I always offer .wmv, .mov and .rm (Real Player). Offering the choice takes up very little bandwidth and at least you know that everyone can view your videos. You could sniff for the OS and serve accordingly, or you could allow users to choose. If you choose the latter, you need to specify which format works with which platforms as many users don't know. Hope this helps. On Wednesday, 17 November 2004 7:48 AM, Amit Karmakar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I dont know a whole lot about video stuff but I agree with Terrence and though Windows media is available for Mac OS, very few would install in let alone use it! .mov is a better way of going about surely. On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 12:28:34 -0800 (PST), Edwin Horneij [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- brian cummiskey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm producing a small video, and per request, he wants it in wmv format. What's the extent of apple/linux guys being able to view this format? are their codecs for non-windows systems? There actually is a version of Windows Media Player (under that name, cognitive dissonance notwithstanding) for the Mac. __ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** -- Regards, Amit Karmakar http://karmakars.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] video standards?
Brian, .mov is both platforms (don't know about Linux, but don't doubt it's there too) more so than .wmv. And iMovie is cheap and also a piece of cake to use, if not more so. ;) Also, to Chris's point, there are more people with Flash than anything else (both platforms included, again not up on Linux). Chris Kennon wrote: Hi, If the client is at all flexible, I would suggest looking into .flv. The flash video fromat is taking off like wildfire, and with the flash player penetration, it is a stable solution: http://www.flashstreamworks.com/ Looks great- But i don't have flash, nor have even messed around with it (frankly, i can't stand flash websites), and the software they recommend is $450. That's more than i'm getting paid for this job, and is just not profitable, nor logical, for me to spend more than my contract for something that the client doesn't want anyway. Pretty sure i'm going to stick with the wmv format, as per his request. It's his site. I recommended an mpg4 and avi/divx as an alternative format, but he only wants 1. His choice... and windows movie maker is a piece of cake to use :) With the link to the other software posted a few back, i think i will simply provice a link to get the software (like a get flash button) or something. I guess this will conclude this thread unless someone has something to change my clients mind and is practical (free? cheap? something like that) ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** -- - Tom Livingston Senior Multimedia Artist mlinc.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] video standards?
Well, I guess that was the end. C On Tuesday, November 16, 2004, at 01:40 PM, brian cummiskey wrote: Looks great- But i don't have flash, nor have even messed around with it (frankly, i can't stand flash websites), ___ Knowing is not enough, you must apply; willing is not enough, you must do. ---Bruce Lee ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] video standards?
Hugh Todd wrote: I had a listen Frank Casanova's talk, given recently at the CTIA Wireless IT Entertainment Conference in San Francisco ( http://www.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/ctia2004/ ), and was impressed by the commitment Apple appears to be showing to open standards in video and audio media. Is this not something that fits with the Web Standards ethos? As far as I know, Most web standards people are against web standards containing RAND licences of patented tech. Eg, the idea that writing an HTML browser shouldn't require payment; that's it doesn't matter if you earn money from it; and that there's no usage charges. MPEG 4, as used in the current Quicktime rather than Sorenson, is patented and controlled by the MPEG-LA grou who have legal rights in the countries where they have patents. This has quite a good write up about under what circumstances they'll charge (mostly around usage it seems): http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/licensing/mpeg4faq.aspx As I understand it open source implementations of MPEG 4, like XviD, implement things that in some countries are patented. Eg, Patented stuff in XviD 0.9.x was not legal in the US or Japan unless you settled with the licence holders. I haven't been on the list long so I hope this doesn't start a flamewar about proprietary Vs open, or using the software people have Vs. what's unpopular. I'm just trying to compare what I think the Web Standards ethos for licencing is Vs these video licences. And I don't mean to single out MPEG4 either, because MPEG 2, Sorensen, AVI (the container format), WMV, are patented and licenced similarly. I don't know much about MPEG1 licencing but I'd guess that it's the same if only because of the audio format. From a licencing standpoint I guess Ogg Theora, or the BBC's Dirac would be closest to web standards (free for anyone, allows commercial use, no usage charges). I'm not a lawyer but I looked into this kind of thing a while back when trying to come up with a suggestion for a government standard on video and audio, and there weren't many open and free standards around. .Matthew Cruickshank http://holloway.co.nz/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] video standards?
Matthew, You make some good points. However: 1) The MPEG-LA (Licensing Authority), as far as I know, is only the legal clearing-house for the MPEG-4 technology, which has been developed at the behest of a large number of the manufacturers and developers in the video market. No one person or company owns the technology. There is a patent pool. The upshot of this is that the technology is not public domain, but it is an ISO standard. In the same way that (now) Microsoft has submitted, and had accepted, a form of Windows Media 9 (VC 9) as *one* of the standards for the next generation of DVD. (It's important to note the distinction between the 'technology licence' that, say, Microsoft charges for Windows Media - at a very reasonable rate - and a 'patent licence', which is the sort of thing MPEG-LA takes care of on behalf of its patent holders, and will manage for VC 9 as well.) In an area in which advances have been made (and patented) by many people, such an arrangement is probably the best we can hope for, though it helps to have deployment companies like Apple going in to bat for us users to keep some sort of lid on costs. 2) Ideally there would be a 'free' standard, along the lines you suggest, and in keeping with the spirit of web standards. But as yet the sheer skill required to create such a thing *and* give it mass market distribution (with legally sourced content to drive its uptake) is not there. So the real world choices for us are: a) Go for a proprietary format, whether Windows Media, Real, QuickTime or Flash, simply because the players are installed on large numbers of machines. b) Go for a standards-based format even if, in some cases involving heavy usage, it involves (directly or indirectly) dealing with the gatekeepers, MPEG-LA. In this case, users will still need to have installed players able to recognise MPEG-4 files, and as far as I know these are Real and QuickTime only on PCs and Macs. -Hugh Todd Hugh Todd wrote: I had a listen Frank Casanova's talk, given recently at the CTIA Wireless IT Entertainment Conference in San Francisco ( http://www.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/ctia2004/ ), and was impressed by the commitment Apple appears to be showing to open standards in video and audio media. Is this not something that fits with the Web Standards ethos? As far as I know, Most web standards people are against web standards containing RAND licences of patented tech. Eg, the idea that writing an HTML browser shouldn't require payment; that's it doesn't matter if you earn money from it; and that there's no usage charges. MPEG 4, as used in the current Quicktime rather than Sorenson, is patented and controlled by the MPEG-LA grou who have legal rights in the countries where they have patents. This has quite a good write up about under what circumstances they'll charge (mostly around usage it seems): http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/licensing/mpeg4faq.aspx As I understand it open source implementations of MPEG 4, like XviD, implement things that in some countries are patented. Eg, Patented stuff in XviD 0.9.x was not legal in the US or Japan unless you settled with the licence holders. I haven't been on the list long so I hope this doesn't start a flamewar about proprietary Vs open, or using the software people have Vs. what's unpopular. I'm just trying to compare what I think the Web Standards ethos for licencing is Vs these video licences. And I don't mean to single out MPEG4 either, because MPEG 2, Sorensen, AVI (the container format), WMV, are patented and licenced similarly. I don't know much about MPEG1 licencing but I'd guess that it's the same if only because of the audio format. From a licencing standpoint I guess Ogg Theora, or the BBC's Dirac would be closest to web standards (free for anyone, allows commercial use, no usage charges). I'm not a lawyer but I looked into this kind of thing a while back when trying to come up with a suggestion for a government standard on video and audio, and there weren't many open and free standards around. .Matthew Cruickshank http://holloway.co.nz/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] video standards?
Like many Internet technologies it can be difficult, if not impossible, to go to a standard, particularly video which has matured enormously. If you have the resources to offer video in multiple formats (Real, Windows Media, Flash, etc) good for you (and nothing derogatory meant by that). I think Macromedia's Flash product has a lot going for it, particularly in the player penetration stakes. Anything that can make both publishing and viewing video content on the web can only be a good thing (unless it is more pr0n). The improvements MM made to Flash Player 7 (Macromedia Breeze, Flash Communication Server and Flash itself all benefited) are obvious. And the best is to come and all your audience need is the almost universally installed Flash Player - albeit newer and newer versions. But compared to how some of the players take over your system - Real in particular - Flash is an affordable compromise and generally cross platform compatible (Mobile devices will take a few years to catch up I think). If you can avoid being penned into a solution, particular when authoring video, there are many solutions that provide the provision of that video on the web. Peter Tilbrook ColdGen Internet Solutions Manager, ACT and Region ColdFusion Users Group 4/73 Tharwa Road Queanbeyan, NSW, 2620 AUSTRALIA WWW 1: http://www.coldgen.com/ WWW 2: http://www.actcfug.com/ Telephone: +61-2-6284-2727 Mobile: +61-0439-401-823 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] video standards?
On Wed, 2004-11-17 at 09:33, Damian Sweeney wrote: .mov is generally not available for Linux (with the exception of using Codeweavers wine ($$) to run Quicktime for Windows in Linux). The Linux mplayer plugin for Firefox [1] will play pretty much everything I have tested, though some of the M$ formats are a bit buggy ( due to reverse engineering ) The plugin is still in development and does hang sometimes. Having the one player for all formats is quite good. ( excluding flash of course, which also works fine under Linux ) All in all video streaming under Linux in Firefox is looking quite good. .mpg works well (as it does in Mac and Windows). Only some .wmv and .avi files will play (not sure what the distinguishing factor is) in most of the players available. A lot of different codecs exist for both wmv and avi. These file formats are just data envelopes that hold the data, the data itself can then be encoded using different codecs. eg. DivX, Xvid, mpeg4 etc. Real media stuff is available, but generally a pain as you have to install a proprietary binary player, so they aren't well supported by distributions which makes it difficult to upgrade. Linux also has the Helix and Real Player [2] for real one media formats Flash is available for Firefox in Linux, but once again there's the binary install issue. I don't see this as an issue? Having the source for everything under Linux would be nice, so that you could build flash into you own custom application, but for most Linux users the pre-built Flash plugin is fine and MM provide builds for most browsers. Opera under Linux for example can happily use the firefox flash plugin. Regards Chris Blown [1] http://mplayerplug-in.sourceforge.net [2] https://player.helixcommunity.org ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] video standards?
Peter, I think Macromedia's Flash product has a lot going for it, particularly in the player penetration stakes. Anything that can make both publishing and viewing video content on the web can only be a good thing (unless it is more pr0n). A good argument, though not a standards-based one! But compared to how some of the players take over your system - Real in particular - Flash is an affordable compromise and generally cross platform compatible (Mobile devices will take a few years to catch up I think). Which is where a standard like MPEG-4 (along with its latest incarnation, the rapidly-being-adopted H.264 -- a more recent revision of MPEG-4 ) with its scaleability all the way from HD down to mobile phones (with 3GPP - on GSM networks - and 3GPP2 - on CDMA networks) has an advantage over Flash. It is already a doddle to author for 3GPP and 3GPP2 in QuickTime Pro, with a simple export, and as H.264 gets included in the workflow over the next few months the scope of this technology will widen even further. In this way, standards remain standards, with their own evolutionary path, even as authoring solutions evolve around them, whether proprietary or not. Which is an approach that appeals to me, as someone committed to web standards. If you can avoid being penned into a solution, particular when authoring video, there are many solutions that provide the provision of that video on the web. Indeed, though some are more standard than others. :) -Hugh Todd ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
