Comments

John_Cline wrote on 9/20/2007, 11:34 AM
As far as balancing quality, file size AND compatibility, Flash using the On2 VP6 codec is pretty much the "sweet spot" at the moment. However, at a web-friendly bitrates, I personally think that Windows Media 9 can look better than anything else. One thing you have to remember about the Apple trailers is that they are starting with ultra-pristine footage which compresses better than noisy footage and they are most likely using MPEG4, not Sorensen. I'm not a big fan of Quicktime in general for a number of reasons. Flash is just about to release a version that can use H.264 compression, which will probably look really good at low bitrates. But this all brings us back to the first line of this post. Flash8 using the On2 VP6 codec is generally regarded as the best balance at the moment.
Laurence wrote on 9/20/2007, 1:18 PM
I agree on all points. I also get the best look with wmv 9, but end up using On2 often for more compatibility, especially with Mac systems. I fully expect that the holy grail in this all will be the Flash version of H.264 compression which should give you the look of wmv 9 or Quicktime Pro with the compatibility of Flash video.

The difference between wmv and Quicktime is subtle, with wmv looking slightly better on Windows systems. The difference between wmv and On2 Flash is quite striking. Wmv can look quite a bit better. The real issue is Mac compatibility. Macs can play back wmv just fine if you install the right software, but Apple makes no real effort to lead people to the competition, so unless a given Mac user has gone out of his way to find this, he won't be able to view your wmv movies.

The situation is similar with Quicktime. Not all PC users have Quicktime installed. Quicktime has a nasty habit of making itself the default player for all media files and it is tricky to undo this. Because of this and other issues, many people refuse to install it.

With On2, keep in mind that it is a whole lot more CPU intensive on playback than wmv or Quicktime. This becomes a bigger deal as you start using higher resolutions. Many pretty recent PCs will stutter and show low frame rates with DVD resolutions and above.

I am really looking forward to the H.264 integration into Flash video. I expect that once that happens, that will be pretty much all I use.
TimTyler wrote on 9/20/2007, 1:22 PM
Wonder why Sony Media and On2 don't get together and put the Flix Engine into Vegas? That would rock.

Until then, Flix Standard is an inexpensive way create great looking FLV's. http://flix.on2.com/ Just render uncompressed AVI's from Vegas in the dimensions to want your final flash video, and then run it through Flix.
riredale wrote on 9/20/2007, 8:14 PM
If we're talking theory here, not practical web video, then I think codecs based on the H264/MPEG4 process are about 2-3x the efficiency of WM9 which in turn I would put slightly ahead of Flash8. I guess one factor bolstering that opinion is that it takes a LOT of processor horsepower to work with 264 compression.
CClub wrote on 9/21/2007, 11:25 AM
What would be the upside to purchasing the On2 software if very shortly Flash players will play H.264/MPEG4 files? I was going to purchase it as a client wants web-based versions of some work I've done. But from what I read even in this forum, very soon, if I render an mp4 file and put it on my website, a basic Flash player will play it (perhaps with a slight upgrade needed).
Laurence wrote on 9/21/2007, 11:48 AM
How compatible is wmv with the Mac Safari browser? When I first tried playing back a wmv9 page I authored, it wouldn't show the video, but when I tried more recently it did. I don't know why though.
Laurence wrote on 9/21/2007, 12:13 PM
Well if you go to on2.com, they are announcing that they will be doing the H.264 encoding shortly. Now whether or not there will be much advantage to continuing to use on2 Flix Pro is anybody's guess.
Stuart Robinson wrote on 9/21/2007, 12:29 PM
"How compatible is wmv with the Mac Safari browser? When I first tried playing back a wmv9 page I authored, it wouldn't show the video, but when I tried more recently it did. I don't know why though."

It depends largely on the player rather than on the page. If you have an embedded WMV in a page the a Mac browser will attempt to use a compatible player installed on the Mac. If you have Quicktime with Flip4Mac installed (for example), then it'll play the WMV. You might even have Windows Media player installed on a Mac, although they don't develop it for the platform any more.
Soniclight wrote on 9/21/2007, 3:56 PM
On a related .wmv vs..mov issue:

Q:

For web delivery and test renders, etc. that's OK for me. For final output TV or screen viewing, .maybe mov is more color accurate.

I use .wmv (WM9, 1000k bit-rate) far more often than .mov so far. Which one is the most true to what I see in Vegas seems to be .wmv. Sort of. As to Flash, I have Flix Standard 8 and it seems that 512K swf/.flv 8 files are closer to .wmv output than .mov.

BTW, getting Flix through recommendations at this board finally ended the at times brain-numbing issue of what Flash encoder to get. On a limited budget.
MPM wrote on 9/22/2007, 10:47 AM
"I want the best compression (best picture quality vs. file size) available. "

I'd suggest checking out the new Expression encoder from MS. AFAIK the best compressed video, whether mpg2 or wmv or whatever, comes from tailoring the encoder settings per scene. Personal opinion is that you'll loose some quality from restricted fps in Flash, and I've never seen it be the most efficient for anyone but the web folks adding it to a page.

Bear in mind that player processing is often what makes the mp4-type codecs look great. The Nero Digital format is a good example... If you're going from mpg2 to mp4 there's nothing faster than Recode, and it's hard to beat the quality when you play back that file using Nero's Showtime. OTOH if you remove all the player processing to produce a compatible file, it usually sucks. Wmv works the same way, but with the player's code embedded in Windows, you don't have to worry so much about what player is going to be used.

"Is it my imagination or true that .wmv are more saturated than .mov? "
IMHO part of that is because of the previous paragraph. But some of it is probably true because mov has been used for editing/processing for over a decade I think, and like DV is expected to be accurate.