Question re problems with .wmv for Macs

[Dan Euritt]

<<<-- Originally posted by Mark Sloan : Sorenson 3 came out in 2001 though, and AVC/H.264 finished in 2003, so while it might have some similar features, it isn't AVC/H.264 -->>>

i never claimed otherwise... and i never disputed your statements wrt h.264/avc being the codec, either... all i was referring to was the nomenclature, and the standards issue.

now ask yourself how many years were spent developing h.264/avc... hint: the original mpeg4 base standard was finalized in 1998.

"Work is ongoing on MPEG-4 part 10, 'Advanced Video Coding', This codec is being developed jointly with ITU-T, in the so-called Joint Video Team (JVT). The JVT unites the standard world's video coding experts in a single group. The work currently underway is based on earlier work in ITU-T on H.264 (formerly H.26L). H.264 and MPEG-4 part 10 will be the same. MPEG-4 AVC/H.26L4 is slated to be ready by the end of 2002." -march 2002, http://www.chiariglione.org/mpeg/standards/mpeg-4/mpeg-4.htm

<<<-- Originally posted by Ernest House : Dan,
You repeatedly state your conclusion that people should produce WMV because Windows is the dominant OS and, in turn, there are more WMP players. If you follow this logic, the conclusion is to use Flash but you don't follow your own analysis. -->>>

if you really knew anything at all about web video, you'd know that flash was designed for animation, not for video, which is why the quality is so bad... but then again, since you can't see the quality difference between qt and wmp9, your confusion wrt flash is understandable... a typical rookie mistake, that i am trying to prevent others out here from making.

and as i clearly pointed out, what happen to microsoft in the eu lawsuit is irrelevant to the wmp player stats, especially in light of the 200 million pc's coming online in china... that lawsuit totally backs up my stats wrt to the complete dominance of the microsoft o.s. and wmp.

poor ernest... "when i'm on a mac i cannot get to msnbc basketbrawl video" ...roflmao!! you asked for that problem when you foolishly chose to use a computer that only 2% of the people on the 'net use... when mac fanaticism interfers with logic and reason, this discussion is what we get.

you guys STILL have not provided any qt player stats... but you'll sit there telling people to use qt to promote their businesses on the 'net, even when you don't have the slightest idea what the target audience is capable of watching... you can't solve the microsoft monoply by whining about it, what you are getting paid to do is to help your customers get their message out there the best possible way they can.

[Mark Sloan]

I personally don't care one way or the other if someone uses WMV or QT or Real or DivX... my only point was to know your particular audience and do what makes sense. If you think you have enough Mac visitors to worry about, WMP files only probably isn't the best way to go.

I did give stats... 36.8% of video being served is QT, 38% WMV and less to Real. 250 million downloads of QT 6, 90% being Windows users. No stats on iTunes which comes with QuickTime, but that just adds to the equation. The point isn't rah, rah QT; but simply it has a large base and is a viable option. At home, I mostly use Macs so I do most of my encoding in QT. At work, I use XP so I use a variety of different things like QT to DivX to Flash to Windows Media, depending on the situation.

"i just proved that h.264 is iso mpeg4, despite your earlier denial of that fact." I'm going to assume now that you didn't mean to imply that H.264==MPEG4 but rather it simply is supported as part 10.

Let's also be clear, nothing was secret about AVC/H.264... it is all a pretty open discussion, that is why H.264 even exists... but the features of Sorenson 3 don't match up to AVC/H.264, so while they might have incorporated an idea or two (or the other way around, a lot of what is implemented these days are based on published research anyway) it is more like the original spec H.263 that was released in 1998 than AVC/H.264. Hell, WMV9 and AVC/H.264 have a ton in common... it will be execution of the codecs like Nero (who know's what the new QT looks like except beta testers) that are the real difference.

Dan, you seem like a MS fanatic. Ernest, you seem like an Apple fanatic. You two should go out drinking some time and just beat each other silly. Personally, I think they both suck. I like OS X because of my Unix programming days, but I hate the Dock and the step backwards in terms of usability of the OS overall... better stability, worse usability. Windows has a lot going for it, but again, trying to copy usability is worse than what Apple is doing... don't get me started on the Linux GUIs out there... or the 3rd Generation iPod design... or any number of things like instrument layout in cars...

But if you take this route "you asked for that problem when you foolishly chose to use a computer that only 2% of the people on the 'net use" be ready for when the next virus comes out for the MS platform too... evolution is kinder to diversity!

[Les Wilson]

Dan,

You said:

"flash was designed for animation, not for video, which is why the quality is so bad".

Someone you reference frequently is Ben Waggoner. In a recent post on another site Ben said:

"Flash video isn't an inferior product, it's just quite different from the other video formats. It does have some technical weaknesses, but the advantage of tight rich media integration and a huge installed base of players can far outweigh those limitations."

You've called me a rookie but actually, I've been around since before Flash I first came upon "Flash" in the early 90's when it was FLC. I do know that the current Flash video capability was simply an addition to Flash's portfolio of rich content in version 6 a few years ago. What the industry analysts said at the time was that Macromedia correctly realized bandwidth and processing power would soon be at the point where video and vector based graphics (animation) were both practical and in demand in the web's evolution from sparse to rich media. Therefore, Flash needed to add video content. So, Macromedia quietly added it to the Flash player ahead of time to seed it into web browsers all under the nose of MSFT. MSFT was even preloading it until it all came out around the XP time frame. But it was too late. The Flash video player had already permeated the web. The rest as they say, is history.

It's now the most pervasive the player, easy to create and nicely integrates into the web. You say the codec is animation based but I seem to remember the Flash video codec is a Sorenson one which might be why Apple sued Sorenson for violating the exclusive contract between Sorenson and Apple. I've read others who say the Flash codec is an H.263 based one. You're the first to say it's animation based. Have any data on which you based that conclusion? Mind sharing it?

Ben's point is based on the same reasoning I've been making in this thread in counterpoint to you. It's also probably the reason why CNET, Amazon, and ESPN picked Flash, why CNN picked QT, etc. There are a broad base of factors in choosing a format and that a choice based on installed OS, as you assert, is a poor one.

MSNBC on the other hand has made a decision more akin to your way of thinking. Pick a format based on OS and purposly limit your audience by eliminating net users (including some Windows versions) from consuming your content. Yeah, make them go elsewhere. That's the ticket. Note the contrast with a decision to use Flash, QuickTime, Real where the content is available to and reliably delivered to all.

Mark correctly points out knowing your consumer is one of the factors and I agree. This thread began with Marcia's post lamenting a lousy experience with WMV and was seeking a way to produce WMV that played better or produce QT that looked better. The solution to the latter exists and was presented. The solution to the former has yet to come forth.

I, and others, think your recommendation of WMV9 because Windwos has a large install base is flawed reasoning. I recommend what I use: MPEG4 for streaming, MPEG1/2 for CDROM, and stitched Flash or 2-pass QT for progressive download and embedded rich media.

You recommend WMV9 but use Real on your website. Readers of this thread are not strangers to contradictions from you. The latest one was worth a chuckle so I'll end this post with a grin instead of a yawn. You said:

"the eu lawsuit is irrelevant to the wmp player stats"

and a mere 12 words later you say

"that lawsuit totally backs up my stats"

:-)

[Dan Euritt]

streaming stats are NOT player stats.

ernest, you didn't provide a solution for marcia, because there isn't any way to improve qt video quality, even when you spend big $$$ on sorenson... the quality still sucks compared to free wmp9! i guess that you just don't have enuf encoding experience to see the difference.

ben waggoner didn't pick qt for anything, lol, but you somehow think that you are smarter than ben because you are recommending qt to marcia?? sure sounds like mac platform bigotry to me.

flash did not have even have video capability until flash mx came out in 2002... like i said before, flash was originally designed for animation only... in 2002, they had to use the sorenson media video player inside of flash, because there was nothing in flash that could play a video codec... if you really had been around back then, ernest, you would have known that.

nowadays the flash video picture quality is no different than the typical qt junk, because of it's sorenson roots... but there is a new flash player in the works, and i'm sure that the streaming software that runs on the server side will continue to mature.

and yes, about 10% of the 'net video i serve up is realmedia clips... it's old footage from years ago, that people still watch... and it still has better picture quality than what you can get with qt today!

mark, i used to compute on a next machine... do you know what that is? unix-based g.u.i. o.s. that was around many years before apple FINALLY got their sh$t together with a unix o.s... i think that the next machine was a more elegant o.s. than anything apple has come up with, and i'd imagine that apple borrowed a few things from next along the way... so yes, there is nothing new under the sun.

and btw, "H.264 is a high compression digital video codec..." was exactly what i typed 18 posts ago... so i never really understood what you were arguing about, lol.

[Mark Sloan]

Dan, if you are trying to impress me with a NEXT box then you're barking up the wrong tree. (What does "I used to compute" mean?) Yeah, we had a bunch of NEXT boxes when I was studying Comp. Sci. and yes, I think that OS and GUI sucks too. The tools for building on NEXT were nice, but in the end, the overall experience was pretty similar to an SGI workstation at the time... not very usable (they were giving them away by my senior year). And come on... grayscale only? And the dumb ass dock is from NEXT, so no, I hate it. The windows task bar is an abomination too. From a usability standpoint Windows sucks even harder than OS X... although it seems the Mac OS is becoming more windows like everyday...

Steve Jobs has done a good job with Apple in terms of simplifying their model line up and concentrating on fewer, higher margin technologies, but just look at their OS, the metallic shit around iTunes, QT, etc... and you get the Fisher Price look/crap that you see in XP and the betas for Longhorn.

Neither of these companies knows what they are doing. Hell, when was the last time you installed a new piece of software from MS, Apple or otherwise and was 100% sure it would work? The source code leak at MS pointed out how many bugs they KEPT intentionally because too many people made their programs work based on the bug.

As I stated last time, with the quote from before, it looked like you were trying to say MPEG4 and H.264/AVC were the same thing. Which obviously, they aren't.

[Les Wilson]

Oh well. Back to bored.

Dan,

I responded to your apparent claim that the Flash codec was based on animation. In your first Dec 15 post you said "flash was designed for animation, not for video, which is why the quality is so bad"

After I pointed out video was simply added as a content type to Flash and it was probably a Sorenson codec, you said "the flash video picture quality is no different than the typical qt junk, because of it's sorenson roots".

So which is it? Animation or Sorenson.

I can produce fine looking QuickTime as do other and as can Marcia which solves that question she raised. What tools are you using for QuickTime that you are having problems using and can't do what others do? There's been no answer to the WMV issue she raised.

I quoted Ben and pointed out that in his quote, he gave the same reasoning I had been presenting here in counterpoint to your reasoning. I made no claim to relative intelligence as you incorrectly and erroneously assert.

[Dan Euritt]

the next machine rocked for that day and age, lol! yes, it's a bit dated today, but you are bad-mouthing a g.u.i. that never had time to develop... i hope that you aren't going to be foolish enuf to claim that the mac o.s. at the time was better! the mac o.s. wasn't up to serious computing until apple came out with osx, and it's not perfect by any means... what microsoft needs to do now is come up with a unix-based o.s. for pc's.

my first computer job was at kaypro, back when that was da bomb, so my frame of reference wrt the evolution of the desktop computer is different than yours... your senior year was when i was a computer tech at cal state, and next wasn't giving anything away for free to the general public, the only reason colleges got next machines was because next wanted that market real bad, it didn't have a damn thing to do with the quality of the platform... i personally have never liked any of the mac g.u.i.'s, and the hardware totally sucks, but they used to be a better alternative for people who have never been on a computer before... maybe they still are.

ernest, you STILL haven't provided any reason why marcia should use qt instead of wmp... that's really the bottom line... who cares what your opinion is, when you can't back it up with any facts? you need to stop wasting bandwidth out here, lol.

i proved that wmp has far better player penetration than qt, i quoted an expert who recommended wmp but not qt, and we all know that wmp has better video quality than qt.

[Mark Sloan]

My frame of reference for computers began with BASIC, TRS-80 computers, the Apple 2 series, and then others until my LC II. No, the GUI for NEXT sucked then and it sucks today. It completely misses some of the most basic UI principles and it is clear that Jobs is more interested in flash than substance when it comes to the OS. The machines were a great platform for developing because of their object oriented platform, but they weren't overall good machines. They were too expensive, lacked color screens, and used a crappy UI. The UI of Mac OS 9 is still better than OS 10 or Windows. The technical capabilities was not up to snuff, but speaking only of the GUI and usability, it is still better than X or XP.

MS has no reason to move to a Unix based OS. BSD Unix is really bloated and not really an elegant solution. Hell, a lot of it is based on 40 year old code. The most impressive OS that actually gained some users was the BeOS because it was written from scratch and therefore could perform amazingly. MS has such a large installed base, they would never change over... just like they supported bugs in their code, they can't afford to piss off huge corporations by making such a fundamental change... and they've got such a huge infrastucture based on .Net now, there is no reason to change... Mac needed to do Unix to get more developers, MS doesn't need that.

If WMP sucks on the Mac, and she thinks she will have Mac visitors, she should go with QT Dan. What else needs to be said?

[Les Wilson]

<<-- Originally posted by Dan Euritt: ernest, you STILL haven't provided any reason why marcia should use qt instead of wmp... that's really the bottom line... >>

Marcia said she she wanted to use QT but couldn't make one she liked. I recommended tools to address that issue. As for other statements I made in this thread regarding recommendations that included Flash or QT, I gave reasons. You'll find them if you read the posts.

<<-- Originally posted by Dan Euritt: who cares what your opinion is, when you can't back it up with any facts? >>

I and others gave facts along with reasoned analysis behind the conclusions. You'll find them if you read the posts.

<<-- Originally posted by Dan Euritt: i proved that wmp has far better player penetration than qt, i quoted an expert who recommended wmp but not qt, >>

Yes you have. What we have disagreed on is the validity, relevance and importance of WMP penetration. Also, I've quoted the same expert supporting the validity of the broader approach that I've presented here in counterpoint to you.

<<-- Originally posted by Dan Euritt: and we all know that wmp has better video quality than qt.>>

You keep saying that. I responded to it early on. You'll find it if you read the posts. Of WMP, Marcia said (paraphrased) "I got audio only, no picture.......about 30 seconds into it, everything freezes".

I've read your posts but not found anything from you to address the problem with WMP that Marcia had whereas using QT, MPEG4, Flash, and Real Video do address that problem.

And finally:
<<-- Originally posted by Dan Euritt: you need to stop wasting bandwidth out here, lol.>>

As DVInfo is a community forum, it seems arrogant to me for you to assert yourself bandwidth policeman. In fact, I was thinking that the name calling you've done, the nature of some of your posts and the tendency in your posts to have platform wars might be violating the Community Rules of Conduct like this one written by Chris Hurd:

"I will not tolerate ad-hominem attacks upon someone's character, capabilities, or sensibilities. There will be no platform wars, period."

If you read the rules, you'll find it in the section entitled "Please be cool and respect your fellow members."

[Dan Euritt]

obviously we'll never agree about the next, lol... apple had to bail out of the old mac o.s. because it was so dysfunctional in the modern computing world... it simply couldn't have cut the mustard, and they took way too long to make the move to osx, as you very well know.

mark, there are many unix nerds who would take you to task for fud-mongering their platform, lol... ibm has 500 programmers working in china on linux, and right now there are more unix-based desktop computers on the 'net than macs... so of course apple made the correct decision to go unix-based as well, there is a whole bunch of developer talent out there for that platform.

marcia indicated a problem with wmp on her mac, and she got *zero* help with that issue from all the mac people out here.

and she STILL doesn't know how many qt players there are on the 'net! and since there are no macs on the 'net, she has no good reason to stick with qt.

[Les Wilson]

>> marcia indicated a problem with wmp on her mac, and she got *zero* help with that issue from all the mac people out here.>>

The answer given was one that Marcia had already arrived at, was the same answer as has historically been the case and not solved by WMV9. WMP is a poor cross platform format. Therefore, use another format.

<<and she STILL doesn't know how many qt players there are on the 'net!>>

Setting aside the point that the count lacks significance, you actually don't know how many WMP players are on the net either. You think you do but you don't for the same reason you don't know how many Real, Flash, MPEG4, H.264 or QT players there are.


<<and since there are no macs on the 'net,>>

Before you said 3% are Macs. Now you say there are none.


<< she has no good reason to stick with qt.>>
...except that it solves the problem she had that WMV failed as a cross platform format unlike Flash, QT, MPEG4 and Real.

[Mark Sloan]

Its not FUD. All of the current GUIs are sub-par, even compared to Mac OS 9, which is just sad. NeXT had great object oriented development tools, but in terms of a user GUI, it still sucked... and Apple inherited that. XP just tries to copy Mac OS and misses the point... like drives NOT being accessible on the desktop... shortcuts instead symbolic links (OS X makes the same mistake)... etc. They don't get it and neither do you... which is fine, but it is my job to be critical of such things and try to make them better where I can.

As for the move to OS X... still waiting on Longhorn aren't we? How late is that? Again, you don't know what you are talking about... to change an OS with billions of lines of code or to revamp an OS as dramatically as OS X or Longhorn is a huge undertaking. Read the Mythical Man Month and you'll get an idea.

No one knows how many WM Players there are on the net technically either. It is all indirect inference. So if you want to discount the # of QT then maybe you should discount the # of WM players too because you cannot quote real numbers of WMP either. Which is as silly to say as not knowing how many QT players are out there exactly is a problem.

Should there be better WMP tools for the Mac? Yes. There are tools you can buy to do it too. But in the end it comes down to do what makes sense... and especially if you have a significant (individuals determine significance) number of Mac users, QT makes a lot of sense. Is the quality great for free? No. But then, it is better that it works than not at all. And again, WMV9 does not cover use for all WM Players out there. So what? If people are downloading videos they can download an installer... especially one that 36% of the net's content is served up in.

[Christopher Lefchik]

XP just tries to copy Mac OS and misses the point... like drives NOT being accessible on the desktop

Er, you can put a shortcut to any drive on the Windows desktop, just like on the Mac.

Wow, has this thread gotten off topic!

[Mark Sloan]

Of course you can, but you shouldn't have to. Its an option in OS X too. It defeats the whole metaphor of a "desktop" to have to search for your drive or to have your files relegated to some deep folder on your hard drive by default. Multiple users have been around long enough to address the problem more elegantly than either Linux, OS X (a step back from OS 9) and XP. The whole thing should be transparent and clear and it is a mess. Abstract the file structure, hide unnecessary directories... do something, but as it is currently they are all bad...

Marcia, if you're still reading, I hope you solved your problem.

[Dan Euritt]

most of what you guys have posted is fud, lol! it's gotten so bad that i quit reading anything ernest posts.

and you all STILL haven't posted any kind of numbers about qt player penetration on the 'net.

mark, i don't want a bunch of drive icons on my desktop... you keep bashing these g.u.i.'s based on your silly personal preferences, which does not work, because people use different roads to get to an end goal... our brains do not all work the same way... for example, most of the engineers i've supported over the years wouldn't be caught dead with an apple computer, but newbies and artists tend to like macs.

one thing that has become apparent here is that none of these mac fanatics have done their homework regarding 'net video codecs... marcia didn't like qt video, and now we have proof that her complaint was legit, despite the fact that nobody out here will admit to it.

here are 3 clips, all the same bitrate, using sorenson squeeze pro in two-pass vbr mode for everything:

http://www.oceanstreetvideo.com/videocodectest.zip

to sum it up, wmp9 blows qt and flash out of the water.