Best Video Format?

Quote:

---

Exactly. Before we switched the site over to the CMS, we had sort of a hodge podge, started with wmv, then went to mpg because some folks just dont want to use a microsoft product. And I seem to remember mac users having a lot of problems with it.

---

Yeah, You are right Mr. 69. ;) Mac users can't play the WMV files. They are only about 3% of our users, but they are usually high end and if you don't want to lose them I'd say MPG files are better.

Although now we are offering in all 3 formats, if you are going to choose one I'd say to give them the MPG but cut it into 1 - 2 minute clips. Then show them a screencap from each clip so they can download the scene they want to watch. I think this method has worked pretty well for us.

Cheers,
D.

If 1 - 2 minute clips, and 3% of the market is working for you I guess all I can say is go with it. I on the other hand will take the other 97% of the market. I really don’t think this should be a real debate at all, just look what the feed companies do WMV files are #1 by far, and who wants a 1 minute clip, talk about sexually dysfunction. Personally I like to get off with out getting my mouse all grassy or having to go though 5-10 clips first. :bush:

I don't know why people say Mac users can't use .wmv. WMP exists for Mac users but Microsoft has decided not to update it anymore. So I guess it's a moot point now. It must be retribution for Apple switching to Intel processors. :( BASTARDS!

Maxpower,

First of all we offer our videos in all 3 formats, so we get 100% of the market while you get 97%. But even if we were just offering videos in MPG format we'd still be getting 100% of the market while you get 97%. Are you fuzzy on math?

So why MPG instead of WMV?

WMV looks like shit
WMV is owned by Microsoft
WMV is not well supported for Mac users, and believe me we used to get a ton of complaints and cancellations when we did only offer our videos in WMV formats.

We have found most of our surfers don't want to see the whole videos anyways, they want to go straight to the cumshot, straight to the fucking or straight to the scene they want to watch. Plus by offering shorter clips there is less download time and the MPG's are higher quality so worth a little bit more wait. All I can say is I've been in the industry for 6 years and played around with it, and I think our retention speaks for itself.

Cheers,
D.

Quote:

---

If 1 - 2 minute clips, and 3% of the market is working for you I guess all I can say is go with it. I on the other hand will take the other 97% of the market. I really don’t think this should be a real debate at all, just look what the feed companies do WMV files are #1 by far, and who wants a 1 minute clip, talk about sexually dysfunction. Personally I like to get off with out getting my mouse all grassy or having to go though 5-10 clips first.

---

If your able to sell Asia content you must be doing something right that’s granted. I personally don’t hate Microsoft, and really don’t have any clips that are that short they really need to be buffered. I do cut most my videos up in like 5-10 minuets clips, I do agree that most people don’t want to see the whole video, in fact I have not chose to not get some feed companies content “that will remain name less” because they do not offer segments of the videos/movies. I really did not see much of any deterioration of the quality with WMV, and really most people don’t want to wait for the videos to load. In the future I might consider adding some mpeg videos or at least the option, but for now I really don’t think its worth all the time it would take to do that. I really have never had a complaint yet

You may not have gotten a complaint yet but wouldn't be surprised if you have had some cancellations. We used to get emails from surfers complaining 'your videos don't work!!!!' when we only offered WMV, and eventually we'd find out they had a Mac which was the reason why. I really hate seeing people cancel for any reason, so if there is a way you can keep them I think it's worth the extra work. Plus if the videos in your tour are only WMV they'll not join the site. You are right though that going back and redoing your old videos (especially if you have a lot like we did) is a huge bitch of a job.

Quote:

---

If your able to sell Asia content you must be doing something right that’s granted. I personally don’t hate Microsoft, and really don’t have any clips that are that short they really need to be buffered. I do cut most my videos up in like 5-10 minuets clips, I do agree that most people don’t want to see the whole video, in fact I have not chose to not get some feed companies content “that will remain name less” because they do not offer segments of the videos/movies. I really did not see much of any deterioration of the quality with WMV, and really most people don’t want to wait for the videos to load. In the future I might consider adding some mpeg videos or at least the option, but for now I really don’t think its worth all the time it would take to do that. I really have never had a complaint yet

---

Ya eventually I will have to do that, I really never get any complaints of any kind in fact I kinda wish I did. At least if I got complaints I would know there was a problem, I even ask for feedback from members, but no one have even contacted me about anything yet. I really hate to lose any members too, right now I am thinking about adding a poll to my site to find out what they are thinking about some of this stuff. It really would take me along time to change all the videos I have, I am only one person after all, so will wait to see about this one. One day I will do that for sure, really I want to turn some of my site into a feed company in the future.

my wmvs don't look like shit, nor do many others. just encode them at higher quality at same size as the original video, and voila! they look as good as any format.

and yes, mac users can use a player to watch wmvs, although originally they were sol.

this looks exactly - and i mean EXACTLY - like the uncompressed avi
http://www.manofmuscle.com/lon_chunk_1.wmv

the main difference to me with wmvs - assuming you don't encode them at a poor quality or low bitrate - is that the viewers aren't forced to download the entire video to watch it.

most sites out there i see with wmv's stream 'em at around 347k (i see 347k on a lot of gay sites especially - don't know why). well, of COURSE they look like shit! if they would encode 'em at 500 or better for a 320x240 and 768 or over for bigger, they would look just fine. but some webmasters are too afraid of bandwidth bills so they give their members bad-looking video.

want to see the KING of wmvs? go to http://www.brookeskye.com and watch the ULTRA HD clip. you'll find the link under the player on the right. HD is some exciting stuff!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dannyz

Maxpower,

First of all we offer our videos in all 3 formats, so we get 100% of the market while you get 97%. But even if we were just offering videos in MPG format we'd still be getting 100% of the market while you get 97%. Are you fuzzy on math?

So why MPG instead of WMV?

WMV looks like shit
WMV is owned by Microsoft
WMV is not well supported for Mac users, and believe me we used to get a ton of complaints and cancellations when we did only offer our videos in WMV formats.

We have found most of our surfers don't want to see the whole videos anyways, they want to go straight to the cumshot, straight to the fucking or straight to the scene they want to watch. Plus by offering shorter clips there is less download time and the MPG's are higher quality so worth a little bit more wait. All I can say is I've been in the industry for 6 years and played around with it, and I think our retention speaks for itself.

Cheers,
D.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by basschick

my wmvs don't look like shit, nor do many others. just encode them at higher quality at same size as the original video, and voila! they look as good as any format.

and yes, mac users can use a player to watch wmvs, although originally they were sol.

this looks exactly - and i mean EXACTLY - like the uncompressed avi
http://www.manofmuscle.com/lon_chunk_1.wmv

the main difference to me with wmvs - assuming you don't encode them at a poor quality or low bitrate - is that the viewers aren't forced to download the entire video to watch it.

most sites out there i see with wmv's stream 'em at around 347k (i see 347k on a lot of gay sites especially - don't know why). well, of COURSE they look like shit! if they would encode 'em at 500 or better for a 320x240 and 768 or over for bigger, they would look just fine. but some webmasters are too afraid of bandwidth bills so they give their members bad-looking video.

want to see the KING of wmvs? go to http://www.brookeskye.com and watch the ULTRA HD clip. you'll find the link under the player on the right. HD is some exciting stuff!

---

:yeah: Well said

This is all excellent info folks, thanks so much for taking the time to do such detailed responses so far!

BassChick,

I guess I haven't dealt with WMV files myself in awhile so may be behind the times LOL. Thanks for all the info. As for Mac users, I think most don't have the player for that, at least my boyfriend doesn't and he uses a Mac. Do you know what the player's name is? He'd be happy if I can download that for him LOL.

Cheers,
D.

Quote:

---

my wmvs don't look like shit, nor do many others. just encode them at higher quality at same size as the original video, and voila! they look as good as any format.

and yes, mac users can use a player to watch wmvs, although originally they were sol.

this looks exactly - and i mean EXACTLY - like the uncompressed avi
http://www.manofmuscle.com/lon_chunk_1.wmv

the main difference to me with wmvs - assuming you don't encode them at a poor quality or low bitrate - is that the viewers aren't forced to download the entire video to watch it.

most sites out there i see with wmv's stream 'em at around 347k (i see 347k on a lot of gay sites especially - don't know why). well, of COURSE they look like shit! if they would encode 'em at 500 or better for a 320x240 and 768 or over for bigger, they would look just fine. but some webmasters are too afraid of bandwidth bills so they give their members bad-looking video.

want to see the KING of wmvs? go to http://www.brookeskye.com and watch the ULTRA HD clip. you'll find the link under the player on the right. HD is some exciting stuff!

---

ahhh just did a search and found it:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/win...x/default.aspx

I'm glad to know Microsoft is doing something right. Well, I guess WMV has improved since I worked with them LOL.