Printable View
Okay, I'm still at odds as to what format I want to post videos on my website in. Can anyone give me suggestions as to what you believe would be the best route to go and the pros and cons of them.
I already have the software to publish the content in most major formats. I'm just not sure which one I should use.
Your input would be great.
-Ben
Every survey I have ever seen says the preferred format for surfers is WMV. But they also prefer having options. So offer your video in WMV, QuickTime and Flash Video. Offer all as downloadable or streaming. Go for a couple of different quality levels either. Don't bother with anything less than 640 x 480 @ 1000kbps except for maybe a low quality stream. Your members will love you.
if you're going with a single format, WMV gets it every time. it's self-streaming and most people can watch it. i'm always happy to see it inside a site.
i would think that flash would be the best format for everyone ? seeing as how flash is available on all platforms and is as small as WMV files ? when compressed correctly etc..
The problem is that with Flash, people with dial up frequently have issues. Its fine for banners, but with 5 or 6 minute clips it seems to choke on people!
It's not really about what's best for people. It's more about what people expect when they join a website. You have to give them what they want. I think Flash Video is an excellent format. But you'd be crazy not to offer WMV if you were only going with one format.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickey
but flash isn't really a format for people to download - members do love to download movies - and it also doesn't usually look as good as a good quality wmv.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mickey
Id disagree, Flash for banners sucks these days because it adds an extra click before the surfer even hits our sites.Quote:
Originally Posted by shaun
Regards,
Lee
so for download you would go with WMV ..
for streamiing - still WMV or would you go for flash there ?
Streaming with WMV is the simplest and least expensive of the streaming services - I can post a WMV for streaming in seconds on our delivery network (both live and on-demand) - Flash is a little pricier due to licensing issues, and carries a little more overhead. Flash streaming is a 'sexy' format right now, but I agree with basschick, that the quality isn't as good in Flash on comparable bitrates.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickey
Oddly, the experience with our customers is that QT is somewhat preferred for downloads, since it goes cross platform between iPods and PCs as well - but for streaming, the most stable, consistent, format seems to be WM right now with our customers.
The new H.264 video format, which is Quicktime compatible, delivers about twice the quality of Windows Media or Flash for the same bandwidth. So you can, for example, put up a 500K H.264 stream and it will look every bit as good as a 1K Windows Media or Flash format. So for now, at least, it's a total win for everyone. It's also playable by just about every player out there.... except Windows Media, of course, because Micro$oft doesn't like competition.
WM is still the market leader, but I suspect the improvements Adobe is working on to Flash, and the H.264 codec will start to seriously erode that lead.
but quicktime player still takes longer to open and in order to stream a quicktime movie, you have to pay for streaming software. or do new quicktime movies now self-stream? i hadn't heard they do.
also i wait a long time before offering movies with a new codec as a lot of people have a 1 year old computer and don't like to download just to watch what is in the member area. and i hate getting tons of "the video won't play!" emails ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by gaybucks_chip
Is H.264 streamed via Darwin/QT or does it require a different streaming server?Quote:
Originally Posted by gaybucks_chip
Any sites you can reference in our biz that are using it?
Wow...Lot's of help for me after I get off work. lol.
So from what I can see (correct me if I'm wrong here) WMV is pretty much a hands down must since I'm going to be streaming videos since Flash has inherent downfalls with bitrates and load times. As far as videos for downloading go, however, it's best to offer at least two formats (ie WMV and Quicktime) so that surfers can choose based on what they wish to do with it.
Maybe if Flash and Quicktime pick it up, they would be better candidates for streaming in the future, right?
Thanks,
Ben
I must disagree with the criticisms of flash as a format for streaming. If any of you guys ever get a chance, get inside the Sapphic Erotica website. That's pretty much the bar you should be measuring your member's area against; gay, straight or otherwise. The flash videos there (which can be streamed or downloaded, by the way) never gave me any issues at all when streaming.
But like I said before: you simply must offer WMV. Your members will expect it. Preferably, offer them WMV, QuickTime and Flash. Offer them multiple bit rates, clip format and full-length files. Make sure your content can be downloaded using a download manager as well.
Also, porn users are becoming more and more savvy every day. It might make sense to use a video with a lower bit rate and a similar level of quality, but you should also offer the WMV file. Surfers are starting to realise that the higher the bit rate is, the better the videos are. That's why many sites that are now offering high quality videos are mentioning the specs on the tours, particularly the "HD" sites. The silvercash sites are all encoded at 1995kbps. The Perfect Gonzo sites are about 3000kbps. Most of the topbucks sites offer videos that are 2600kbps. So you need to have those high bit rates available so you can use it as a marketing gimmick. Surfers are getting more savvy, but not so savvy as to realise that 1000kbps in one format is as good, if not better than 2000kbps in another format. Offer both.
WMV is the winner as it's close to universal and a single link allows both streaming and downloads for each movie.
you can stream quicktime or flash now, but you have to pay for and set up stuff in your server, and last i checked, you pay different amounts depending on how many people you want to be able to stream the movies simultaneously.
you could offer a downloadable quicktime or mpg version of each movie for those few who can't watch WMVs. or you could simply make sure your trailers are WMVs - anyone who can't watch them probably won't join...
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyLifeUncut
What about AVI files. Is it really worth putting up AVI files to let members download or would that just be a waste of time and space?
Or you could do it the easy way and offload delivery from your servers to a content delivery network, and just pay for the data transferred. Let them handle the Flash or QT licensing, equip, delivery included in the price per GB.Quote:
Originally Posted by basschick
Which we will be doing VERY soon
which takes control of your content away from you.
if you have a good price on bandwidth, WMV is popular and many sites do great. i'd go with MPG or Quicktime before AVI myself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ccjax
Thank y'all for your help. I think I've figured out what I'll do for my formats.
As far as webcams go, though, what would be the best route to go there? I know WME is free, but I don't really like how much of a delay there is there. Are there any other options that aren't going to break the bank with less of a delay?
why not offering both wmv and flash streaming?
for those who say flash streaming is not a viable option: watch youtube's growth.
Let's not forget that YouTube is made up of Flash videos and they seem to be doing pretty good. ;)
That's a common misconception. With a CDN, the content can either be uploaded to an FTP site for propagation (just like your webserver) or it can be pulled from your server and delivered via the network.The original remains on your server and you retain complete control of your content.Quote:
Originally Posted by basschick
And a note on YouTube - their videos are Flash progressive download, not Flash streaming. The video is cached on the user's system.
it's not a misconception at all. if their network goes down and your site is up, you have no videos. if they choose to change to a streaming solution that lowers the visible quality of the videos, your videos will look lower quality. if they choose to overcharge for delivery, you will pay more. if their servers get overloaded, your videos will be delivered more slowly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ccjax
A good streaming network/CDN has extreme redundancy that prevents the entire network from becoming unavailable. There is more chance of a site going down than an entire delivery network going down.Quote:
Originally Posted by basschick
Same could happen with hosting companies without contracts and complete reporting to ensure pricing.Quote:
Originally Posted by basschick
Again, same could happen with a hosting company, but with choosing wisely, most CDNs have fully distributed networks capable of handling thousands of simultaneous viewers.Quote:
Originally Posted by basschick
All CDNs are not all alike, as all hosts are not all the same.
Got to agree with ccjax on this one regarding CDNs. All the WildCash content is now delivered via a CDN with multiple servers across both Europe and the US. There is a huge level of redundancy because of this. Plus the benefits for members of your sites is great because they'll automatically be directed to the closest, fastest path to the content.