Best for video streaming

  • lomilmand
  • Student
  • Student
  • lomilmand
  • Posts: 91
  • Loc: Bournemouth, UK

Post 3+ Months Ago

What would you say would be the best video format for video on the internet, when you take in picture qualilty to file size.

For picture quality I though QuickTime was pretty good, and the files sizes arn't that bad, but is there a better, or a good alternitive other than Windows Media Player or Real Player. What would you say is the best. Do you think is is worth me purchasing QuickTime Pro so I can get the best out of internet video, and I do want the best...

What are your thoughts and opinions on the best internet video ?
  • Anonymous
  • Bot
  • No Avatar
  • Posts: ?
  • Loc: Ozzuland
  • Status: Online

Post 3+ Months Ago

  • lomilmand
  • Student
  • Student
  • lomilmand
  • Posts: 91
  • Loc: Bournemouth, UK

Post 3+ Months Ago

any throughts?
  • digitalMedia
  • a.k.a. dM
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 5149
  • Loc: SC-USA

Post 3+ Months Ago

I like Divx, WMV, and Qucktime.

Your question is pretty broad. Almost all formats are good in one way or another. If streaming media is your main concern, for ease of use, I'd go with WMV.

I wouldn't consider REAL if you paid me.
  • lomilmand
  • Student
  • Student
  • lomilmand
  • Posts: 91
  • Loc: Bournemouth, UK

Post 3+ Months Ago

Which would you say was the best picture quality? I was thinking Quicktime but I don't know if you agree? Is it worth purchasing QuickTime Pro?
  • digitalMedia
  • a.k.a. dM
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 5149
  • Loc: SC-USA

Post 3+ Months Ago

Qucktime, using the Sorenson codec, is a wonderful quality for video. I'm not sure that file size is always that great. Most movie trailers you see use Quicktime/Sorenson, to my knowledge.

I've found it hard to work with, personally. That may be my own shortcomings, though. I've seen others have similar problems. You get the quality where you want it, and the file size is huge. You get the file size where you want it, and the quality is awful.

I wouldn't buy the Pro tools unless you are going to be using them continually.

I'm always surprised with the quality to size ratio of WMV (in a positive way). I know a lot of people will knock ANYTHING that MS puts out soley because it's MS, but I really think this a good thing. The encoder is free and, of course, you can expect a lot of people to be able to access the content.

I think you've narrowed it downed to your best two choices, but I would lean toward WMV. Again, ease of use is good, and accessibility is good too. Otherwise, I think it's going to be a matter of preference.

You might even just want to offer both formats to your users.
  • ViperBorg
  • Newbie
  • Newbie
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 9
  • Loc: Wisconsin, United States

Post 3+ Months Ago

Must remember that not everyone out there on the World Wide Web use Quicktime. It's best to use both Quicktime and WMV just to cover your bases. Microsoft now has WMV support right out of the box, considering they made that format. But if I had to choose one, I would agree with digitalMedia and lean towards WMV.
  • lomilmand
  • Student
  • Student
  • lomilmand
  • Posts: 91
  • Loc: Bournemouth, UK

Post 3+ Months Ago

thanks
  • phpservers
  • Banned
  • Banned
  • phpservers
  • Posts: 114

Post 3+ Months Ago

is it possible to stream divx? :o the only problem is that the majority of visitors wont have the right codecs... same with quicktime.

mediaplayer will be the most compatible with most users' but lacks the functionality of quicktime.

i agree with giving visitors the choice of both.
  • wolfpeach
  • Newbie
  • Newbie
  • wolfpeach
  • Posts: 5
  • Loc: Oxford, UK

Post 3+ Months Ago

Hope you dont mind me tagging onto this thread - I've got a question that seems relevant to the topic...

I've just put an mpeg (163mb) on my website, embedded in a page for streaming. I was expecting that the bandwidth it used would total no more than 163mb per view, but it seems to be using about 4 or 5 times that amount... Just from the few views I've made whilst configuring it I've used up all my bandwidth quota and been stung for excess charges :cry:

:?: I presume that this is because mpeg is a high-quality format - question is, what would be a better format to minimise bandwidth, when low(ish) quality is not an issue :?:

Wolfpeach
  • Axe
  • Genius
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 5739
  • Loc: Sub-level 28

Post 3+ Months Ago

phpservers wrote:
is it possible to stream divx?

Some software is capable of streaming DivX some of the time..

See, the problem with AVI, regardless of which codec is used, is that all the video data is stored at the end of the file. So, in order for a piece of software to play the video, it needs to have the last segment of the video file. Some software gets around this by requesting the last chunk of the video file first, then writing out a file the same size, and just filling in the blanks as it receives the rest of the data. But, having the end of the file first allows it to play as it downloads. Otherwise, you have to receive the whole file before you can start playing the video.

As far as the AVI codecs, I much prefer XVid over DivX. XVid generally seems to be better quality. Quicktime can be good, although I personally don't have the Quicktime software installed, and I won't install it. :)

I'd do like ViperBorg says and offer both Quicktime and WMV or some form of AVI. Just make sure, that you include a link on your site explaining which codec the AVI's are encoded with, and where to download it (although many people already have the XVid codec installed - which can also play many DivX encoded files too).
  • Axe
  • Genius
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 5739
  • Loc: Sub-level 28

Post 3+ Months Ago

wolfpeach wrote:
:?: I presume that this is because mpeg is a high-quality format - question is, what would be a better format to minimise bandwidth, when low(ish) quality is not an issue :?:

I'm really not sure why it's using more bandwidth when streaming the Mpeg rather than simply downloading it. It shouldn't do. Basically as far as I'm aware, when Media Player loads a URL, it simply downlaods as normal, but starts playing as the data is still coming down. Mpeg doesn't have the limitation of AVI whereby it needs the end of the file to start viewing.

You might want to try WMV if quality isn't an issue, although you can get some pretty good quality WMV's these days that will outshine mpg1 standard.
  • wolfpeach
  • Newbie
  • Newbie
  • wolfpeach
  • Posts: 5
  • Loc: Oxford, UK

Post 3+ Months Ago

Thanks Axe - thats what I'd thought...

Have now changed the whole setup and optimised as a 128Kbps .WMV file which weighs in at about 12mb (big improvement on 163mb!!) without too much of a noticable drop in quality. But the bandwidth drain still seems to be way too much - from maybe half a dozen (max) views today of a 12mb file, I seem to have used about 500mb of bandwidth... :evil:

If anyone is interested in taking a look at the page / source code used, I would appreciate a bit of tyre kicking!

(am I allowed to post urls here??)

Wolfpeach
  • Kally
  • Beginner
  • Beginner
  • Kally
  • Posts: 50

Post 3+ Months Ago

WMV. Windows Movie Maker balances quality and filesize BEAUTIFULLY. :)

Post Information

  • Total Posts in this topic: 13 posts
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 90 guests
  • You cannot post new topics in this forum
  • You cannot reply to topics in this forum
  • You cannot edit your posts in this forum
  • You cannot delete your posts in this forum
  • You cannot post attachments in this forum
 
 

© 1998-2014. Ozzu® is a registered trademark of Unmelted, LLC.