Yes, we're using H.264 within a .mov file because of the extra features available with .mov, such as clickable hyperlinks.
Based on our vlog's stats, the vast majority of our watchers are using iTunes. So we place a link at the end of each vid hoping they'll click through to our site and leave a comment. It works well. Maybe we're cutting out some Linux users by not producing raw mpeg-4, but I think that _in our case_ it's outweighed by the benefits of using .mov files. I am not advocating either raw mpeg-4 or .mov as being superior, just saying that it works best for us. On iPod compatibility: based on the footnote on this page I'm confident our files will be compatible: http://www.apple.com/quicktime/tutorials/creatingvideo.html Waz www.crashtestkitchen.com --- In [email protected], "Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 19:35:49 +0200, Steve Watkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > I dont think he was suggesting they are totally the same in terms of > > features, just that the video and audio tracks can be the same, and he > > didnt mention the advantages of mov over mp4. > > Same difference. He was talking about how everyone should use MP4 and not > MOV because one is open and one is closed. I'm just saying it's not that > simple. One is just a file format - the other is an authoring enviroment. > It's apples and oranges. > > > But lets face it, though the mov-compatible stull like SMIL, chapter, > > text etc that you mention are nice, most people never use any of them, > > and thus its not relevent to them. Im sure more people would use some > > of this stuff if it was inherently easy and more blindlingly obvious > > how to do so using their exissting workflow & software tools, but as > > we have seen with even basic meta-data, many people arent going to > > bother. > > Not really an argument to use MP4. All the Cool Shit(tm) will certainly > never be used if the format is phased out. Wince we are at the cutting > edge, working on making Cool Shit easier and/or promote it is what we > should do. > > > This does tie back into discussion with you about videobloggins as a > > tv-like experience vs interactive videoblogs. I think its safe to say > > that we are not going to see the same level of interaction with mobile > > video as you would expect and like of computer-viewed interactive stuff. > > The features of MOV can be used in both settings. They are nice because > you can automate more stuff easier because you don't have to re-encode > your video every time you make a small change to a chapter or a bug. > > > Some engadget article that someone linked to earlier suggested that > > the new ipod cannot even fast forward or rewind video? Thats crazy if > > true, and one element of 'interactivity' I wouldnt want to be without > > on any platform. Still if it is true then it sure makes short things > > like videoblogs more attractive to play on the ipod than longer stuff. > > Fast forward? Rewind? Like a player has been able to do since the VCR? The > days were rewinding is sold as a *feature* should be long gone by now. > Players should just do it. > > - Andreas > -- > <URL:http://www.solitude.dk/> > Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology. > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Fair play? Video games influencing politics. Click and talk back! http://us.click.yahoo.com/T8sf5C/tzNLAA/TtwFAA/lBLqlB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 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/
