I did some head to head encoding earlier pitting the Adobe Flash (CS3) Video Encoder against Wildpresenter Pro. Same codecs (VP6/MP3), same source clip, same settings for video and audio bit budgets (150 and 16 respectively), same size (360X240), no cropping, same frame rate (15), same number of keyframes (1 in 30). The source clip runs 29 seconds, a standard definition QT file with alpha channel. Flash Encoder took 51 seconds to WPP's 44. Flash file size was 1,178 kb vs 686 for WPP. On a visual quality basis WPP couldn't touch Flash, but given the file size difference that's not so surprising.
I'm not sure I understand that point of difference. Both files will require the same bandwidth for successful delivery, and both had the same freedom to create within the bit budget. Why would one "choose" to lower the quality without lowering the data rate?

David Hurdon

I am dealing with this very issue.

I am a mac lover (codecs/software/hardware), but understand the compatability needs (windows) in business- thus the flv format being more universal on all platforms.

I just wish flv had all the little quirks worked out bc it could easily cost me a job if things aren't resolved.

I used CS2 AND CS3's encoder. CS3 has made some obvious visual advances and overall feels a little more reliable, but as far as quality/results of the rendering/compression I'm not sure.

CS3's version does give you more 'settings' to pick from in a drop down menu for quality/size