[videoblogging] MP4/RSS (Was Re: The Best Codec)
Thanks joly. I'm really happy I joined this Ygroup. You confirmed my vague impression that I have to offer mp4 (in addition to my current embedded media), and that the mp4 has to be downloaded for later play as you say, which I think implies some kind of rss-for-video technology which I know nothing about at the moment. So I'm looking at another learning curve and don't even know what question to ask yet. When I go to http://feeds.feedburner.com/punkcastpodcast which you mentioned, I see a page of rss code with an error message at the bottom which says The XML page can not be displayed and I don't even know if this is what I'm supposed to looking at or not. If I asked a question it would be really dumb and basic, like Where do I start to get an RSS feed for my own MP4 video? Or Can Bittorent be used as a free solution to 'preload' video for the audience? Mike Marzio www.realenglish.tm.fr Message: 8 Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2006 19:06:56 -0500 From: WWWhatsup [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Re: The Best Codec I've actually used pretty much the same spec of real for the last 5 years on punkcast, for much the same reasons that you mention. I give the link for the BBC download page, which gives a pretty junk-free free install. http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/audiohelp_install.shtml I'm not interested in embedded video, however, I'm looking for the lean-back experience, for streaming or download. Particularly, for non qt-pro owning i-mac users, real was the most practical free way of giving them full screen video bar M$, I have experienced problems over the years playing back QT on weaker PC's. - stuttering etc, The increasing use of broadband and introduction of the VLC player has changed things in recent times, making mpg or DIVX delivered via bittorrent a high-quality alternative. The advent of the video iPod, and the podcasting method, has created a new standard, which is mp4 running around 600kbps, downloaded for later play. Which codec to use is a matter of choice. I've seen very good results using Xvid but I use [EMAIL PROTECTED] w/AAC at 128kbps audio. Your question of 'Best Codec' really should be qualified with a purpose, - if you've been following the discussion here on google video, you'll see that the general consensus is that for embedded streaming it's very possibly flv in flash, but that's not much good for offline play. I'd suggest you do, as I do, for continuity and backwards compatibility, continue to offer real on your site, and offer a podcast of higher quality mp4 for those that are up to speed. A feedburner page offers an easy link to such content, see http://feeds.feedburner.com/punkcastpodcast joly **Encoding in Real Producer (after capture and editing in Raw Intel Indeo): Total Video+Audio Bit Rate: 225 Kbps Size: 320x240 Frame Rate: 25 fps (I live in France and shoot in PAL when I'm in the States) Video Bit Rate only: 193 Kbps Audio Bit Rate only: 32 Kbps, mono, at 22 Mhz Mike Marzio Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[videoblogging] Re: The Best Codec
Hi Steve of Elbows,Your reply was really useful. Thanks for taking the time. I'd like to reply/ask about 3 issues: Why not embrace a format like .mp4 container with mpeg4 video, as it isnt controlled by any one company. Choice of encoder, choice of player. Just because Aple is doing a lot of the visible stuff with promoting .mp4, doesnt mean they control it, eg realplayer can play mpeg4 too if you tell it too.I recently got the $30 QuickTime Pro 7 player/encoder for converting my raw clips to MP4. I bought it only with the idea of comparing file size/quality to the results of the other codecs. BTW, I joined this group just a few days ago, and I think I understand the way you're all using the term "container". So, ***are you saying that Windows XP Mac users can read MP4 files in the player of their choice without having to make special efforts in downloading a player codec for MP4?*** If this is the case, I'm going to start re-encoding my raw library of video into mp4, because the results look really good, even if the the filesize/quality issue is inferior to the real codec. I guess its probably really the filesize/quality issue that has won you over? Yes, absolutely. I want good quality streaming faster than you can say "real". Thats fair enough, just cant avoid the fact that other people may balance factors differently and so thats why real isnt used much, it scores poorly on other fronts. Can't agree more. And what a waste! The Real Media company seems to have absolute geniuses in charge of technical codec issues, the worst people in the video world in charge of distribution and marketing. What bitrate etc are you using to achieve the quality/filesize that you are happy with in real? I would like to compare it to a few things, as I am also very much influenced by quality factors.These are my typical encoding specs below, although I change them now and then to see if any users tell me that the quality and "speed of stream start" isn't as good as my standard one:First of all, I only do single audience encoding (which helps explain why my video file sizes are so small), despite the fact that the Real Producer 10 Plus can encode for a couple dozen audiences at the same time. I figure there's simply no reason to encode for 56K modem users anymore, and why bother to encode for those with extremely fast DSL or T1 or T2? They are rare, lucky people, who will see good results anyway with these lowish DSL rates (Next year this might change drastically, which is why I keep my raw video files on a couple400GB hard disks with DVD data backups so as to re-encode in the future for future average rates). **Source: half of the video in the clip below was shot in 1994 with a single chip Hi-8, and half was shot very recently with a new cheap 3-chip Panasonic**Encoding after captureand editing inRaw Intel Indeo: Total Video+Audio Bit Rate: 225 KbpsSize: 320x240Frame Rate: 25 fps (I live in France andshoot in PAL when I'm in the States)Video Bit Rate only: 193 KbpsAudio Bit Rate only: 32 Kbps, mono, at 22 Mhz Example: I am not trying to promote my site here, honest (and you don't have to learn English as a Second Language anyway!),it's just really easy to see the subjective result by going to www.real-english.com and click on "Sample Video" which should begin streaming in 2 seconds at the most in average conditions of general traffic,for low to average DSL/cable users. This "What have you got" clip was encoded exactly as described above. This one is 9 minutes long and takes up less than 15 megs on my hard disk! Thanks again for your input, Mike Marzio YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[videoblogging] Re: The Best Codec
Andreas, Happy New Year to you, I know that the real PLAYER sucks - I saidas muchmyself in the part of my message you snipped out. But if you embed your real media on your web pages, then you don't get any of the crap, and you also get the most efficientcodec. Pop-up blockers limit the damage if you use their player as a stand-alone. I am not defending these guys, they really do suck, but I much prefer uploading a small RM file of good quality than amov file taking up much more disk space, of the same videowith same quality. And WMV - well, there is a war going on, and I still prefer alternatives to Windows monopolyware. Also, Apple is not an innocent by-stander. They do their best to steal the file associations too, and also insist that their player remains ON TOP when playing, one thing that the sucky real player people do NOT do.Also, if you're using Windows, there are great free tools to get the real player completely out of the registry in seconds.All my users get a tinyurl shortcut directly to the final step for download page of the sucky free real player. Makes itvery easy to find.There are no ideal solutions, are there? I just went to your site and see that you embed MOVs. Well, if you EMBED RMs, the result is exactly the same. All the crap you bring up in your replyonly occurs when you use the real player as a standalone.Mike Marziowww.real-english.com Date: Sun, 01 Jan 2006 14:34:34 +0100 From: "Andreas Haugstrup" [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: The Best Codec On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 12:03:05 +0100, Michael MARZIO [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My conclusion is that RM files are absolutely the best hands down, and I just don't understand why Real Networks or Real Media or whatever they're called, haven't won the codec war already. [SNIP] I'm sure others are interested in keeping file sizes down and quality up. Why do I seem to be the only one who has reached this conclusion in favor of RM? In case you haven't noticed it the Real Player sucks. It's impossible to find the free player on their website, it's a real drag on slower computers, it installs all kinds of crap and hijacks half the file types on the computer. Even when you think you've uninstalled the player you get these pop-ups above the system tray notifying you of "great offers" and the likes. They can have the best codec in the world, but until they make a player that works *with* the users instead of against the users no one is going to watch those videos. - Andreas-- URL: http://www.solitude.dk/ Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology. SPONSORED LINKS Individual Fireant Typepad Use YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
