Best format for streaming video?

Pullmanite wrote on 1/25/2005, 12:17 PM
I know this question is completely subject to opinions, but I'd like to ask the experts what their opinion(s) are on this.

I'd like to have as few versions as possible of my video to stream or download from my website (rather than having QT and RealVideo and WMV and...)

MPEG-1 will play on just about anything, but the filesize is just too big. I'm hoping to provide a playable video without the user having to be forced to install a special player (i.e. Real, QuickTime, etc.) and also have the capability to play on a Mac.

Is there a way to create a straight vanilla MP4 from Vegas (or a free encoder somewhere) so I can hit the biggest audience without requiring a certain player?

Streaming the video is preferred in this case.

Comments

Jsnkc wrote on 1/25/2005, 12:27 PM
What I normally do is have a windows media file and a quicktime file. If you want to go nuts you can have a boradband and dialup version of each file as well. But usually with Quicktime and Windows media you will cover most of the computer users out there without having to download extra codecs and things like that.
Coursedesign wrote on 1/25/2005, 12:38 PM
If you are making QT from Vegas, it was recently suggested to increase the keyframe value (in rendering) from 25 to 300 for NTSC (250 for PAL), for much better quality.
Jimmy_W wrote on 1/25/2005, 12:53 PM
Coursedesign, Thanks for that suggestion I rendered so many QT clips last nite with poor results I will try this tonite. Thanks, Thanks. Thanks.
jimmy
Pullmanite wrote on 1/25/2005, 2:25 PM
I've been disappointed with QT export as well so I'll give that a try. If it's still no good, I might export to an AVI and then just buy QT Pro to encode. Thanks!
randy-stewart wrote on 1/25/2005, 2:29 PM
I use WMP exclusively and encode using the 256K template for streaming. It loads quick and as long as you leave it in the smaller window, it's good quality. Vegas has several other WMP options (512, 1MB, 2MB) if you want better quality but the file sizes grow also.
Randy
http://www.cr-home-videos.com/
Fleshpainter wrote on 1/25/2005, 4:12 PM
I also use 256's for the same reasons... as soon as you go below that it begins to degrade to unacceptable levels.
beatnik wrote on 1/25/2005, 6:02 PM
FLASH....FLASH.....FLASH!

It plays on 96% of ALL computers out there! The video is "almost" as
good as WMP.

Check out my site at http://www.videolistings.ca

All the videos are created and rendered in Vegas and then converted to
Flash using Wildform's Flix Pro.

I used to use WMP but came across too many people who could NOT view
the VideoTours. Now that problem is solved.

Hope this helps
scdragracing wrote on 1/25/2005, 8:51 PM
only 2-3% of the computers on the 'net are macs, so windows media is all you need to know... unlike qtpro, it has two-pass encoding capability for free, using the wmp encoder you get from microsoft.

the only way you can get two-pass encoding with qt or flash is by spending big $$$ for the sorenson pro codecs... and the quality still isn't as good as wmp.

if you are truly streaming it from a dedicated streaming server, which means big $$$ for bandwidth, then you'll pretty much have to use cbr... if you are http streaming it off of any web server, you might entertain using vbr encoding, because it'll save you bandwidth.
FuTz wrote on 1/26/2005, 2:38 AM
I'm no "expert" but I'll agree with beatnick here... at least, that's exactly what I'd do if I had a site and had clips to stream.
And I'd use Sorensen suite.
Tiny space on the drive, great performance.
FuTz wrote on 1/26/2005, 2:43 AM
scbragracing: what's "CBR"/"VBR" ... something about bit rate ain't it (variable bit rate, c??? bit rate) ?
I said : I'm no expert ! ¦ D
NickHope wrote on 1/26/2005, 3:08 AM
CBR = Constant Bit Rate.
VBR = Variable Bit Rate. With variable bit rate the file can be better quality at the same file size, or smaller file size at the same quality because the bitrate is high when it needs to be (e.g. lots of motion in the video) and low when it doesn't (e.g. still scenes). 2-pass VBR means the encoder looks through the file first to work how best to distribute the bitrate throughout the file when it encodes during the 2nd pass.

The current web-video consensus seems to be for Flash video (.flv) if you want maximum compatibility and WMV9 if quality is critical, because even with the ($) Sorenson Suite the quality of FLV doesn't match WMV9.

Also don't forget there is now a Windows Media Player for the Mac, so even they can view WMV if they download that. Although I read somewhere in here that there was some issue whereby WMV may play on more macs if it's encoded with Microsoft's free encoder rather than Vegas.
beatnik wrote on 1/26/2005, 5:27 PM
FLIX Pro is $149.00 (US) And does a very good job on encoding to
flash. Check it out at http://www.wildform.com

Also, you do NOT need any special high priced server for streaming flash.

Also, if the client computer does NOT have flash installed (unlikely) the
download and install is the fastest of ALL video players!

Alex.
Jessariah67 wrote on 1/26/2005, 6:33 PM
WMV 256K with double pass selected. Everything on this page was encoded this way. The results are pretty good. I prefer 512K, but that starts to choke some connections. Windows Media is also great (IMO) because it streams automatically.
scdragracing wrote on 1/27/2005, 12:02 AM
i tested wildflix pro awhile back, the picture quality was garbage compared to the current sorenson pro two-pass flash codec... maybe it's been improved since then?

but the flash player is super small! definitely the right choice for max compatability.

the problem with flash is that it's so common it's become abused, and there is now spyware prevention software that includes the option to turn off all flash files in the browser... you are gonna see a lot more of this in the near future.
groovedude wrote on 1/27/2005, 10:50 PM
You don't need Sorenson Squeeze to do two-pass, Macromedia provides a flash video kit plugin for QTpro that will let you convert any media to (one or two pass) .flv, which is the Flash movie format. The resulting .flv then needs to be incorporated into a .swf.

Flash enabled me to combine video (edited with Vegas baby!) with a dynamic multimedia website for a client. It is still in development but fully operational--site explains one of the last top secret missions of WWII:

[site link taken out per poster's request]

I welcome any feedback about the web site here, or you can reach me at www.creativegroove.com
scdragracing wrote on 1/28/2005, 5:15 PM
love that website groovedude! clever use of pics saves a ton of video bandwidth... the layout of the homepage rocks as well.

the macromedia plugin works with all kinds of apps, including qtpro, but it is not the sorenson pro codec... sorenson makes a high-end qt codec and a spark pro codec for flash videos, both of which have pretty much identical video quality... but they cost big $$$, can you even still buy 'em without squeeze? the only way to fly for making real flash videos, the flash graphical stuff uses a different codec, and it's far less demanding.
Coursedesign wrote on 1/28/2005, 7:39 PM
The Macromedia FLV kit for Dreamweaver comes with Sorenson Squeeze 4.0 Lite, but can be upgraded to the non-lite Squeeze for $50.

The differences are listed at Macromedia.
groovedude wrote on 1/29/2005, 1:22 AM
scdragracing,

Thanks, and you are absolutely right about the video kit and Sorensen. The video kit works with different programs and does two-pass but isn't quite as good as full S. From what I've heard the full version of Sorensen only adds a touch more quality to the video, and its not in the projects budget to purchase it, maybe in the future though.

If interested there may be more content in the "Mission" section than you watched, I updated the site last night...or was it this morning...I dunno its 1AM I can't think.

OT: I don't know how many of you on here are Flash content developers, but if you'd like to become a certified Flash designer and/or developer and are in the LA (USA) area there is info at www.laflash.org/forum for a study group.
mrjhands wrote on 1/29/2005, 2:43 AM
groovedude
Excellent content and subject on your site??
Damn, if there was ever a project waiting to be put on DVD, this would be it. I sat on your site for and HOUR watching that (best I could what with all the clicking and instructions for when the smaller video clips autoplayed), but it was VERY riveting, I called my brother, a 20 year Army vet who is History Channels best viewer and told him what I was watching and quizzed him and he's never seen the "last mission" explained quite like that as I was relaying it to him. Are you planning to turn this into a program? You should consider it, Vegas would do it MUCH more justice than editing that low resolution version for your flash site IMHO, Nice!
mrjhands wrote on 1/29/2005, 2:44 AM
Sorry, opening line in my post shouldnt have ??? rather !!!!!!!
I cant edit my posts for some reason, must be my java console or something
Excellent content and subject on your site!!!!
groovedude wrote on 1/29/2005, 3:36 PM
mrjhands,

Thank you for spending the time to give it a look over, I'm glad you and your brother are enjoying it. We've had a few people, like yourself, that wish the content to be more controlable rather than autoplaying. We will add more stops where the viewer can sit on a page to absorb the information and hit play to continue at their own pace.

I'm only developing it for the client. His intentions are to sell the story rights for a film and tv adaptation. He owns the life story of Jerome Shapiro.

My client shot more interview footage last week, be sure to revisit the "Mission" Section in a couple weeks there will be new footage. He actually shot the new footage with one of the new Sony HD camera's that he rented; I don't know if it was the FX1 or Z1. However, I'm hesitant to use this footage as I'd need the Cinema HD plugin and maybe have to upgrade to V5--money this project currently does not have the funding for. Luckily he also shot the material with a Hi-8, we'll probably go this route like we did before. Being such a small image being streamed anyway, I don't see the need to go through the hassle of using the HD. Good to have the HD stuff for archive incase a TV/Film documentary maker wants to include it.