From: "marcus mcnicoll" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Windows Media vs. Real Media
I can't believe what I'm hearing! I've always found the frame rate, picture
quality and sound to be better in Windows media player. I agree that it
suffers terribly when trying to render skin tones, and if your original
sound file is "dirty" it encodes all the rubbish along with the sound you
want and you end up with a darth vader sound track...it is also a tougher
piece of kit to use and design for, but the control you can have is far
better than any smil presentation you can make. I hate to say it, but i
reckon microsoft are ahead on this one. If your original files are of
quality (not just off VHS) then you end up with better and truer results at
low band widths...do all you guys work for real?
>From: RealForum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: RE: Windows Media vs. Real Media
>Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 07:34:13 -0700
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Sep 17 09:38:09 1999
>Received: from [208.147.89.48] by hotmail.com (2.1) with ESMTP id
>MHotMailB9ABB9650051D82197D9D09359301C8E0; Fri Sep 17 09:38:09 1999
>Received: (from majordom@localhost)by realforum.real.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id
>HAA31408for realforum-outgoing; Fri, 17 Sep 1999 07:34:13 -0700
>Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Precedence: bulk
>
>From: Sean Gallo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: RE: Windows Media vs. Real Media
>
>While I'd have to agree that, at lower bandwidths, the Real codecs ARE
>superior to Microsoft's, I think "massive difference in video quality" is
>kind of overstating the case.
>My experience has been that, using the appropriate settings in the Windows
>Media On Demand Producer, the resulting ASF picture quality is comparable
>to
>that of Real (maybe a bit poorer.)
>It's the audio that really suffers. When it comes to low-bandwidth audio,
>Real is the hands-down winner.
