Video Internet Compression

[Dan Euritt]

Originally Posted by Christopher Lefchik

No, I said pretty sure, which means I'm pretty sure, not that I don't know... I don't recall...

i'm not even going to comment on all that.

Originally Posted by Christopher Lefchik

Not exactly. According to this survey

i addressed that bogus "survey" info here: http://www.codectest.com/mediaplayer/mediaplayer.html

what you need now is a primer on how big these video sharing sites are on the web, and what video formats they are using... that'll tell you what video players have the biggest market share.

i'll give you a hint: www.youtube.com is the biggest video downloading site on the 'net, see how much qt you can find out there.

Originally Posted by Christopher Lefchik

Why shouldn't I offer a choice that plays well on the Mac platform

"macs only make up about 3% of the computers on the internet"

[Christopher Lefchik]

Originally Posted by Dan Euritt

i'm not even going to comment on all that.

Considering the last time you commented you only succeeding in misinterpreting my words, I’ll consider that a favor.

Originally Posted by Dan Euritt

i addressed that bogus "survey" info here: [url]http://www.codectest.com/mediaplayer/mediaplayer.html

It’s hardly bogus. There are flaws in the survey, to be sure, and I freely acknowledged that fact in the last huge debate on which format was the best to use.

However, even using your assumptions the results are not much different, once other factors are taken into account.

For the sake of argument, let’s accept your premise that since 90% of the computers on the Internet run Windows, they all have Windows Media Player installed and can play streaming Windows Media video. Hey, let’s even throw in the 3% Macs on the assumption that all the Mac zealots have installed the evil Microsoft Windows Media Player on their beloved Macs.

So, now we have a 93% number of computers that can play streaming Windows Media content. Now, there’s a wrinkle you may not have considered. That’s the fact that 10-20% of Internet users now browse the Web with Mozilla Firefox. And do you know one fact about that scenario? It’s that those users won’t be able to view embedded Windows Media content. Yep, that’s right. Not unless they manually copy two or three Netscape plugin files from the Windows Media Player program directory to the plugins folder in the Firefox program directory. And that’s assuming most of them know that can be done, and how to do it, which is highly unlikely. And that’s only one step that must be taken. The other is that the embedded Windows Media code must contain certain code that will enable it to play on Mozilla-based browsers.

The likelihood is that most Firefox users haven’t copied the Windows Media Netscape plugins to their Firefox install. Taking the most conservative estimate of Firefox usage (10%), let’s say 80% of that number hasn’t. That drops the actual number of platform/browser combinations that can play embedded streaming Windows Media content right back to 85%.

Originally Posted by Dan Euritt

what you need now is a primer on how big these video sharing sites are on the web, and what video formats they are using... that'll tell you what video players have the biggest market share.

i'll give you a hint: www.youtube.com is the biggest video downloading site on the 'net, see how much qt you can find out there.

All that proves is that site is popular. That doesn’t give us any statistical information on the installed user base of each media player. Simply because the audience that visits it can play Windows Media content doesn’t mean they don’t have other media players installed.

The fact that YouTube is so popular says more about the popularity of the actual content of the videos on the site than the popularity of the format they are encoded in.

[Jarrod Whaley]

Originally Posted by Dan Euritt

no? then why can't i open up a podcast link with quicktime?

Because a "podcast link" is an RSS feed. RSS feeds are not video media. The media files embedded in that feed can be opened with quicktime, or with any number of other players. WMV files are just as easily added to RSS feeds as QT are. It's just that the RSS feeds with QT media are called podcasts, and the ones with WMV (or other) files are called any number of other things.

A podcast feed can be read with any RSS reader in the world, of which there are many, and for every platform.

Originally Posted by Dan Euritt

that's a dead link... were you trying to make a point?

No, it isn't. I just clicked it. If you can't play it, it's because you don't have QT. Believe me, I know you don't have quicktime. Your shrill shrieks have ensured that everyone knows that. The point was that h.264 files are easily downloaded over http protocol. You have repeatedly claimed that only itunes can download such files. What you are talking about is actually a podcast's rss feed, which as I said already, can be read by any garden variety rss reader.

[Jarrod Whaley]

Originally Posted by Dan Euritt

macs only make up about 3% of the computers on the internet, so why in the world would you think that macs are a factor in what player format you should put on the 'net?

The disabled are a minority. So why build ramps, let's just have stairs everywhere.

[Emre Safak]

Web space is cheap, bandwidth is not, so make two copies of your videos; one in Quicktime, one in Windows Media.

[John Mitchell]

Originally Posted by Emre Safak

Web space is cheap, bandwidth is not, so make two copies of your videos; one in Quicktime, one in Windows Media.

This seems like a reasonable position to me.
Dan, I assumed your argument was always about the implementation of certain codecs within the QT player. However it now sounds like you are advocating not to use the QT wrapper at all. While only 3% of computers on the net may be Mac based let's not forget the huge creative community out there that are still overwhelmingly Mac based (especially in the area of print graphics). If you want to communicate with them it would be crazy to suggest not supplying a QT version of your product, simply because of bias.
BTW 3% of all computers on the Net is still a very big number. If your personal argument is that you don't want to install QT on your machines that position is fine. I too do not like iTunes - mainly because I find it a resource hog and an absolute dog to load, so I don't install it. Simple, problem solved.
One other thing to consider: there are a bunch of PC programs out there that require Quicktime to function fully, so not installing QT is just not an option for many Windows users.

[Christopher Lefchik]

Originally Posted by John Mitchell

This seems like a reasonable position to me.

Agreed. I probably should have clarified earlier that I wasn’t advocating using one format alone. I always try to offer a video in at least two formats. In the beginning I used Windows Media and RealMedia, because I didn’t have a decent QuickTime codec and wasn’t willing to drop a hundred dollars on Sorenson Pro. Now, with the Nero H.263/H.264 and QuickTime H.264 codecs I finally have good quality, QuickTime compatible options.

Originally Posted by John Mitchell

Dan, I assumed your argument was always about the implementation of certain codecs within the QT player. However it now sounds like you are advocating not to use the QT wrapper at all. While only 3% of computers on the net may be Mac based let's not forget the huge creative community out there that are still overwhelmingly Mac based (especially in the area of print graphics). If you want to communicate with them it would be crazy to suggest not supplying a QT version of your product, simply because of bias.

For whatever reason, apparently he just doesn’t like QuickTime in any form.

Originally Posted by John Mitchell

BTW 3% of all computers on the Net is still a very big number. If your personal argument is that you don't want to install QT on your machines that position is fine. I too do not like iTunes - mainly because I find it a resource hog and an absolute dog to load, so I don't install it. Simple, problem solved.

I, too, have no use for iTunes, and so install just QuickTime. As you say, it's simple.

Originally Posted by John Mitchell

One other thing to consider: there are a bunch of PC programs out there that require Quicktime to function fully, so not installing QT is just not an option for many Windows users.

Quite true.

[Dan Euritt]

Originally Posted by Christopher Lefchik

It’s hardly bogus. There are flaws in the survey, to be sure, and I freely acknowledged that fact in the last huge debate on which format was the best to use.

but of course you completely failed to acknowledge that, when you *once again* quoted a data source that is not credible.

so to recap, you knew full well that the npd survey was faulty, but you STILL posted it as if it was factual information, that people should use to make decisions about?

Originally Posted by Christopher Lefchik

That’s the fact that 10-20% of Internet users now browse the Web with Mozilla Firefox. And do you know one fact about that scenario? It’s that those users won’t be able to view embedded Windows Media content.

so now you want to change the subject matter to attacking windows media instead?

i really do like correcting the misinformation that you post ;-) put your firefox browser on this windows media url of mine, remember that you just told us that it can't play: http://www.dragracingtv.com/psca/200...eet-elims.html

Originally Posted by Christopher Lefchik

The fact that YouTube is so popular says more about the popularity of the actual content of the videos on the site than the popularity of the format they are encoded in.

no, the absense of qt on the major video sites proves that it's not the best option for internet use... even windows media is losing ground to flash, except where drm is needed.

[Dan Euritt]

Originally Posted by Jarrod Whaley

The disabled are a minority. So why build ramps, let's just have stairs everywhere.

lol, that's a good one!

Originally Posted by Jarrod Whaley

No, it isn't. I just clicked it. If you can't play it, it's because you don't have QT.... The point was that h.264 files are easily downloaded over http protocol. You have repeatedly claimed that only itunes can download such files.

no, i claimed that h.264 is a video file, and podcasts are just another format that prevents publishers from getting their content out to the public.

along those lines, i notice that you failed to address the fact that qt can't open podcasts... perhaps you don't understand that apple did that deliberately, in order to force people to use itunes? when you put up podcasts, you are helping apple sell products... i refuse to participate in that.

jarrod, i am impressed by the fact that you actually put up a video version of your podcast, so that people aren't forced to install that silly itunes garbage... unfortunately the vast majority of podcasters don't do that.

if you had been reading this thread, you'd know that i have the latest 7.1 qt installed, thanks to lefchik :-) the problem is that your link was not connecting to anything.

[Dan Euritt]

Originally Posted by John Mitchell

If you want to communicate with them it would be crazy to suggest not supplying a QT version of your product, simply because of bias.
BTW 3% of all computers on the Net is still a very big number.

after this apple itunes debacle, i am dead set against putting any qt video on the web... with the overwhelming acceptance of flash 8, the question is, what advantage is there to using qt over wmv or flash 8? is there some issue where macs can't handle flash?

why put up two versions of a video, if flash works on macs?

[Jarrod Whaley]

Originally Posted by Dan Euritt

along those lines, i notice that you failed to address the fact that qt can't open podcasts... perhaps you don't understand that apple did that deliberately, in order to force people to use itunes?

Sure, QT can't read podcast feeds. Nor can WMP read RSS feeds. Nor can my email client be used to edit video.

The fact is, "podcast" is just the most widely-adopted name for rss feeds that have media enclosures. Those enclosures can be QT files, WMP files, gif's, PDF's, text files, whatever. It is not an apple-specific distribution medium by any means whatsoever. As I said, I use fireant to manage my podcast feeds. It works very well. I don't have an ipod, and I don't use itunes. But I have subscribed to many podcasts.

If you have a problem with such feeds being called "podcasts," then your issue is with the nomenclature, not the technology. That I could understand. But personally speaking, I don't care what it's called. "Podcast," "poopcast," whatever. A rose by any other name.

Originally Posted by Dan Euritt

when you put up podcasts, you are helping apple sell products... i refuse to participate in that.

By that logic, putting up video content of any kind is "helping dell/whoever sell computers." Using WMV files is "helping MS sell windows."

Originally Posted by Dan Euritt

the problem is that your link was not connecting to anything.

If that's true, then it had to have been due to temporary downtime at archive.org. I haven't had any problems connecting on my end.

[Christopher Lefchik]

Originally Posted by Dan Euritt

but of course you completely failed to acknowledge that, when you *once again* quoted a data source that is not credible.

so to recap, you knew full well that the npd survey was faulty, but you STILL posted it as if it was factual information, that people should use to make decisions about?

As I just demonstrated, ignoring the NPD survey and using the best case scenario numbers for your favorite, Windows Media, we still ended up with the same result as the NPD survey.

Originally Posted by Dan Euritt

so now you want to change the subject matter to attacking windows media instead?

I’m not changing the subject matter. It’s a different side of the same discussion. I discussed Windows Media Player because the NPD survey erred primarily in testing for that player, and it is the format you argue for based purely on OS statistics. I was demonstrating the flaws in your argument, and showing how when we take into account certain relevant facts we still end up with the same percentage of computer/browser combinations that can play WM content as the NPD survey.

Originally Posted by Dan Euritt

i really do like correcting the misinformation that you post ;-) put your firefox browser on this windows media url of mine, remember that you just told us that it can't play: http://www.dragracingtv.com/psca/200...eet-elims.html

Thanks for the link. Here’s what happens on that page in a brand new installation of Firefox 1.5.0.4.

Clicking Install Missing Plugins gives this result. Choosing "Click here to download plugin" results in...nothing.

Oops, not much help, eh? Choosing Manual Install only opens a new window with the same result as the first screen grab I posted.

I told you Windows Media can’t be played in Firefox without manually installing the Nestcape WM plugin because it can’t be. I just proved it.

Originally Posted by Dan Euritt

no, the absense of qt on the major video sites proves that it's not the best option for internet use... even windows media is losing ground to flash, except where drm is needed.

If you restate the argument that way, then yes, I would probably agree that QuickTime isn’t the best option, at least if you’re offering only one format.

Although one shouldn't just pick a format based purely on what a certain "big site" is using. One should check statistics, both overall player penetration, and most importantly, consider your target audience.

And in light of the rising popularity of Firefox I would say any reason Windows Media might have had as a best option would be diminishing. As far as I’m concerned if a site is only going to offer one format it should be Flash video.

[Seth Bloombaum]

Originally Posted by John Mitchell

...While only 3% of computers on the net may be Mac based let's not forget the huge creative community out there that are still overwhelmingly Mac based (especially in the area of print graphics). If you want to communicate with them it would be crazy to suggest not supplying a QT version of your product, simply because of bias...

To anyone still reading past the Christopher/Dan debate (get a life, guys!)...

John, thank you for this. I agree 100%. Many people encoding for streaming seem to be following a (platform) religion, but we do better to follow our respective markets.

Almost all of my work goes out as WMV with no consideration for Macs, but that's because my primary market is corporate - key clients that have defined installations in which a user is not allowed to install software, true-blue MS is it. Which is a good thing for them, the alternative is chaos that their internal IT tech support couldn't handle if they doubled their staff.

However, as John points out, if my work was going out to the creative community I'd be an idiot to only make WMV for them.

Rule #1 of training, advertising, marketing, media production "Understand your audience."

There is no one-size-fits-all solution, whether we're talking DIVX, h.264, Flash VP2, or whatever the latest hype oops I mean promising codec/wrapper/player is; they all have weaknesses as well as strengths. So many people ask the question "which is the best?", the real question should be "which is the best for my audience."

[Dan Euritt]

Originally Posted by Christopher Lefchik

As I just demonstrated, ignoring the NPD survey and using the best case scenario numbers for your favorite, Windows Media, we still ended up with the same result as the NPD survey.

no, you failed to notice that the data in that "survey" is probably over 6 years old, which makes it completely irrelevant to anything... you mislead everyone out here with bogus data.

Originally Posted by Christopher Lefchik

I told you Windows Media can’t be played in Firefox without manually installing the Nestcape WM plugin because it can’t be. I just proved it.

i have personally tested that page on over a dozen firefox installs with no issues at all, and i've also had a lot of people test it with firefox as well... the technology behind it is currently being used for millions of wmv streams every day.

i'd like to know what issues you are having there, but i keep thinking about how you refuse to admit that there is a problem with nero video on qt 7.0... i just don't know what to believe about anything you post.

[Dan Euritt]

Originally Posted by Jarrod Whaley

By that logic, putting up video content of any kind is "helping dell/whoever sell computers." Using WMV files is "helping MS sell windows."

the difference is that apple is desperately trying to take over podcasting with things like itunes software and web hosting for rss feeds, so it's reasonable to wonder why they refuse to support it with qt.

the term that's relevant to this discussion is vodcasting, and if it's going to move beyond the apple realm, it'll probably need windows media player rss subscription support from microsoft, at the minimum.

as i understand it, your overall points have revolved around the fact that rss is format-neutral, but my point is that there are very few vodcasts using the wmv or flash video formats... so it should never be your only source for putting video on the 'net, and it's overall penetration as a format is very minimal at best... remember that vodcasting only started happening last year.

as for the quality of archive.org bandwidth, they get it for free as a non-profit... i have dsl, and that site has never worked well for me.

Originally Posted by Jarrod Whaley

There is no such thing as "ipod video format."

for the record, go do a google search for this exact phrase: "ipod video format" ...you'll find 28,900 links, so it must be a real format for somebody :-)