Re: [videoblogging] Re: mov in to wmv

[andrew michael baron]

This video just supports my claim that whenever Flash runs smoothly, its full of horrible artifacts because it requires such a low bitrate to work well. Note that when ever the camera pans, the video turns into a pixel grid of about 15 by 15 squares. Lets see a 600 or 700 mbsec flash file that is as smooth playing and scrolling. Also, the poor platforms that I referred to below may not allow the user to upgrade to the latest flash application. On Nov 17, 2005, at 4:46 PM, robert a/k/a r wrote: Andrew, I wouldn't discount Flash. IMHO the quality of this VideoEgg file is quite good, have a look: http://www.thomasblard.com/thomasblard/2005/11/arroseur_arrose.html the tinyurl is: http://tinyurl.com/822zr cheers r -- <URL: http://r.24x7.com > Deconstructing the status quo, collaboratively On Nov 17, 2005, at 3:40 PM, andrew michael baron wrote: With all of my rejection of .wmv files combined with my hopes for a   single CODEC, I have learned that the number one reason to   provide .wmv files is for people who do not have the authority to   install on their machines. Many people at work do not have access to install. Also people in   lesser developed countries often sit at cyber cafes and can not   install software from there either. Most of these people are on Windows and can by default play .wmv files. Its a lesser option, but often the only option. 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.