PDA

View Full Version : Codecs! Codecs! Codecs!



Mdust
03-22-2005, 02:10 PM
I decided to start a thread here because I think its time is due.

Here is your chance to:

A) Share Codec/File Sharing/Compression Software, and why you use it:

B) Provide a link to download/install it and finally;

C) Have a rational discussion - or observe it - on the forward movement of this technology - that is the world of digital creation - then how the sharing of files and information over the internet with the wide use of codecs plays a roll.

I will start with C:

Years ago, I attended a seminar at the Mark Hopkins hotel in San Francisco where they unvailed a great new invention of Apple called Quicktime.

That was some 15 years ago If I recall. A lot has heppened in this industry since then.

My area of activity has been in conventional filmmaking. I have seen over the years, the use of various solutions to share information that have practical aplications in the area of production. Over time I have seen things progress.

From faxing script exerpts called "Sides" to actors (remember there WAS a time when some people didn't have faxes) to emailing them and even accepting headshots via email.

In the process of building websites I have had the humbling experiences of people having truoble watching video clips for any manor of reasons.

I have seen this area gradually smooth out. Only a few years ago it was really not common to see video or moving animation on websites. Now with Flash it is more of a common place, yet some sites still offer a choice of a non-flash site option.

This area of digital content creation is expanding. More and more people are getting involved. Companies who make software are fighting for thier share of the market. Just recently Avid bought Pinnacle! Why? To increase thier market reach.

To survive in this feild it is paramount that you stay in touch with growing trends of not just a select few in your industry, but the public at large.

In my experience I have many times not been able to watch videos by people who for whatever reason, are trying to get thier ideas desiminated or provide freebees that will intice people to visit a site or just get thier name out there or even just to give back to the comunity that has served them well with, say a free tutorial. Even to sell plugins.

In my opinion it is in the best interest of those people to research the most widely used codecs for video sharing if it is something that they want out there.

Talk to any marketing person and they will enlighten you on the public - any public professional or not. If it's too much trouble people will loose interest. Ii you want to sell somthing do everything possible to make it's availability of ease

It is by no mistake that Newtek provides all of it's videos in Quicktime. Maybe this is not THE most popular. But it's stable, popular enough and it is a standard. Windows avi. has so many codecs your head will spin. Many are proprietary.

A common mistake some make is to assume that "everybody has this codec". Or that they are promoting to a select group who "All already know about this"

Not so.

Like it or not this is a rapidly expanding feild and people are comming at it from all walks of life. Why, even my mother uses Lightwave and Photohop.

OK, not really she can barely point and click with a mouse.

But all is not lost. Here you may share your codecs, share your videos, share whatever you like. If you think your videos ought to be out there and you have the hottest codec on the block, here's your chance.

And if you haven't figured it out by now there may already be a video of yours on my hardrive just begging to be played and guess what, you forgot to include a link to the codec!

So...

Let the Codec Games begin!

Mdust

toby
03-22-2005, 03:26 PM
I've been playing with codecs for a few years now, just as a hobby, and for best size/quality/compatibilty, I've just gone back to Sorenson3 out of QT Pro for the final product. I had high hopes for MPEG4 but I get very similar file sizes, it tints the video too much and there are still hordes of PC's that don't have new enough QT to read them. Divx might be good but compatibilty with the public at large, non-graphics or gaming people is limited.

MPEG1 is still a good choice too but takes longer to encode, there's restrictions like resolution, and fewer applications can do it

nemac4
03-22-2005, 04:31 PM
I agree with Toby.

Sorenson3 for quality and MPEG1 for compatibility.

DivX or XviD is nice for really packing it down but WMVs are hard to beat too.

Mdust
03-22-2005, 04:46 PM
I agree with Toby.

Sorenson3 for quality and MPEG1 for compatibility.

DivX or XviD is nice for really packing it down but WMVs are hard to beat too.


How about some links?

Thanks for the replies.

Mdust

nemac4
03-22-2005, 05:02 PM
How about some links?

Thanks for the replies.

Mdust

Windows Media Encoder:

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=5691ba02-e496-465a-bba9-b2f1182cdf24&DisplayLang=en

DviX:

http://www.divx.com/divx/download/

Xvid:

http://www.xvid.org/downloads.html


Quicktime for Sorenson 3:

http://www.apple.com/quicktime/

And,.. Sorenson Squeeze with the Sorenson Video 3 Pro Codec

http://www.sorenson.com/

Mdust
03-22-2005, 05:10 PM
Brilliant!

Thanks nemac

M

toby
03-22-2005, 06:45 PM
To view any Divx or Xvid on a Macintosh go here :

3ivx.com (http://www.3ivx.com/download/index.html)

MikeMD
03-22-2005, 08:19 PM
Continuing from the other thread.

Flash video is viewable by almost everybody. More than any other format.

The only negative is that you need to dish out $120 for sorenson squeeze for flashMX to be able to create these flash video files ( even if you own flash you need it because Flash application comes with squeeze lite, not so good output )

http://www.sorenson.com/solutions/prod/mx_win.php

Quality vs file size is comparable to windows media. Some other codecs may do better, but no codec/format will give you instant ( about 96% of web users have it ) viewability by everybody.

toby
03-22-2005, 09:10 PM
Continuing from the other thread.

Flash video is viewable by almost everybody. More than any other format.

no codec/format will give you instant ( about 96% of web users have it ) viewability by everybody.

I kinda doubt that, if you include all the people who only upgrade every 5 years or so. A lot of people browse with very old browsers. MPEG1 is probably viewable on 99.98% of computers out there.

Silkrooster
03-22-2005, 10:04 PM
The reason I don't use flash is because the files I have created so far have been greater than avi or mov files, and I thought they were suppose to be smaller. But then I am using other software to create the swf files rather than flash it self.
Most of the files I uploaded so far are wmv for size, avi or mov for quality.
The problem I ran into that I have not figured out yet, the avi file created from the screen grab is smaller than the file that I reduced in size and colors in any file format. Usually I will reduce the quality on the codec as well. Go figure.
BTW I am talking about camtasia.
Silk

WizCraker
03-22-2005, 11:26 PM
Nothing beats Bink for quality and you can convert most every format to or from. Also the Audio codec is pretty impressive too. It is memory efficent, low CPU overhall.

http://www.radgametools.com/
http://www.radgametools.com/bnkmain.htm
http://www.radgametools.com/bnkadvan.htm


Developed for Games but used in different mediums.


"The Bink SDK supports the Sony PlayStation 2 console, Windows 95, 98, Me, NT, 2000, XP, the Xbox console, the Nintendo GameCube console, MacOS, MacOS X and GNU/Linux. It support DirectDraw, DIBSections, DirectSound, waveOut, Sound Manager, NGC AX, NGC MusyX, SDL_mixer, and the Miles Sound System.

For a high-end codec, Bink requires very little hardware resources - it will run on a machine as slow as a Pentium 166, and will be screamingly fast on a modern P3, P4 or Athlon. Any Macintosh shipped in the last 4 years will run Bink great. All of the modern consoles can handle Bink easily (even the slow-ish PS/2 for which we've done massive assembly optimization to get Bink running wonderfully)."

Also The VP7 codec from On2 Technologies is pretty impressive as well. http://www.on2.com/

MikeMD
03-23-2005, 01:40 AM
I kinda doubt that, if you include all the people who only upgrade every 5 years or so. A lot of people browse with very old browsers

http://www.macromedia.com/software/player_census/flashplayer/version_penetration.html

That's Macomedia's stats. I've seen similar elsewhere and you only need flash version 5 to be able to view Flash video and that is a very old version. PCs have been coming out with Flash 6 player pre-installed for about 3 years now. 5-6 year old PCs used to come with Flash 5 pre--installed. That's the advantage it has over quicktime and even the latest versions of wmv.

Even people who bought their PCs 5-6 years ago and never updated their flash player can still view flash video ( flash player updates itself, so most of those people have updated players without even knowing it )


The reason I don't use flash is because the files I have created so far have been greater than avi or mov files, and I thought they were suppose to be smaller. But then I am using other software to create the swf files rather than flash it self

We use sorenson squeeze , full version. Flash itself has only a lite version of squeeze which doesn't produce good results. When exporting at a pretty high quality we get about the same file size as what you'd get when using wmv9.

Mdust
03-23-2005, 02:12 AM
Even people who bought their PCs 5-6 years ago and never updated their flash player can still view flash video ( flash player updates itself, so most of those people have updated players without even knowing it )

Very interesting.

This hasn't been my experience because I build my own machines. This is something I didn't know. I don't know if you are 100% on your estimate of the current Flash capablility but I will give you this. I have seen it grow tremendously.

I do think though that hands down it has the potential to be the most widely distributed format. The one thing they have done apparently is that they have been very aggressive. That and its popularity among webmasters is a big plus.

I think that it makes sense that a format that fits right into a website the way flash does has got a big advantage over other competing formats.

It's still kind of a hassle even now to integrate video in sites using Front Page. I think the latest version supports Flash though - not that FP is great for building cool sites but it's used alot. The fact that it supports flash now is saying something.

You make a strong point here. I think it's really worth taking a look at. I mean just look at the fact that it has been so well integrated in sitebuilding. That with its popularity.

I'm going to research it some more, but I think you are on the right track for sure.

Mdust

Lukesutherland
03-23-2005, 04:35 AM
Well may favourite avi compression used to be Indeo 5.1 - great image quality and size, playable on most PCs - until Windows XP - now it costs $15 - shame...

For email distribition of low-res clips for client sign off I always use mpeg1 - everyone can read them - I use LSX encoder to encode (the standalone app not the premiere plug-in) has a good profile manager - only converts avi files - does batches
(for my work I ultimately output mpeg2 files)

I usually send clips for sign-off at half-pal either 384 x 288 or 512 x 288 depending on aspect ratio - I use variable bit rate 1200 kbs max 1000 kbs average - looks OK - 30 seconds is about 3 megs - sure divX + mp4 are smaller but as mentioned too exclusive for broad distribution (at least in the advertising / marketing circles i work in)

The other compression software i use is nero recode, I use it to convert files to mp4, very good size / image quality - colour distortion is very minimal - software is a little feature rich but I guess that's the flexibility of mp4 soooo many setting...

tischbein3
03-23-2005, 07:08 AM
Ok, my 2 cents on codecs discussion:

wmv8, sorenson and sorenson3 are quite impressive in file size but in my impression do heavy color tinting (like raise contrast to much...).
I like to use them in scenes wich have a more natural look, but avoid them in more schematic like views. (Like archtectural visualisation).

For these mpeg4 isn't bad at all, although my good old premiere LE has a lot of problems compressing them right (lw do a far better job.) File size is not that small then the those mentioned above, but far better than mpeg 1.

If you want to build a 3/dvix codec based mov on a pc it is impossible, because 3vix qt codec is only aviable on mac... so you are again in bad trouble using a dvix coded avi.

BTW: I do not see any difference in the properitary between a sorenson or a wmv codec....

lardbros
03-23-2005, 11:35 AM
I pretty much ALWAYS use MS-MPEG4 V2 for most of my stuff. It seems to compress AMAZINGLY well with hardly any artefacts whatsoever. Windows ALWAYS comes installed with it, and the file sizes are tiny for the amount of quality i have got using Premiere 6 and this codec.

I have tried pretty much every other regular compression and find this the best. It plays smoothly, unlike the Indeo video (on my PC anyway.) and DIVX still has visible artefacts most of the time especially on dark scenes.

It would be interesting to hear if people have a similar view on this codec.

Also, while i'm at it... does anypne have any idea why Premiere 6 would compress something using MS-MPEG V2 really nicely with no splotches or anything... BUT Premiere 7 Pro makes a mess of most videos i create. hmmmm very odd indeed!

Mdust
03-23-2005, 12:51 PM
BTW a little report on Divx

DviX:

http://www.divx.com/divx/download/

With this codec I was able to watch another tutorial that was encoded in it. (One of those who failed to provide a link mentioned ealier)

It installed a link on my toolbar in internet explorer by way of a google search dialogue. Which by the way I don't mind having. Kind of cool. Actually kind of Coogle.... er OK anyway...

I just think it's a little invasive. There was no warning - exexpt maybe in the license fine print. But no choice to deselect it.

Basically I think that's wrong. And one of my pet peives as of late with this whole issue. Sometimes you don't know what you are going to get.

You see, they have to survive as a company, they probably made deal with Google. Maby not a backroom, cigar-smoking, slide-the-silver-attache-case-across-the-table, seedy deal. But a deal - they have to survive. (maybe they are owned by Google - or the company that owns google or the company that owns that company who is the company that co-owns the world)

Well in anycase, that's their problem. And because somebody thought that they had a good codec, they made it MY problem. As an end user I am not interested in the vagaries of being a media player company. I am also not interested in wich one is better or why - as an end user - don't get me wrong. As a professional, I am very interested. But when I want functinality, I want ease of use and I kind of feel it is the duty of a person in the business of promoting something to me, to make it their business to make it accessable to me WHITHOUT UNNESSESSARY STRINGS ATTACHED. Or loops to jump through.

And this is part of why I started this thread, as a professional interest as I want to stay on the cutting edge of what's out there and it has practical use as I will use a format to get my ideas out.

Mdust

Lukesutherland
03-23-2005, 01:30 PM
I pretty much ALWAYS use MS-MPEG4 V2 for most of my stuff. Windows ALWAYS comes installed with it.....

ABREVIATTED

Hey Lardbros, I mainly use after effects for outputting, just looking at my codecs for avis and I have a couple from MS called: Microsoft H .263 video codec and Microsoft H .261 video codec - I have been told they are a mpeg4 varient - Do you know more?

The only mpeg 4 codec I could find was for Windows media mpeg 4 V3, is that what you were refering too?

lardbros
03-23-2005, 01:38 PM
Lukesutherland MPEG4 V3 is the newest variant but doesn't come with windows i dont think. Maybe Windows doesn't actually come with the MPEG4 V2 ENCODER, but all versions of windows i've ever used have the DECODER so can play the files. There is also an MPEG4 V1 aswell, but i still have most success with V2. The V3 you mention still has as good quality as the V2 but just isn't on most computers! (only my opinion, i haven't done a HUGE amount of tests, only on a few machines at Uni and stuff)

Have a look at http://www.free-codecs.com/ and they should have them hidden away somewhere. BUT beware, i've had problems with installing codecs, some of them are dodgy in some way (not sure why) and if installed over other codecs can stop other ones from working!?

Why are PC's so bloody complicated?

toby
03-23-2005, 02:46 PM
It installed a link on my toolbar in internet explorer by way of a google search dialogue.

I just think it's a little invasive. There was no warning - exexpt maybe in the license fine print. But no choice to deselect it.


The problem is Internet Explorer. Progammers are allowed to make your IE browser do all kinds of things because MS is more interested in serving businesses than indivduals. IE still doesn't even allow you to block pop-ups. ( the pop-up function has to coded into the browser in the first place )

Try Firefox.
Or Safari on the Mac.

c0deb0y
03-23-2005, 03:13 PM
Here is a good place to look for codecs.

http://www.free-codecs.com/

StereoMike
03-23-2005, 11:55 PM
I go with Lardbros. I'm using MS-MPEG4 v2 for animations that leave my home. I tried severall (a whole bunch) but not every codec works flawless all the time. Some produced a flickering column on the target pc, from time to time I had a stylish smear effect (the color bleeds during the animation) and so on.
For now I use MSMPEGv2. Most PCsc have this codec (I came across the fact, that even this codec is not installed on every pc at the company I work for) so it's your best choice besides mpeg2 when it comes to compatibility.
In MSMPEGv2 I usaually ramp up the bitrate to 6000 (but with particleeffects like rain, this still give some artifacts).

ok, for me MSMPEGv2 works good for animations, that could be transferred over the internet, or generally should be small.
But what about bringing your animation onto a beamer? artifacts look fugly on this big screen. I had a project that had this scenario, so in the end I went for mpeg2. What is your maximum quality setting?


I had a client that asked for DV encoded animation. Does anyone know something about it? I think it's very big and the only use for it is getting it onto a vhs tape (for a DVD I would use mpeg2). So what is it good for?

Lukesutherland
03-24-2005, 01:28 AM
he may have a DV accelerator card>< / player /machine...

Red_Oddity
03-24-2005, 02:18 AM
Quicktime comes with an excelent DV codec, and no, files ain't that big (compared to what we usually use over here, read : Microcosm, Blackmagic Decklink, QT Animation), but offcourse too big for the web.

A 15 second movie wil be about 56 MB (on DV Pal, 720 x 567, 25 fps)

For the web i suggest you either use MPEG-1 (these days, with a good encoder (say TMPGEnc (http://www.tmpgenc.net/) is a very good encoder), you can go up to Full Pal or NTSC and get good quality with reasonably small files, and almost ANY system will be able to open them with about ANY movie player (QT, WMP Classic up to WMP 10, BSPlay, VideoLan, OnePlayer, etc.)
Or you use Flash with the Sorenson Squeeze codec, which is 'reasonable' (i find Sorenson codecs still somewhat lacking), i suggest using this when you are doing your site in Flash anyway (just make sure you write a decent NetStream GUI for your page to prevent people getting frustrated with your site)

Without this becoming a shameless plug, i suggest you take a look at our site (http://www.houseofsecrets.nl) , the large showreel that has been implemented in the Flash page is about 15.2MB large and is [email protected], the downloadable MPEG-1 version is about 15.8MB large and is also [email protected], both movies are 1 minute and 54 seconds long...You compare the qualities...

DMarkwick
03-24-2005, 02:33 AM
Interesting discussion.

Can you guys who regularly use high compression also put up some settings? I'm guessing that the main Compression % setting is the main one, I usually plop it right down to 20%, if I get a good size/quality result at that setting then I keep it, if not I use another codec. I find not all footage compresses well with the same codec.

Mdust
03-24-2005, 06:45 AM
The problem is Internet Explorer. Progammers are allowed to make your IE browser do all kinds of things because MS is more interested in serving businesses than indivduals. IE still doesn't even allow you to block pop-ups. ( the pop-up function has to coded into the browser in the first place )

Try Firefox.
Or Safari on the Mac.

Well oK but it isn't like Microsoft is over there at Divix telling them what to do.
The latest service pack from Xp does incluide a pop up blocker. Working fine on my machine.

M

MiniFireDragon
03-24-2005, 07:34 AM
Some of you were talking about Flash and the quality of the video etc. There are some things you may not know about FLASH. 1st, the files are limited to 16,000 frames, which equals 8.88 minutes of video at 30 FPS. For some of you that is long enough. BUT! Flash does not suggest using 30fps! Why? The reason is the bandwidth requirements for a 30FPS flash file is not there for most PCs which casues all kinds of video artifacting. They suggest, with there research, that you build a file anywhere from 12 to 20 fps (thats anywhere from 22 - 13 mins of vid). The higher number for higher bandwidth.

***EDIT*** I should mention that 30FPS is fine for people who want there viewers to download the flash video (needs to be in SWF) to view it. The new Flash viewer 7.0 allows you to place a flash video on your site and have it buffer itself (close to streaming) I haven't played with that option yet so I can't tell you how well it works.

Now lets talk about compressors. I been playing around trying to find the smallest file compression good quality picture using different codecs and compressions. What I found that Quicktime PRO with the Flash video codec installed does a VERY VERY good job at making high quality videos.

My test subject was an 11:35min 320x240 video flip. I used Virtual dub (www.virtualdub.org) and Aparlysoft's Deinterlacer to reduce the orginal video from 720x480 30fps to 320x240 20fps. The video was something I took of a chevy cavalier after it had been in an accident (rolled over). And I was moving around the vehicle so it really isn't a talking head video.

In quicktime I used the following settings (saving as a flash video):
Encoding method: Best (2 passes)
Frame rate: same as source
quality: Medium
Limit data rate: 2073kb/sec
Keyframes: Auto
Keyframe Every: 120 frames
Mostion estimate: Better

I used default audio (this was mono)

There is control inside this window to reduce frame size and deinterlace, but I like virtual dub, much faster (and I didn't know it was there... hehe).

It compressed my 20gbs of uncompressed footage to 30mbs (took a while to do it). And the quality is excellent in my opinion. When I tried to use Flash MX Pro with sorrensen sqeeze it sucked the video in an converted it in like 15 minutes (I knew there was going to be problems) the output was horrible! OMFG! It had a nasty chekcerboard pattern look (an no, it wasn't a watermark). I did another test on a video with a bit more color and less motion and it still came out small (about 10 minutes 30fps).

And not to steal anything away from this forum but:

http://forums.virtualdub.org/index.php?act=SF&f=3

has alot of info on codecs sitting in there.

c0deb0y
03-24-2005, 09:40 AM
I had a client that asked for DV encoded animation. Does anyone know something about it? I think it's very big and the only use for it is getting it onto a vhs tape (for a DVD I would use mpeg2). So what is it good for?

The engineer here at work says that DV codec is built into most new machines and is hardware based, making it a good one to use if you know the end user has a fairly recent machine. Isn't that what most video cameras and nonlinear editor programs usually import and export natively?

JML
03-24-2005, 10:00 AM
I like to use wmv9 codec (free encoder), there are a lot of parameters that I don't know how to use but but I like to use HighDef 5Mbs VBR with it..

at work (mac and pc environment) I usually use quicktime (withMpeg4) this way I know everybody will be able to read them easily. (a lot of mac user at work doesn't want to install windows media player so with quicktime everybody is happy)

I like Divx too, but I personally prefer wmv than divx.. just my opinion..
(because quality/compression speed, maybe I did not find the right parameter yet fod divx)

Mdust
03-24-2005, 01:48 PM
And not to steal anything away from this forum but:

http://forums.virtualdub.org/index.php?act=SF&f=3

has alot of info on codecs sitting in there.


Thanks for the info on FLASH actually, that was pretty informatiive.

Thanks for the link too.

Could you make that video available that you did the test on?

Mdust

MiniFireDragon
03-24-2005, 02:19 PM
Unfortunatly since it is an open case, I can not display anything with redgards to it. As for the 2nd test footage, that can not be shared either. But in the next week or two I will be posting a show, called Youth in Sports on www.youthinsports.com (don't bother checking the link I haven't finished the site so there is nothing there.)
It is an hour long show that will be broken down to 10 min segements. It is a talking head type show. With all my testing I did, I expect each segment to be about 30mbs or less.

MikeMD
03-24-2005, 07:12 PM
MMedia suggests using 12-20 fps only if your target audience is those people using older Flash 5 player and if you embed video into FlashMX app.

In any case you don't have to do it.

If your target audience uses Flash 6 or 7 you have a couple of different options and they do not suggest using anything other than the real 30 fps. Buffering thing you mentioned and real streaming which requires some extras.

You can also do all this outside flash by using .flv files which are loaded into your flash movie. So there are many options.

About quality, I don't know about horrible results. As I said you have to use either Sorenson Squeeze 4 for Flash MX 2004 ( That is a standalone app ) or you can export .flv from Avid, FCP and Premiere pro .

Don't use Flash itself to encode and the quality is excellent.

MiniFireDragon
03-25-2005, 12:30 PM
I was just on Macromedias websites and through the help files, what I saw was a suggested max setting of 20fps on video. I also paged through books on using flash and they all say the same. Where is the info on version 6 and 7? Buffereing is new to version 7 which simulates streaming.

MikeMD
03-25-2005, 12:51 PM
http://www.macromedia.com/devnet/mx/flash/articles/video_primer_03.html

MiniFireDragon
03-25-2005, 01:02 PM
Yes I did read that and saw that stuff. BUT, open up the Flash PDF that came in the download and you will see that they recommend 12-20fps but say you aren't limited to 20FPS, just a recommendation. And the frame limit is set regardless of embedded video or progressive video or streamed video.

http://www.macromedia.com/cfusion/knowledgebase/index.cfm?id=rb_r22

rflo
03-25-2005, 01:47 PM
I use MPEG-4 too, it is the easiest, fastest, and does one of the best jobs I have found. I use "Compressor" from Apple, which integrates with FCP so easily I can't imagine anything else!

MikeMD
03-25-2005, 03:09 PM
Yes I did read that and saw that stuff. BUT, open up the Flash PDF that came in the download and you will see that they recommend 12-20fps but say you aren't limited to 20FPS, just a recommendation. And the frame limit is set regardless of embedded video or progressive video or streamed video.

You can get around that by using .flv which run independently from the main timeline frame rate. There is no such limit with .flv files

If you need to have Flash 5 compatibility and can't use .flv, but still hve to have 30 fps and videos longer than 8-9 minutes, you can break them up into several .swf files of below 9 minutes each. It's a minor inconvenience considering that everybody can view this without downloading any codecs or plugins.

Red_Oddity
03-26-2005, 04:44 AM
Oh for heavens sake, why are you people blabbering about Flash 5??? Why not just download the latest version...If you're gonna download a movie file worth 15MB or whatever size anyway a 684 K Flashplayer won't make that big a difference...

Just my cents...

MikeMD
03-26-2005, 12:12 PM
Why not just download the latest version

Because some people don't want to.

It depends on your target audience. If you are targeting people here, of course they will be up to date, or willing to update their flash players.

But if your target audience is everybody on the planet ( lets say you've created a 3 minute, cute cartoon which is suitable for everybody including kids and grandmas ), you can't count on them having the latest plugin ( although at least Flash 6 is a safe bet ) or that they will be willing to download anything. With flash 5 everybody can see it without downloading anything.

Anyway it is an option. I never said that should be the version to shoot for. Flash player 6 is the version to aim for and that is the original 96% of the web surfers in my first post regarding all this.

Mdust
03-27-2005, 01:38 AM
But in the next week or two I will be posting a show, called Youth in Sports .

Cool. Absulutely keep us posted.

toby
03-28-2005, 04:01 PM
Oh for heavens sake, why are you people blabbering about Flash 5??? Why not just download the latest version...If you're gonna download a movie file worth 15MB or whatever size anyway a 684 K Flashplayer won't make that big a difference...

Just my cents...

Haven't you ever gone to a site that wants yet another new plug-in to work, and then said "... ehh, I do it later" or "aww screw it, it doesn't look that interesting"? A good web designer or a smart advertiser knows this and tries to avoid it. I went to 2 lawyers' offices 2 or 3 years ago to show videos and couldn't because they both had Win95. Then they asked "can't you make a video that plays on PC?" And this was in San Francisco, imagine what it's like in Nebraska.

Red_Oddity
03-29-2005, 03:27 AM
Yes, another plugin, but this is Flash where talking about...if you don't have flash these days you probably won't be able to acces 50% of most websites anyway...

I too avoid sites with the more 'obscure' plugins...

What annoys me more is lazy webdesigners who create sites that only work in that heap of junk browser Microsoft ramms down our throats (read : IE), too many times when browsing with Safari or Firefox i am not able to acces sites because of sloppy Java/PHP or HTML/Frames/Layers coding (not to mention that fact that it is a popup/spyware magnet.)

BUT, yes, it is annoying having to download a plugin for each site...but let me also tell you we chose Flash for another reason : it works on every machine that has Flash installed, it looks the same on each machine with Flash installed regard less of OS or hardware, and it doesn't have to be as heavy on bandwidth anymore since it allows you to create Flash sites that can load content dynamically...It is sloppy and lazy coding that makes Flash sites so big...

Anyway, back to Codecs! Codecs! Codecs!