Re: [videoblogging] flash or quicktime? Whats better?

2006-04-18 Thread Jen Simmons
Quicktime advantages:
- it looks better
- it plays back better / less stuttering, much better recovery from a slow internet connection
- viewers can drag the playhead back and forth after the movie has downloaded and scrub through the video / land on an exact frame / check out what's going on
- viewers can download it and re-cut the movie / remix it / share it (and videobloggers do this all the time :-)


Flash advantages:
- Most computer already have flash installed. PCs don't ship with the Quicktime Player, so the computer owner has to download it from Apple (for free), and if your viewers are watching on a borrowed computer (like at schools, libraries, internet cafes around the globe, etc) then there's a good chance they can't install quicktime. 

- If you want to lock down your movie and prevent almost everyone from copying it (or if you are working for hire and your client demands this ) then flash is the way to do it. (There are ways around this, but most people don't know how.)

- If you want to add interactivity / put the movie into a funky interface, flash has a lot of tools and power to do that — if you know flash. Quicktime can do a lot too, but in my opinion, Flash is much more powerful, flexible and easier to program than a Quicktime movie.


It seems one trend these days is to use Quicktime as the primary file ('cause it's better), and then create a flash version and offer that as an alternative (linked in the same post, listed second so the Quicktime mov is what goes into the feed). Flash has certainly taken off in the last six months as the favorite over Windows Media for the PC-without-Quicktime-Player option. I think the popularity of YouTube  GoogleVideo / plus the fact blip.tv will auto-transcode for you is why this is happening. (If you use blip.tv and upload your file there, the computers at blip.tv will make a Flash version for you, also store it there in your account, and you can link to both.) WMV files _really_ stink, in my opinion (as I try to watch them on my Mac, always waiting for buffering, never being able to scroll, fast forward / rewind / pause properly), so I'm glad to see Flash replace WMV.

jen


jenSimmons
http://www.jensimmons.com
On Apr 17, 2006, at 11:08 PM, Jon Rawlinson wrote:

Hi guys,

What do you think is better embedding a flash video file or a quicktime video file?

Can you give me your opinions on both?

Thanks so much!

Cheers,
JON.
The Nata village blog
 natavillage.org



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. 




Re: [videoblogging] flash or quicktime? Whats better?

2006-04-18 Thread Jon Rawlinson



Wow!Thanks so much Jen  CharlesI appreciate it!cheers,JON.natavillage.orgOn 4/18/06, 
Jen Simmons [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quicktime advantages:- it looks better- it plays back better / less stuttering, much better recovery from aslow internet connection- viewers can drag the playhead back and forth after the movie hasdownloaded and scrub through the video / land on an exact frame / check
out what's going on- viewers can download it and re-cut the movie / remix it / share it(and videobloggers do this all the time :-)Flash advantages:- Most computer already have flash installed. PCs don't ship with the
Quicktime Player, so the computer owner has to download it from Apple(for free), and if your viewers are watching on a borrowed computer(like at schools, libraries, internet cafes around the globe, etc) then
there's a good chance they can't install quicktime.- If you want to lock down your movie and prevent almost everyone fromcopying it (or if you are working for hire and your client demands this) then flash is the way to do it. (There are ways around this, but most
people don't know how.)- If you want to add interactivity / put the movie into a funkyinterface, flash has a lot of tools and power to do that — if you knowflash. Quicktime can do a lot too, but in my opinion, Flash is much
more powerful, flexible and easier to program than a Quicktime movie.It seems one trend these days is to use Quicktime as the primary file('cause it's better), and then create a flash version and offer that as
an alternative (linked in the same post, listed second so the Quicktimemov is what goes into the feed). Flash has certainly taken off in thelast six months as the favorite over Windows Media for thePC-without-Quicktime-Player option. I think the popularity of YouTube 
GoogleVideo / plus the fact blip.tv will auto-transcode for you is whythis is happening. (If you use blip.tv and upload your file there, thecomputers at 
blip.tv will make a Flash version for you, also store itthere in your account, and you can link to both.) WMV files _really_stink, in my opinion (as I try to watch them on my Mac, always waiting
for buffering, never being able to scroll, fast forward / rewind /pause properly), so I'm glad to see Flash replace WMV.jenjenSimmonshttp://www.jensimmons.com
On Apr 17, 2006, at 11:08 PM, Jon Rawlinson wrote: Hi guys, What do you think is better embedding a flash video file or a quicktime video file? Can you give me your opinions on both?
 Thanks so much! Cheers, JON. The Nata village blognatavillage.org 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.


  




  
  
  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.



  









Re: [videoblogging] flash or quicktime? Whats better?

2006-04-18 Thread Michael Sullivan



Hi,Well, generally speaking both work well on the web as embedded video in a page.The FLV format and codecs have gotten really great in the past year so its possible to have excellent flash video quality. And, most to all people will have no problem viewing an FLV on the web. In most cases, to get the best result with Flash Video, you should prob be doing the transcoding yourself, tinkering with settings. Online services that transcode to FLV for you vary in quality and is dependent on the original video file uploaded. 
Do you care about getting your video onto portable devices like Apple video iPod and PSP? If so, you will need to output using mpeg4 codecs (Quicktime compatible media). Quicktime has always been my preference for video playback. I've been using it for years and most vloggers are also output QT video. If you dont want to bother with flash, then focus on Quicktime compatible formats.
I also encourage people to experiment with DivX, an excellent technology for vloggers to harness.I stay clear of Microsoft Windows Media, however.sullOn 4/17/06, 
Jon Rawlinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



Hi guys,What do you think is better embedding a flash video file or a quicktime video file?Can you give me your opinions on both?Thanks so much!Cheers,JON.The Nata village blog

natavillage.org


  




  
  
  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
.



  








-- Sullhttp://vlogdir.com http://SpreadTheMedia.org





  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Fireant
  
  
Individual
  
  
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.



  









Re: [videoblogging] flash or quicktime? Whats better?

2006-04-18 Thread Jon Rawlinson



Yah I havent been very happy with the online transcoding to flash. I think ill just stick with quicktime for now.Thanks for the help!JON.natavillage.org
On 4/18/06, Michael Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



Hi,Well, generally speaking both work well on the web as embedded video in a page.The FLV format and codecs have gotten really great in the past year so its possible to have excellent flash video quality. And, most to all people will have no problem viewing an FLV on the web. In most cases, to get the best result with Flash Video, you should prob be doing the transcoding yourself, tinkering with settings. Online services that transcode to FLV for you vary in quality and is dependent on the original video file uploaded. 
Do you care about getting your video onto portable devices like Apple video iPod and PSP? If so, you will need to output using mpeg4 codecs (Quicktime compatible media). Quicktime has always been my preference for video playback. I've been using it for years and most vloggers are also output QT video. If you dont want to bother with flash, then focus on Quicktime compatible formats.
I also encourage people to experiment with DivX, an excellent technology for vloggers to harness.I stay clear of Microsoft Windows Media, however.sull
On 4/17/06, 
Jon Rawlinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:




Hi guys,What do you think is better embedding a flash video file or a quicktime video file?Can you give me your opinions on both?Thanks so much!Cheers,JON.The Nata village blog


natavillage.org


  




  
  
  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

.



  








-- Sull
http://vlogdir.com http://SpreadTheMedia.org





  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  


Fireant
  
  

Individual
  
  

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
.



  











  




  
  
  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.



  









Re: [videoblogging] flash or quicktime? Whats better?

2006-04-17 Thread Charles Iliya Krempeaux



Hello Jon,On 4/17/06, Jon Rawlinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



Hi guys,What do you think is better embedding a flash video file or a quicktime video file?Can you give me your opinions on both?Thanks so much!Cheers,JON.The Nata village blog

natavillage.orgIf I had to choose between the 2, I'd choose QuickTime (over Flash).The reason is that QuickTime is a video file. And flash isn't. Flash has more in common with a Java applet than a video file. (Although it is much more primative than Java.)
See ya-- Charles Iliya Krempeaux, 
B.Sc.charles @ reptile.ca
supercanadian @ gmail.com
developer weblog: http://ChangeLog.ca/
___Make Television
http://maketelevision.com/






  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Fireant
  
  
Individual
  
  
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.