Hi Daryl, I know this conversation has kind of gotten far afield of the original question, but most of it is relevant to some degree or another. As a content creator, I prefer Flash .flv because of the additional flexibility it gives me in using so many other services that support flash video. But as a consumer of video online, I just want what I want, when I want it, without hassle. So, knowing that this is the attitude of everyone who encounters my content, I do try to provide multiple formats so that I can capture as many new people as possible. BUt among the formats I offer for my vlog through blip.tv (which will host the original version, as well as a flash version, if you set it to) I usually upload an mp4, and ALWAYS have them transcode it and offer the .flv as well. Blip.tv will cross-post to my vlog, and they use a flash player (swf) to play my video (.flv) so it is pretty no-hassle. Unless you have people, like Rupert mentioned, who are hesitant to update Flash Player on their computers...Mom, are you reading this???
Carter http://crowdabout.us --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Daryl, > > Some other people like will give you different and probably better > answers about why people use anything other than Flash, and views > about quality/downloadability versus streaming, etc. > > I'll stick to the Flash version / compatibility thing because I > happen to have the numbers to hand. > > It's true that most people have *A* version of Flash - but it's a > question of what version and how techie your audience are. > > Adobe say 98% of computers have Flash player. > > Something like 90-95% worldwide have Flash 7, which is what YouTube > plays on, but it uses an old compression format and isn't very good > quality. So a lot of people might like to provide a higher quality > (say Quicktime) alternative if streaming with Flash 7. > > Flash 8 and the new Flash 9 offer *much* better quality, but far > fewer people in the general population have them. Flash 9 has only > 56% penetration in 'Mature Markets' (rich countries). That's less > than Quicktime or Windows Media Player or even Real. > See: > http://www.adobe.com/products/player_census/flashplayer/ > version_penetration.html > and http://www.adobe.com/products/player_census/flashplayer/ > (These are optimistic, and I think they've made a mistake in their > Emerging Markets Flash 9 figure) > > To use a Blip.tv video, a lot of people will have to download an > updated player - and even though it's only a couple of meg, it's too > much for many non techie people. I'm amazed how many of my family > and friends (in their 30s!) call me up and say "It tells me I need > Flash 9 player, so I couldn't see it." or "You'll have to install it > next time you're round". The phone call has involved more time and > effort than clicking the link to install Flash 9, but they don't know > that. They're used to clicking a YouTube link and seeing the video, > no effort. > > Giving all the formats means you widen the options for your > audience. Just one reason to do this is so that they can set an > aggregator such as iTunes to download high quality QT files and use > them in things like iPods. I watch most vlogs on an iPod at the > moment, travelling between clients on the tube and bus. (No doubt > I'll soon get mugged.) It's possible to convert a flv file to iPod > and transfer it, but too much hassle. This way, they just come in > automatically. > > By using a program like VisualHub, you can do multiple format > conversions, upload them to Blip (who let you upload multiple > versions) and give your audience the choice. Then, if you see some > formats are not getting enough hits to justify the effort, stop > providing them. > > Rupert > > Rupert > http://www.fatgirlinohio.org > http://www.crowdabout.us/fatgirlinohio/myshow/ > > > On 15 Mar 2007, at 13:19, Daryl Urig wrote: > > Thanks for all of your responces since I originally posted this > question. > > I guess my real question was why not use flash to publish a video > using a .swf file? > > I thought 80 - 90% of the computers had the flash plug in in their > browser to play a swf > file. Would this not be easier than having to save your video file in > so many different > versions so everyone can play what you post, in one post? > > Daryl > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >
