Pro2 and On2 VP6? or Flix
 

Need some advice on a purchase/upgrade. I have PremierPro 1.5 and offer RealPlayer/ Wmv playback on my website. Would like to offer flash and use the On2 Vp6 codec. Looked at Flix and Sorenson, but feel Flix may better suit my needs given 1.5. -- Adobe's site isn't clear on their PremierPro 2.0 codec:
"Macromedia Flash Video export Streamline the process of encoding video and audio for your Macromedia® Flash® projects with built-in support for Flash Video export."

If it is the On2 VP6 codec, is my thinking correct in upgrading to 2.0 rather than purchasing Flix?

Also, I recall on the forum one contributor had been looking for a more professional looking powerplayer feature (hadn't been pleased with Sorenson's). If the above holds true, and any of you have Pro 2.0, are you happy with the the PowerPlayer (if it has one)? Thanks for th input.

Chris,

You would do fine with the PPro2 upgrade and native Flash export via both FLV and SWF formats directly. And yes, you can use On2 compression or the Quicktime version, it's a drop down option when exporting to Flash from PPro2.

I'm not going to say the program is flawless, I prefer not to be stoned to death... ;) but for us the upgrade was well worth the money, more so when you consider the new interface and the additional toolset.

Thanks
 

Thanks Daniel. Sounds like the best way to go.

iSquint
 

for anyone like me that are learning a ton about video compression but in the meantime needs some quick easy settings, this program kicks butt. Jiri posted about it on the first page of this thread and it's good stuff. thanks man.

-jon

I noticed that a number of posters mentioned the problem of huge file sizes when exporting QuickTime video from Premiere Pro 2.0. Yet no one seemed to be able to find a solution. I might be able to help. I discovered when exporting to the QuickTime format from Premiere Pro 1.5 that the bit rate slider is wildly inaccurate. I didn't realize this at first because the QuickTime player was reporting the bit rate in kilobytes (KB) per second, not kilobits (Kb) per second. Big difference.

I think I had to set the slider to something like 23 Kbps to get a 300 kbps file. Once that was done I found out just how horrible the quality of the QT codecs were compared to Windows Media and RealMedia. Even the Sorenson 3 codec included with Premiere Pro was horrible. I wasn't going to shell out $100 for the Sorenson Pro codec, so I pretty much gave up on QuickTime at the time. I'm now using Nero Recode 2 to generate a QuickTime compatible H.263 files, and using MakeRefMovie to hint and save the resulting .mp4 files in the .mov container. I will probably move to MPEG Streamclip, at least for QuickTime H.264 encoding (MakeRefMovie won't open large H.264 .mp4 files, for whatever reason).

I'm surprised and disappointed that apparently the QuickTime bit rate slider problem hasn't been fixed in Premiere Pro 2.0.

MPEG Streamclip is a free application that can encode very good quality H.264 video. It did a better job on moving text than did Nero Recode 2 on the file I tested it with (otherwise the two encoders had similar quality).

The QuickTime compatible setting in Nero Recode 2 is only for H.263 MPEG-4 encoding; it is not available when encoding H.264 MPEG-4 video. Yet the QuickTime player has no problem playing Nero encoded H.264 video. So it is inaccurate to claim that Apple "did not fully implement h.264 with their player."

I, too, refuse to install iTunes. However, it is entirely possible to install the QuickTime player apart from iTunes. All you have to do is download the standalone QuickTime only installer.

And it's also possible to disable the QuickTime startup task. Just open msconfig (Start>Run..., type in msconfig and click OK) and go to the Startup tab. Uncheck the "qttask" item. The qttask item does appear to be stubborn; you may have to do this procedure a few times over several reboots before the change sticks.

If that doesn't work you can always disable it using the free Windows Defender anti-spyware program.

Or, if you want to get rid of it permanently, you could just delete the qttask.exe file from the QuickTime program folder (usually at C:\Program Files\QuickTime).

i can see where you are headed, but your assumptions are wrong... at this point in time, the qt player does NOT support the Advanced Profile in the H.264 spec (including B-Frames)... that is a fact, the qt player is crippled.

you can confirm it for yourself by downloading the test clips at my website... unless something has changed recently, you will not be able to play back that nero h.264 clip with your qt player.

so the only way that your statement could be true is if nero was capable of encoding some of the h.264 lower profiles, like maybe baseline or extended... my version of nero did not have that capability, so i don't know what you are referring to.

been there, done that, the change never "sticks" for me, it will sooner or later always re-install itself as a startup task... the only sure way around it is to never use the qt player... i'm not sure that deleting the file itself will prevent the startup task from being installed into your registry.

i'm still looking for a solution to the multiple windows opening in the qt player, if you have a fix please post it, thanks.

I just downloaded the codec test .zip file from your site. I tried the wheelieAVCnero.mp4, and it opened and played perfectly in QuickTime player 7.1. The QuickTime player is certainly not "crippled," at least anymore.

What version of QuickTime did/do you have installed that wouldn't play your Nero AVC encoded clips? I know that QuickTime 6.5 wouldn't play any H.264 encoded clips. Personally, I can't recall having any problems playing Nero AVC clips in any release of QuickTime 7.x.

That's not the only way. I've disabled the qttask using the Software Explorer tool in the Windows Defender antispyware program. qttask is not checked anymore in the Startup tab in msconfig, and it isn’t listed as a running process in Windows Task Manager.

It doesn't matter. If the qttask.exe file is gone (or even renamed, which is the method I've used with the realsched.exe RealPlayer startup program), it can't be launched at startup.

I've never seen that problem, so I'm afraid I can't offer a solution. Likely some setting or file simply got corrupted, which can happen to any program. Apple has released a critical update, QuickTime 7.1, so if you haven't already updated now would be a good time, anyway. You may well be able to kill two birds with one stone by installing QuickTime 7.1: Fixing your player problem, and installing the critical update.

that's because you never tried it before:
"So obviously, all H.264 codecs play in the H.264-compatible QuickTime Player, right?
Well, no. Apple has implemented the Main Profile of H.264 into its encoders and players, as has Sorenson. However, encoded files produced with more advanced techniques, like the Advanced Simple Profile used in the Ateme Encoder featured in Nero’s line of products, won’t play in the QuickTime Player." - http://www.streamingmedia.com/r/prin...ly.asp?id=9259

i only know about it now because you pointed me towards this latest qt 7.1 update, which was released two weeks ago... since that jan ozer article is dated 3/2006, it means that apple took a year to finally implement decent h.264 support in the qt player.

i do have the qttask disabled on startup with spybot, but every time that you update qt, or even open the player, it re-installs qttask as a startup... and no, i'm not going to delete or re-name the file, because that leaves unlinked trash in the registry file... you probably won't notice it, but it's not good computing practice.

so i uninstalled the old qt 7.0, and re-installed the new 7.1 from scratch... which still didn't fix the issue with opening a new qt window every time that i click on a .dv file... i'd compare that qt player behavior on another computer, but i'm so sick of quicktime right now that i can't stand to work with it anymore :-/

That's circular reasoning on your part. I encoded H.264 Nero video long before Apple released the recent 7.1 update, and I'm sure I played it in the QuickTime player. Never had any problems. Why it worked for me and not for you is a mystery that probably won't ever be solved.

Like I said above, I've never had a problem playing Nero H.264 videos in QuickTime 7.x. Don't ask me why. I never heard there was supposed to be a problem, so I just went my oblivious merry way playing them.

It's not clear; did the 7.1 update resolve the problem you had with QuickTime playing Nero H.264 files? Can you now play Nero H.264 encoded .mp4 files in QuickTime?

I've disabled the qttask startup program with Windows Defender. I just opened and closed QuickTime and check msconfig, and qttask was not re-installed.

Maybe not, but if it works with no discernable impact on your computer health, I don't see that it should be a problem. But I have a good alternative in Windows Defender, anyway.

Ever try VLC media player?

umm, no... you couldn't have been playing nero h.264 in qt 7.0, because as i just proved, it wasn't possible with the standard qt 7.0 player configuration.

go read your qt 7.1 update summary, notice the part referencing improved h.264 support?

so now everyone has to install windows defender to correct the unruly behavior of the qt player? i think not... just don't put up web video that requires the qt player, and you'll be doing your viewers a big favor.

i would suggest that you do some research on the qt player, over at the mpeg4 doom9 forum... see how much love you can find for it over there :-) http://forum.doom9.org/forumdisplay.php?f=17

You haven't proved anything to me, as I'm pretty sure I did it. Almost all the Windows installations I take care of have been updated to QuickTime 7.1, so I can't directly test it at this time. But I'll probably update my video editing install soon, which still has QuickTime 6.5. I've got a QuickTime 7.0 installer still on my hard drive, so I could try it. We should then know what the truth of the matter is.

There's no update summary notice with my QuickTime 7.1 install. The Readme file simply says that "QuickTime 7.1 delivers numerous important bug fixes and addresses critical security issues." However, I found this page on the Apple site which says regarding H.264 that the 7.1 update delivers "H.264 performance improvements." Nothing in either document about improved H.264 support, I'm afraid.

It was just a suggestion. You're free to take it or leave it. Windows Defender offers more benefits that just startup managment.

Less choice is doing my visitors a big favor, especially since QuickTime is one of the most popular media players, next to Windows Media player? And what if they're on a Mac? I fail to see the logic in your statement.

I don't doubt there are people who hate the QuickTime player with a passion, just as there are people who feel the same way about the RealOne player. I just don't happen to belong to either camp. I’m not going to let their passion influence my choice of delivery formats for my viewers.

-Christopher

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

My vodcast uses h.264 files that are ipod-compatible. I can both subscribe to the feed and watch the files with fireant and Winamp. Both are free downloads.

In addition, I can't understand why you keep saying you need itunes to download a h.264-encoded file. Is this particular encoding scheme somehow incompatible with http, ftp, or any other common file transfer protocol?

No.

All the iPod stuff I make is mp4...

h264 doesn't even enter the picture.

h264 is mpeg-4.

Not quite, H.264 is not MP4. MP4 is a compression method, in my case it uses DivX.

MP4 is a container format that can hold video and audio streams encoded with any number of different codecs, just like the QuickTime .mov container format.

Right. I didn't realize you meant the file extension mp4. I thought you meant mpeg-4.

no? then why can't i open up a podcast link with quicktime? why am i forced to download and install special software just to see it?

you need to understand that the only reason for the existance of itunes is to sell apple products, PERIOD.

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

let me get this straight... you are "pretty sure", which means that you really don't know, and you clearly don't believe what jan ozer wrote? perhaps you think that both of us are lying to you about it?

not hardly... the popularity of media players is flash video and windows media at the top, with quicktime way down the line somewhere.

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?

No, I said pretty sure, which means I'm pretty sure, not that I don't know. Please don’t twist my words.

Just have a little patience for me to update my editing install to QuickTime 7.0, and I'll be able to test it in the here and now to your satisfaction (that is, if you're willing at all to accept evidence to the contrary of your current position).

I'm not interested in calling anyone a liar. It's just that my experience doesn't match up to yours. As for Jan Ozer, I don't recall the article saying he tried playing Nero H.264 video in QuickTime 7 himself. It was more like he was passing on information he got from an unnamed source.

Not exactly. According to this survey, Flash is at 97.7% penetration, QuickTime is 67.9%, and Windows Media is somewhere in the middle at 85% (12.7% seperates it from Flash, and 17.1% from QuickTime).

The Windows Media Player on the Mac OS has a historically spotty record in playing Windows Media content reliably. Why shouldn't I offer a choice that plays well on the Mac platform, and that 65% percent of the rest of computers on the Internet can play? What would you have me do instead? Offer RealMedia?

I think I know your answer to that question.

-Christopher

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

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.

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

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

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%.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

Quite true.

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?

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

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.

lol, that's a good one!

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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 :-)