.avi vs flv at DVinfo.net

Jeff Harper · January 21st, 2008, 03:38 AM

I am new to this board. I only recently started using flash to deliver my web content.

I have to say I do not see the advantages yet. My wmv files seemed to look as good or better than the flash, though flash starts up faster. What am I missing?

Any rendering tips? My clips are 2-4 minutes and are mixture of high-movement and low-movement.

Jeffrey Lovell · January 21st, 2008, 09:47 AM

Hi Jeff,

So what really is your question? Were you expecting your flv files to look better than your AVI or WMV?

The advantage to using flash as delivery is that you can embed the video and people can't (very easily) download your video.

The quality will be only as good as the original, but you lower that down when you select the data rate and size. I use flash for the work I do and it works fine.

Jeff

Chris Davis · January 21st, 2008, 10:31 AM

What are you using to encode the videos? What data rate are you using?

Flash loading faster is no small advantage - it's huge and the main reason I use flash video. Website visitors generally don't want to wait more than a few seconds for a video to start playing.

Prior to starting a project, I always try to determine the delivery method. If I'm delivering on the web I will shoot and edit much different than if the client wants delivery on DVD.

Jeff Harper · January 21st, 2008, 10:42 AM

Thanks guys. I expected someone in an Adobe product forum would have the answer to my post but in the meantime I researched it.

I expected the flv codecs to be superior to the wmv codecs. I have learned since my post I was wrong. The quality and file size of each are similar and pretty much likely will stay that way as they are both being constantly improved.

The advantage is streaming vs progressive download as you said Chris, thanks.

"The advantage to using flash as delivery is that you can embed the video and people can't (very easily) download your video."

Jeffrey, streaming is what makes video difficult to grab and that is what flash was made for and that is it's advantage. Streaming is what gives control over content delivery.

Embedding video is a bit dated. If you decide to consider streaming read the article below. You might consider alternatives to embedding. It does say in the article below that some of the more traditional folks find it familiar and easier to manage though there are many problems with embedding. Of course if your server doesn't support streaming then you can't use it.

http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flash/ar...wnload_02.html

January 21st, 2008, 03:38 AM	#1
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	.avi vs flv I am new to this board. I only recently started using flash to deliver my web content. I have to say I do not see the advantages yet. My wmv files seemed to look as good or better than the flash, though flash starts up faster. What am I missing? Any rendering tips? My clips are 2-4 minutes and are mixture of high-movement and low-movement.

January 21st, 2008, 09:47 AM	#2
Jeffrey Lovell Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Bloomington, IL Posts: 61	Hi Jeff, So what really is your question? Were you expecting your flv files to look better than your AVI or WMV? The advantage to using flash as delivery is that you can embed the video and people can't (very easily) download your video. The quality will be only as good as the original, but you lower that down when you select the data rate and size. I use flash for the work I do and it works fine. Jeff __________________ Created Design Video Video production for the common man

January 21st, 2008, 10:31 AM	#3
Chris Davis Trustee Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Willmar, MN Posts: 1,400	What are you using to encode the videos? What data rate are you using? Flash loading faster is no small advantage - it's huge and the main reason I use flash video. Website visitors generally don't want to wait more than a few seconds for a video to start playing. Prior to starting a project, I always try to determine the delivery method. If I'm delivering on the web I will shoot and edit much different than if the client wants delivery on DVD.

January 21st, 2008, 10:42 AM	#4
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	Thanks guys. I expected someone in an Adobe product forum would have the answer to my post but in the meantime I researched it. I expected the flv codecs to be superior to the wmv codecs. I have learned since my post I was wrong. The quality and file size of each are similar and pretty much likely will stay that way as they are both being constantly improved. The advantage is streaming vs progressive download as you said Chris, thanks. "The advantage to using flash as delivery is that you can embed the video and people can't (very easily) download your video." Jeffrey, streaming is what makes video difficult to grab and that is what flash was made for and that is it's advantage. Streaming is what gives control over content delivery. Embedding video is a bit dated. If you decide to consider streaming read the article below. You might consider alternatives to embedding. It does say in the article below that some of the more traditional folks find it familiar and easier to manage though there are many problems with embedding. Of course if your server doesn't support streaming then you can't use it. http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flash/ar...wnload_02.html