Fast-start, scrolling, scrubbing and jumping. These are the most important features for viewing temporal video online, I think.
Quicktime handles all of these features much better than Flash for quality video for the same speed/file size. If you want super mad interactivity like video games maybe it would be better to go with Flash so you can write it in Action Script. On Oct 17, 2005, at 6:47 PM, Frank Carver wrote: > Monday, October 17, 2005, 9:59:14 PM, Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen > wrote: > > >> 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. >> > > I'm really hoping nobody takes the following as a jab. I'm not really > a quicktime user - I don't use it at all beyond starting up the QT > player when I find a mov that VLC won't open - but I don't have any > axe to grind. However, there's something about this that plain puzzles > me. I know that there are several people on this list who sometimes > use these "advanced" QT features (for me, anything beyond a mov > containing one video and one audio stream, playing unadorned, counts > as advanced). I'm hoping that someone will be able to answer. > > The advanced QT features that I have encountered so far seem a strange > and ad-hoc bunch - features added seemingly as the whim of the > developers took them. For example, interactivity in QT movies seems > little more than a toy - I've not yet seen an example even as capable > as the "games" on a typical Disney DVD. Is there even a spec for all > this stuff that a third-party player manufacturer could use to make > sure the player works with *all* QT files? > > Quicktime is certainly not the ultra simple "video format" that we > desperately need for videoblogging to take off (a.k.a "the MP3 of > video"). That would need at least to completely pin down the choice of > codecs and define rigorous but expandable metatdata - to make it so > that all files of the same "file type" play the same on all devices. > > Neither does Quicktime seem the ultimate interactive downloadable > application platform. From what I've seen, creating the same kind of > mouseover-triggered alternate-play thingies that appear here from time > to time is both easier and better supported with tools in Flash, and > Flash offers a huge array of extra features including a "proper" > programming language built in. Whenever I've wanted to put interactive > content on the web, Flash has seemed the natural choice. > > So what _is_ the attraction of Quicktime? > > Please remember - I'm not trolling here. I'm genuinely interested in > the answer. > > -- > Frank Carver http://www.makevideo.org.uk > > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -------------------- > ~--> > Get Bzzzy! (real tools to help you find a job). Welcome to the > Sweet Life. > http://us.click.yahoo.com/A77XvD/vlQLAA/TtwFAA/lBLqlB/TM > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > ~-> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Most low income households are not online. Help bridge the digital divide today! http://us.click.yahoo.com/cd_AJB/QnQLAA/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/
