subject:"\[videoblogging\] Re\: flash video"

Thanks for all of your responces since I originally posted this question.

I guess my real question was why not use flash to publish a video using a .swf 
file?

I thought 80 - 90% of the computers had the flash plug in in their browser to 
play a swf 
file. Would this not be easier than having to save your video file in so many 
different 
versions so everyone can play what you post, in one post?

Daryl

Re: [videoblogging] re: flash video

Daryl,

Some other people like will give you different and probably better  
answers about why people use anything other than Flash, and views  
about quality/downloadability versus streaming, etc.

I'll stick to the Flash version / compatibility thing because I  
happen to have the numbers to hand.

It's true that most people have *A* version of Flash - but it's a  
question of what version and how techie your audience are.

Adobe say 98% of computers have Flash player.

Something like 90-95% worldwide have Flash 7, which is what YouTube  
plays on, but it uses an old compression format and isn't very good  
quality.  So a lot of people might like to provide a higher quality  
(say Quicktime) alternative if streaming with Flash 7.

Flash 8 and the new Flash 9 offer *much* better quality, but far  
fewer people in the general population have them.  Flash 9 has only  
56% penetration in 'Mature Markets' (rich countries).  That's less  
than Quicktime or Windows Media Player or even Real.
See:
http://www.adobe.com/products/player_census/flashplayer/ 
version_penetration.html
and http://www.adobe.com/products/player_census/flashplayer/
(These are optimistic, and I think they've made a mistake in their  
Emerging Markets Flash 9 figure)

To use a Blip.tv video, a lot of people will have to download an  
updated player - and even though it's only a couple of meg, it's too  
much for many non techie people.  I'm amazed how many of my family  
and friends (in their 30s!) call me up and say It tells me I need  
Flash 9 player, so I couldn't see it. or You'll have to install it  
next time you're round.  The phone call has involved more time and  
effort than clicking the link to install Flash 9, but they don't know  
that.  They're used to clicking a YouTube link and seeing the video,  
no effort.

Giving all the formats means you widen the options for your  
audience.   Just one reason to do this is so that they can set an  
aggregator such as iTunes to download high quality QT files and use  
them in things like iPods.  I watch most vlogs on an iPod at the  
moment, travelling between clients on the tube and bus.  (No doubt  
I'll soon get mugged.)  It's possible to convert a flv file to iPod  
and transfer it, but too much hassle.  This way, they just come in  
automatically.

By using a program like VisualHub, you can do multiple format  
conversions, upload them to Blip (who let you upload multiple  
versions) and give your audience the choice.  Then, if you see some  
formats are not getting enough hits to justify the effort, stop  
providing them.

Rupert

Rupert
http://www.fatgirlinohio.org
http://www.crowdabout.us/fatgirlinohio/myshow/


On 15 Mar 2007, at 13:19, Daryl Urig wrote:

Thanks for all of your responces since I originally posted this  
question.

I guess my real question was why not use flash to publish a video  
using a .swf file?

I thought 80 - 90% of the computers had the flash plug in in their  
browser to play a swf
file. Would this not be easier than having to save your video file in  
so many different
versions so everyone can play what you post, in one post?

Daryl






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[videoblogging] re: flash video

Rupert, thanks for comments.

With flash you can add navigation buttons if you want to have a little more 
than a video, 
you can have an interactive video. Also, with flash you can save out a 
quicktime and still 
have some of the navigation capabilaties.

Coming from a flash perspective, as I am, what kind of file formats would you 
make 
available on your vblog site to keep the most viewers happy?

I am working on a mac so would probably use Imovie to to video editing, and 
also have pc 
accessability.

Daryl

Fwd: [videoblogging] re: flash video

Daryl,

I think, in the end, everyone agrees that Flash keeps most viewers  
happy.  And i agree about the advanced features it offers - I have  
already professed my love for the buttons they've built into their  
flash players over at http://crowdabout.us and I think there's room  
for a whole lot more where that comes from.

I also work on a Mac, so I'd say to you that it's easier to provide  
Quicktime and FLV - I just output in Quicktime and send it to Blip.tv  
who convert it to a flv file automatically.  They also allow an  
automated cross-posting over to your blog with both formats linked.   
I want to make them available as wmv as well, but haven't got round  
to it.  But then I only post about once a month, and mainly for my  
friends and family, and although I still get a few hundred passersby  
from somewhere or other, it's not a big deal.  If it were my business  
or if I were trying to get a big audience, I'd probably make the  
effort to provide all sorts of formats including 3gp like Rocketboom  
 Galacticast and many more.

Rupert

Rupert
http://www.fatgirlinohio.org
http://www.crowdabout.us/fatgirlinohio/myshow/


On 15 Mar 2007, at 15:27, Daryl Urig wrote:

Rupert, thanks for comments.

With flash you can add navigation buttons if you want to have a  
little more than a video,
you can have an interactive video. Also, with flash you can save out  
a quicktime and still
have some of the navigation capabilaties.

Coming from a flash perspective, as I am, what kind of file formats  
would you make
available on your vblog site to keep the most viewers happy?

I am working on a mac so would probably use Imovie to to video  
editing, and also have pc
accessability.

Daryl





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[videoblogging] Re: flash video

2007-03-15 Thread caroosky

Hi Daryl,
I know this conversation has kind of gotten far afield of the original
question, but most of it is relevant to some degree or another.  As a
content creator, I prefer Flash .flv because of the additional
flexibility it gives me in using so many other services that support
flash video.  But as a consumer of video online, I just want what I
want, when I want it, without hassle.  So, knowing that this is the
attitude of everyone who encounters my content, I do try to provide
multiple formats so that I can capture as many new people as possible.
 BUt among the formats I offer for my vlog through blip.tv (which will
host the original version, as well as a flash version, if you set it
to) I usually upload an mp4, and ALWAYS have them transcode it and
offer the .flv as well.  Blip.tv will cross-post to my vlog, and they
use a flash player (swf) to play my video (.flv) so it is pretty
no-hassle.  Unless you have people, like Rupert mentioned, who are
hesitant to update Flash Player on their computers...Mom, are you
reading this???

Carter
http://crowdabout.us




--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Daryl,
 
 Some other people like will give you different and probably better  
 answers about why people use anything other than Flash, and views  
 about quality/downloadability versus streaming, etc.
 
 I'll stick to the Flash version / compatibility thing because I  
 happen to have the numbers to hand.
 
 It's true that most people have *A* version of Flash - but it's a  
 question of what version and how techie your audience are.
 
 Adobe say 98% of computers have Flash player.
 
 Something like 90-95% worldwide have Flash 7, which is what YouTube  
 plays on, but it uses an old compression format and isn't very good  
 quality.  So a lot of people might like to provide a higher quality  
 (say Quicktime) alternative if streaming with Flash 7.
 
 Flash 8 and the new Flash 9 offer *much* better quality, but far  
 fewer people in the general population have them.  Flash 9 has only  
 56% penetration in 'Mature Markets' (rich countries).  That's less  
 than Quicktime or Windows Media Player or even Real.
 See:
 http://www.adobe.com/products/player_census/flashplayer/ 
 version_penetration.html
 and http://www.adobe.com/products/player_census/flashplayer/
 (These are optimistic, and I think they've made a mistake in their  
 Emerging Markets Flash 9 figure)
 
 To use a Blip.tv video, a lot of people will have to download an  
 updated player - and even though it's only a couple of meg, it's too  
 much for many non techie people.  I'm amazed how many of my family  
 and friends (in their 30s!) call me up and say It tells me I need  
 Flash 9 player, so I couldn't see it. or You'll have to install it  
 next time you're round.  The phone call has involved more time and  
 effort than clicking the link to install Flash 9, but they don't know  
 that.  They're used to clicking a YouTube link and seeing the video,  
 no effort.
 
 Giving all the formats means you widen the options for your  
 audience.   Just one reason to do this is so that they can set an  
 aggregator such as iTunes to download high quality QT files and use  
 them in things like iPods.  I watch most vlogs on an iPod at the  
 moment, travelling between clients on the tube and bus.  (No doubt  
 I'll soon get mugged.)  It's possible to convert a flv file to iPod  
 and transfer it, but too much hassle.  This way, they just come in  
 automatically.
 
 By using a program like VisualHub, you can do multiple format  
 conversions, upload them to Blip (who let you upload multiple  
 versions) and give your audience the choice.  Then, if you see some  
 formats are not getting enough hits to justify the effort, stop  
 providing them.
 
 Rupert
 
 Rupert
 http://www.fatgirlinohio.org
 http://www.crowdabout.us/fatgirlinohio/myshow/
 
 
 On 15 Mar 2007, at 13:19, Daryl Urig wrote:
 
 Thanks for all of your responces since I originally posted this  
 question.
 
 I guess my real question was why not use flash to publish a video  
 using a .swf file?
 
 I thought 80 - 90% of the computers had the flash plug in in their  
 browser to play a swf
 file. Would this not be easier than having to save your video file in  
 so many different
 versions so everyone can play what you post, in one post?
 
 Daryl
 
 
 
 
 
 
 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[videoblogging] Re: flash video

2007-03-15 Thread humancloner1997

Daryl, you mention that you would also have pc accessability while 
working with flash.  Would the new Mac with the Intel chip that can 
run Windows qualify as pc accessability.
I'm planning on buying a second computer.  I considered a good pc but 
then decided the new Mac with the Intel chip would work just as 
well.  I edit with iMovie but like programs like Microsoft Word in 
the PC.  However, since switching to Mac, I view the PC as a slowly 
dying dinosaur.
Is there any reason I should consider getting a top of the line pc 
instead of a new Intel Mac?  Money is not an important 
consideration.  I never worked with video on a PC because my old PC 
didn't have the strength.

Randolfe (Randy) Wicker

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Daryl Urig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Rupert, thanks for comments.
 
 With flash you can add navigation buttons if you want to have a 
little more than a video, 
 you can have an interactive video. Also, with flash you can save 
out a quicktime and still 
 have some of the navigation capabilaties.
 
 Coming from a flash perspective, as I am, what kind of file formats 
would you make 
 available on your vblog site to keep the most viewers happy?
 
 I am working on a mac so would probably use Imovie to to video 
editing, and also have pc 
 accessability.
 
 Daryl

Re: [videoblogging] Re: flash video

Randy,
I'm a Mac fan and have both PC  Macs (PowerPC G4 x2).  One of my  
many freelancing jobs is helping people sort out their computer  
problems.  I don't think the PC is a slowly dying dinosaur.  PCs are  
here to stay because people like what they know.  You could look at  
Mac's transition to Intel as a slow convergence towards a world of  
oneness where both exist together in a compatible PC world.   Macs  
are now really just smart-looking high-spec PCs, with a slightly  
different OS.  Vista has learnt from and copied OS X in its  
appearance and functionality.The next computer I'm going to buy  
is not a Mac - I've had too many hard drive failures on my G4s and my  
iPod to love Apple hardware any more.  It's all about features.  I  
have all the design and editing software I need on Mac already, but  
what I want from PC is Windows Media Center - integrated TV, HDR,  
Video on demand, Podcasting, RSS, Music, blah blah blah.  This is  
traditional Mac territory, but Vista has done it better this time.   
Apple TV is seriously short on features.

Rupert
http://www.fatgirlinohio.org
http://www.crowdabout.us/fatgirlinohio/myshow/




On 15 Mar 2007, at 17:39, humancloner1997 wrote:

Daryl, you mention that you would also have pc accessability while
working with flash. Would the new Mac with the Intel chip that can
run Windows qualify as pc accessability.
I'm planning on buying a second computer. I considered a good pc but
then decided the new Mac with the Intel chip would work just as
well. I edit with iMovie but like programs like Microsoft Word in
the PC. However, since switching to Mac, I view the PC as a slowly
dying dinosaur.
Is there any reason I should consider getting a top of the line pc
instead of a new Intel Mac? Money is not an important
consideration. I never worked with video on a PC because my old PC
didn't have the strength.

Randolfe (Randy) Wicker

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Daryl Urig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  Rupert, thanks for comments.
 
  With flash you can add navigation buttons if you want to have a
little more than a video,
  you can have an interactive video. Also, with flash you can save
out a quicktime and still
  have some of the navigation capabilaties.
 
  Coming from a flash perspective, as I am, what kind of file formats
would you make
  available on your vblog site to keep the most viewers happy?
 
  I am working on a mac so would probably use Imovie to to video
editing, and also have pc
  accessability.
 
  Daryl
 






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[videoblogging] Re: flash video

Reasons people in general would buy a PC:

Cost (I know its not an issue for you but its a large reason that the
PC isnt dying out significantly, and that most people I know dont even
look at a Mac before buying a PC)

3D gamers probably want better graphics cards than most Macs dont have

Certain other specific hardware may not run on Mac

They havent seen or dont like OS X, or they dont know that windows
works on Intel macs.

They dont like Apple for some other reason, or there just doesnt seem
to be a Mac with the right spec for them available.

For your needs it sounds like a Mac would be a great fit. Parallels
desktop will run things like Word very nicely, and if you needed
higher performance for video editing or games or something, then
Bootcamp works well. The Intel Macs are effectively at least 90%
standard PC hardware so the performance should be about the same as an
equivalently spec'd PC. Even Vista works mostly fine on the Macbooks,
just have to fiddle about with drivers a bit and it really helps if
you bung at least 2GB of RAM in whatever Mac you get.  

Did you ever see the demo Michael Verdi (I think) did of Parallels
feature where you can have Windows programs appear in windows as if
they were within OSX, with things like dragdrop working. Its wild and
really starts to blur the lines.

Maybe a good idea to wait till Leopard comes out before buying a new
Mac, as I dont think it can be very far away now? Not that Leopard
seems to have any 'killer' must-have features from what Ive seen, but
inevitably software that needs Leopard will appear at some point.

Cheers

Steve Elbows

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, humancloner1997 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

 Daryl, you mention that you would also have pc accessability while 
 working with flash.  Would the new Mac with the Intel chip that can 
 run Windows qualify as pc accessability.
 I'm planning on buying a second computer.  I considered a good pc but 
 then decided the new Mac with the Intel chip would work just as 
 well.  I edit with iMovie but like programs like Microsoft Word in 
 the PC.  However, since switching to Mac, I view the PC as a slowly 
 dying dinosaur.
 Is there any reason I should consider getting a top of the line pc 
 instead of a new Intel Mac?  Money is not an important 
 consideration.  I never worked with video on a PC because my old PC 
 didn't have the strength.
 
 Randolfe (Randy) Wicker

[videoblogging] Re: flash video

I dont think the PC is dying either. Its not impossible that Windows
could die one day in the future, but as you pointed out, the Mac is
mostly PC hardware these days. The ever changing set of standards for
different bits that make up PC hardware, and make it 'PC compatible'
is not going anywhere from what I can see.

Here in the UK Apple had hardly any presence or market share or even
brand awareness, until the last few years (eg they opened the second
UK apple store just under 2 years ago). Until I got into VJing I didnt
know anybody at all with a Mac. Now I have 3 Macs, and one reason for
this is that I love how quiet they are. I love my macbook because it
has no fans on the base, but then again maybe Apple products dont
always live as long as PCs because Apple have different thermal
standards maybe? Just speculation, My oldest Mac is not 2 years old
yet and Ive been blessed with no failures so far, but they will
certainly be harder to salvage when something goes wrong than the
average PC.

So anyways Im interested in Ruperts opinions of the Windows Media
Center thang, why he thinks it is right. I havent tried it much but I
was under the impression it was mostly compatible with wmv,a nd
whatever microsofts format is for recording digital tv. So I assumed
media of other formats has to be converted to be watched, which is an
instant turnoff for me. Have I got this detail all wrong?

I dont think a comparison between a computer with windows media center
on it, and Apple TV, is comparing like for like. The equivalent Apple
thing would be a full mac computer (eg mac mini) with front-row on it,
and the Apple TV is more like what Microsoft promote as 'windows media
center extenders'. These are devices such as the Xbox360 that are
connected to the TV and can play media that is stored on the Windows
Media Center computer, via network. Although I think they need to
stream it live, wheras the Apple TV has a hard drive?

Still at the end of the day personally it comes back to how loud the
hardware is, and what formats it can support. As I got on quite well
with eyeTV for recording, id probably get a mac mini, use eye-tv,
itunes  frontrow on it, and then use VLC to support more formats.
Granted this is still too fiddley as only frontrow really has the
right UI designed for distance TV use, but even if I went for a PC
solution I think Id end up looking for 3rd party stuff I guess, to
deal with format issues. Remote control is another issue, I think I
prefer Apples simplistic approach, although it has limitations. Been
experimenting with getting Wii remote to work with computers, seems
more stable  flexible on PC than Mac at the moment unfortunately, but
really enhances the possibilities of what interaction if feasible from
a distance with a remote, great stuff, and makes a full-blown computer
with net surfing etc as well as media playback, an attractive thing to
connect to a tv. Its a shame the Wii itself doesnt handle a wider
range of media and have some nice storage options, as its dead quiet,
probably doesnt use too much power, is small and the remote rocks. The
web browser for it is interesting and the news/weather aggregators are
very nice ways to interact with  watch data from a distance. Youtube
works on it (flash 7 in browser) but thats about the only commonly
used vlog format I think I can watch on the Wii.

Cheers

Steve Elbows

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Randy,
 I'm a Mac fan and have both PC  Macs (PowerPC G4 x2).  One of my  
 many freelancing jobs is helping people sort out their computer  
 problems.  I don't think the PC is a slowly dying dinosaur.  PCs are  
 here to stay because people like what they know.  You could look at  
 Mac's transition to Intel as a slow convergence towards a world of  
 oneness where both exist together in a compatible PC world.   Macs  
 are now really just smart-looking high-spec PCs, with a slightly  
 different OS.  Vista has learnt from and copied OS X in its  
 appearance and functionality.The next computer I'm going to buy  
 is not a Mac - I've had too many hard drive failures on my G4s and my  
 iPod to love Apple hardware any more.  It's all about features.  I  
 have all the design and editing software I need on Mac already, but  
 what I want from PC is Windows Media Center - integrated TV, HDR,  
 Video on demand, Podcasting, RSS, Music, blah blah blah.  This is  
 traditional Mac territory, but Vista has done it better this time.   
 Apple TV is seriously short on features.
 
 Rupert
 http://www.fatgirlinohio.org
 http://www.crowdabout.us/fatgirlinohio/myshow/
 
 
 
 
 On 15 Mar 2007, at 17:39, humancloner1997 wrote:
 
 Daryl, you mention that you would also have pc accessability while
 working with flash. Would the new Mac with the Intel chip that can
 run Windows qualify as pc accessability.
 I'm planning on buying a second computer. I considered a good pc but
 then decided the new Mac with the Intel chip

[videoblogging] Re: flash video

2007-03-15 Thread humancloner1997

Wow, just when I thought I'd finally reached a decision, you have 
totally changed everything.  I started with Mac OX Tiger.  In the 
past, I've had two crashes with Windows that were time consuming and 
expensive and disastrous.
I'm thinking about starting a podcast because I like interviewing.  
I've also been interested in the discussion about the Windows media 
center, watching vlogs on the TV, etc.
Is there a resource on the Internet that really discusses the Vista 
versus Mac features in greater detail?
Thanks for the quick response and helpful observations.

Randolfe (Randy) Wicker

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Randy,
 I'm a Mac fan and have both PC  Macs (PowerPC G4 x2).  One of my  
 many freelancing jobs is helping people sort out their computer  
 problems.  I don't think the PC is a slowly dying dinosaur.  PCs 
are  
 here to stay because people like what they know.  You could look 
at  
 Mac's transition to Intel as a slow convergence towards a world of  
 oneness where both exist together in a compatible PC world.   Macs  
 are now really just smart-looking high-spec PCs, with a slightly  
 different OS.  Vista has learnt from and copied OS X in its  
 appearance and functionality.The next computer I'm going to 
buy  
 is not a Mac - I've had too many hard drive failures on my G4s and 
my  
 iPod to love Apple hardware any more.  It's all about features.  I  
 have all the design and editing software I need on Mac already, 
but  
 what I want from PC is Windows Media Center - integrated TV, HDR,  
 Video on demand, Podcasting, RSS, Music, blah blah blah.  This is  
 traditional Mac territory, but Vista has done it better this 
time.   
 Apple TV is seriously short on features.
 
 Rupert
 http://www.fatgirlinohio.org
 http://www.crowdabout.us/fatgirlinohio/myshow/
 
 
 
 
 On 15 Mar 2007, at 17:39, humancloner1997 wrote:
 
 Daryl, you mention that you would also have pc accessability while
 working with flash. Would the new Mac with the Intel chip that can
 run Windows qualify as pc accessability.
 I'm planning on buying a second computer. I considered a good pc but
 then decided the new Mac with the Intel chip would work just as
 well. I edit with iMovie but like programs like Microsoft Word in
 the PC. However, since switching to Mac, I view the PC as a slowly
 dying dinosaur.
 Is there any reason I should consider getting a top of the line pc
 instead of a new Intel Mac? Money is not an important
 consideration. I never worked with video on a PC because my old PC
 didn't have the strength.
 
 Randolfe (Randy) Wicker
 
 --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Daryl Urig daryl@ wrote:
  
   Rupert, thanks for comments.
  
   With flash you can add navigation buttons if you want to have a
 little more than a video,
   you can have an interactive video. Also, with flash you can save
 out a quicktime and still
   have some of the navigation capabilaties.
  
   Coming from a flash perspective, as I am, what kind of file 
formats
 would you make
   available on your vblog site to keep the most viewers happy?
  
   I am working on a mac so would probably use Imovie to to video
 editing, and also have pc
   accessability.
  
   Daryl
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[videoblogging] Re: flash video

2007-03-15 Thread humancloner1997

Thanks Steve, I find what you say especially fascinating.  I just 
wonder how far off is the new Leopard Mac?  My current Mac Tiger has 
two internal 500 GB hard drives, one external 1000 GB (terabyte?) 
drive and room for one more 1000 GB drive.  I really don't have to 
worry about space since I can always find some stuff to put back on 
tape.
I have been reading comments about Vista.  Most focused on Vista's 
requirement for room.  I'll watch Verdi's video.  A friend of a 
friend got Parallel  had trouble with it.  When he contacted Apple, 
even though it was/is advertised on their site (in a sidebar), they 
claim it is not their product and wouldn't help him with it. That 
was a surprise to me and a bit disappointing.

Randolfe (Randy) Wicker
Hoboken, NJ 07030
www.RandyWickerReporting.blogspot.com 

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 Reasons people in general would buy a PC:
 
 Cost (I know its not an issue for you but its a large reason that 
the
 PC isnt dying out significantly, and that most people I know dont 
even
 look at a Mac before buying a PC)
 
 3D gamers probably want better graphics cards than most Macs dont 
have
 
 Certain other specific hardware may not run on Mac
 
 They havent seen or dont like OS X, or they dont know that windows
 works on Intel macs.
 
 They dont like Apple for some other reason, or there just doesnt 
seem
 to be a Mac with the right spec for them available.
 
 For your needs it sounds like a Mac would be a great fit. Parallels
 desktop will run things like Word very nicely, and if you needed
 higher performance for video editing or games or something, then
 Bootcamp works well. The Intel Macs are effectively at least 90%
 standard PC hardware so the performance should be about the same as 
an
 equivalently spec'd PC. Even Vista works mostly fine on the 
Macbooks,
 just have to fiddle about with drivers a bit and it really helps if
 you bung at least 2GB of RAM in whatever Mac you get.  
 
 Did you ever see the demo Michael Verdi (I think) did of Parallels
 feature where you can have Windows programs appear in windows as if
 they were within OSX, with things like dragdrop working. Its wild 
and
 really starts to blur the lines.
 
 Maybe a good idea to wait till Leopard comes out before buying a new
 Mac, as I dont think it can be very far away now? Not that Leopard
 seems to have any 'killer' must-have features from what Ive seen, 
but
 inevitably software that needs Leopard will appear at some point.
 
 Cheers
 
 Steve Elbows
 
 --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, humancloner1997 rhwicker@
 wrote:
 
  Daryl, you mention that you would also have pc accessability 
while 
  working with flash.  Would the new Mac with the Intel chip that 
can 
  run Windows qualify as pc accessability.
  I'm planning on buying a second computer.  I considered a good pc 
but 
  then decided the new Mac with the Intel chip would work just as 
  well.  I edit with iMovie but like programs like Microsoft Word 
in 
  the PC.  However, since switching to Mac, I view the PC as a 
slowly 
  dying dinosaur.
  Is there any reason I should consider getting a top of the line 
pc 
  instead of a new Intel Mac?  Money is not an important 
  consideration.  I never worked with video on a PC because my old 
PC 
  didn't have the strength.
  
  Randolfe (Randy) Wicker

Re: [videoblogging] Re: flash video

Sorry to mess wit yo hed :-)
What you should really do is get Linux.
Just kidding.
I haven't seen a direct comparison resource yet but I haven't really  
really looked - and SO much of it is subjective and will be argued  
over passionately by Mac lovers and Mac haters (it's the Mac factor  
that polarises - you don't really get PC lovers in the same way) -  
often the discussions online are about as informative as people  
debating who's the best sports team.  More and more it's just a  
matter of taste and comfort, I think, rather than which is better.

I still like my Macs (although maybe my love has died), and I've  
suffered from Dell, Toshiba and Sony hard drive failures too, so you  
can't win.  All crashes on any computer are disastrous and time  
consuming, even if you've backed up.  The thing about Apple, though,  
is they are getting a bad rep for failing just after the warranty  
runs out... so you pay a lot for Apple Care - and then you hear  
horror stories about Apple Care refusing to cover stuff, even though  
you've paid.  I personally have had both very bad and very good Apple  
customer service in the last 12 months.

One of the reasons I'd never get rid of Mac completely is Final Cut  
Pro, which I know really well and which runs really well on my Macs.   
But... you know... you hear some pretty good things about Premiere  
and Vegas from people in this Group, too.  If I lost everything in a  
fire, would I replace with Macs...?  Probably only because I feel  
safe with FCP and I don't know the others.  If there was a solid  
Linux editing app that people raved about, I think I might take the  
plunge and switch to that just on principle... because I don't really  
like the way either Microsoft or Apple do business.

As far as Vista, all I've had is a few short plays on some of my  
clients' new computers, and it seems like a good fusion of OS X and  
XP.  But I don't *really* know enough yet.  It's the most important  
thing to bear in mind when you're buying a new PC now.  There's poor  
driver support for old devices, and it's very hungry, so you need a  
high-spec PC, but even basic Macs have always been quite high spec to  
do the things they do (and subsequently perceived as over-priced,  
because the entry level is expensive).  Maybe the days of cheap,  
grinding PCs are coming to an end - and maybe that's what Microsoft  
and the hardware manufacturers want.  Most of the people I see who  
are being driven mad by slow computers (XP AND OS X) are suffering as  
a result of being sold too little RAM (usually 256MB) at the start.  
As for upgrading to Vista on an old PC... life is too short.

Hope that's confused you sufficiently.  Good luck. :)

Rupert
http://www.fatgirlinohio.org
http://www.crowdabout.us/fatgirlinohio/myshow/






On 15 Mar 2007, at 19:12, humancloner1997 wrote:

Wow, just when I thought I'd finally reached a decision, you have
totally changed everything. I started with Mac OX Tiger. In the
past, I've had two crashes with Windows that were time consuming and
expensive and disastrous.
I'm thinking about starting a podcast because I like interviewing.
I've also been interested in the discussion about the Windows media
center, watching vlogs on the TV, etc.
Is there a resource on the Internet that really discusses the Vista
versus Mac features in greater detail?
Thanks for the quick response and helpful observations.

Randolfe (Randy) Wicker

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  Randy,
  I'm a Mac fan and have both PC  Macs (PowerPC G4 x2). One of my
  many freelancing jobs is helping people sort out their computer
  problems. I don't think the PC is a slowly dying dinosaur. PCs
are
  here to stay because people like what they know. You could look
at
  Mac's transition to Intel as a slow convergence towards a world of
  oneness where both exist together in a compatible PC world. Macs
  are now really just smart-looking high-spec PCs, with a slightly
  different OS. Vista has learnt from and copied OS X in its
  appearance and functionality. The next computer I'm going to
buy
  is not a Mac - I've had too many hard drive failures on my G4s and
my
  iPod to love Apple hardware any more. It's all about features. I
  have all the design and editing software I need on Mac already,
but
  what I want from PC is Windows Media Center - integrated TV, HDR,
  Video on demand, Podcasting, RSS, Music, blah blah blah. This is
  traditional Mac territory, but Vista has done it better this
time.
  Apple TV is seriously short on features.
 
  Rupert
  http://www.fatgirlinohio.org
  http://www.crowdabout.us/fatgirlinohio/myshow/
 
 
 
 
  On 15 Mar 2007, at 17:39, humancloner1997 wrote:
 
  Daryl, you mention that you would also have pc accessability while
  working with flash. Would the new Mac with the Intel chip that can
  run Windows qualify as pc accessability.
  I'm planning on buying a second computer. I considered a good pc but
  then

[videoblogging] re: flash video

Does anyone else have formats they would recomend for video blogging?

On the mac PC question. I would go Mac. Always had a mac and you can always 
have a pc 
for the things you can't do on mac. Mac's have been reliable to me, I don't 
download lots 
of junk and do lots of experimenting, so that cuts me down from getting viruses 
and such. 
And they really don't design many viruses for macs, there are not enough of 
them to make 
it worth while. Just cazy designers like me.

Daryl

[videoblogging] re: flash video

Does anyone else have formats they would recomend for video blogging?

On the mac PC question. I would go Mac. Always had a mac and you can always 
have a pc 
for the things you can't do on mac. Mac's have been reliable to me, I don't 
download lots 
of junk and do lots of experimenting, so that cuts me down from getting viruses 
and such. 
And they really don't design many viruses for macs, there are not enough of 
them to make 
it worth while. Just cazy designers like me.

Daryl

Re: [videoblogging] Re: flash video

 On 15 Mar 2007, at 18:34, Steve Watkins wrote:
 So anyways Im interested in Ruperts opinions of the Windows Media
 Center thang, why he thinks it is right. I havent tried it much but I
 was under the impression it was mostly compatible with wmv,a nd
 whatever microsofts format is for recording digital tv. So I assumed
 media of other formats has to be converted to be watched, which is an
 instant turnoff for me. Have I got this detail all wrong?

Steve,
MS doesn't provide support out of the box, because they're evil  
bastards, but Windows Media Player will play MP4 if you download a  
decoder pack.  So it's a relatively small hack. This is from the  
Windows Media Player multimedia file formats support page:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/316992#34
Windows Media Player does not support the playback of the .mp4 file  
format.  You can play back .mp4 media files in Windows Media Player  
when you install DirectShow-compatible MPEG-4 decoder packs.  
DirectShow-compatible MPEG-4 decoder packs include the Ligos LSX-MPEG  
Player and the EnvivioTV.
http://www.ligos.com (http://www.ligos.com)
http://www.envivio.com/products/

But no Quicktime, of course, under any circumstances, ever.  Which is  
a drag.  What's wrong with these people?  Why can't they all just  
hold hands and be friends.  If we all held hands, no one would be  
able to make a fist.

I'm interested in my opinion, too :-) -- I haven't actually used WM  
Center yet, but the way I look at it, this is what the public will  
use if they use anything, so I'm intrigued... and I think Apple have  
shot themselves in the foot by not integrating TV and Hard disk  
recording.  EyeTV is not integral to Front Row - you have to buy and  
install separately, and from the sound of the reviews of the latest  
version, it's a pain to use the remote to switch back between EyeTV  
and Front Row.  Idiocy.
Plus, WMC seems to make it easier to play one thing through your TV  
while using your PC as usual on your monitor.  Whereas a Mac Mini or  
iMac solution is a dedicated media machine.  Another attraction for  
the general non-techie public.
As you say, comparing Apple TV and WMC is not like for like - but it  
was a golden opportunity for Apple.  Who REALLY wants a box for  
hundreds of pounds that only lets them play their iTunes music and  
videos through their TV...?  It's a gadget, not a utility.  Comparing  
the Windows Media Center extender with the Apple TV, you seem to get  
almost full WMC functionality through the extender, even if it's an  
XBOX360 (which is useful in its own right).  I don't know... I just  
don't *get* Apple TV - but I'm probably wrong.

I have to say - I never thought I'd be advocating Microsoft in an  
online forum, particularly one devoted to media.  Where did it all go  
wrong?  I worked at MTV a few years ago, and the head of advertising  
had a poster of a blue-eyed blonde teenager on his wall, with a man  
in a suit standing on her shoulder and climbing into her ear.  The  
caption was The MTV Generation: Get Inside Their Heads.  Dark  
days.  But I think that's what I want to do - get inside the heads of  
those people who will be starting to use V.o.D. on their couches, and  
WMC is the way that I think it might go.  I want to see if it's  
possible to set it up in a way that my wife will like using it, the  
way she loves Sky+.  A funny kind of inverse early-adopting.

Rupert
http://www.fatgirlinohio.org
http://www.crowdabout.us/fatgirlinohio/myshow/




On 15 Mar 2007, at 18:34, Steve Watkins wrote:

So anyways Im interested in Ruperts opinions of the Windows Media
Center thang, why he thinks it is right. I havent tried it much but I
was under the impression it was mostly compatible with wmv,a nd
whatever microsofts format is for recording digital tv. So I assumed
media of other formats has to be converted to be watched, which is an
instant turnoff for me. Have I got this detail all wrong?

I dont think a comparison between a computer with windows media center
on it, and Apple TV, is comparing like for like. The equivalent Apple
thing would be a full mac computer (eg mac mini) with front-row on it,
and the Apple TV is more like what Microsoft promote as 'windows media
center extenders'. These are devices such as the Xbox360 that are
connected to the TV and can play media that is stored on the Windows
Media Center computer, via network. Although I think they need to
stream it live, wheras the Apple TV has a hard drive?

Still at the end of the day personally it comes back to how loud the
hardware is, and what formats it can support. As I got on quite well
with eyeTV for recording, id probably get a mac mini, use eye-tv,
itunes  frontrow on it, and then use VLC to support more formats.
Granted this is still too fiddley as only frontrow really has the
right UI designed for distance TV use, but even if I went for a PC
solution I think Id end up looking for 3rd party stuff I guess, to
deal with format issues. Remote control

[videoblogging] Re: flash video

All the rumouring about Leopard suggests it will be out this month or
next month. The last major update to Tiger just came out the other
day. And apparently Apple have kept some of its best new features a
secret, so they can do they proper 'wow' thing on launch. But Ive no
idea what those features might be.

So I guess your current Mac is a Mac Pro? Ive never had one of those,
but I hear there may be an 8 cpu core edition coming soon, and that
theres a new version of final cut that is going to want fast hardware.
Your graphics card choices are also a bit more flexible if you are
talking Mac Pro. Even if you dont use such things for games,
increasingly Apple's creative apps are coming to use such hardware,
think the next final cut has a 'hardware accelerated' version, not
sure of detail.

To be fair Apple arent going to tech support Parallels because it isnt
their product, they cant support all the software written by 3rd
parties, and in this case the support from the people who actually
make it seems quite good. And Bootcamp doesnt officially support Vista
I dont think, but maybe this will change with Leopard, and in practice
 Vista can work, Ive got it here on the cheapest macbook I could get
my hands on, but witht he RAM upgraded to 2gb. Meanwhile I have
windowsXP installed to work with parallels inside OSX, which I use for
microsoft office etc.

Im still not sure what I think of Vista. I certainly like it, I like
that theyve made icons bigger and generally it looks nice at high
resolutions. The 'aero glass' stuff is not bad but Im not sure its
worth the 3d graphics power it uses. Still even though quite a lot of
the design changes are inspired by OS X no doubt, it still doesnt
really look or feel like OS X to me, so Im not sure how much more it
will appeal to Mac users than Windows XP did, time will tell. I think
maybe I prefer having a sidebar for widgets than the dashboard thing
of Apple, but then again Im just not sure. Ive always preferred the
fonts on the Mac, and maybe one reason I like it is that it doesnt
remind me of my day job working with Windows PCs a lot :D
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, humancloner1997 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

 Thanks Steve, I find what you say especially fascinating.  I just 
 wonder how far off is the new Leopard Mac?  My current Mac Tiger has 
 two internal 500 GB hard drives, one external 1000 GB (terabyte?) 
 drive and room for one more 1000 GB drive.  I really don't have to 
 worry about space since I can always find some stuff to put back on 
 tape.
 I have been reading comments about Vista.  Most focused on Vista's 
 requirement for room.  I'll watch Verdi's video.  A friend of a 
 friend got Parallel  had trouble with it.  When he contacted Apple, 
 even though it was/is advertised on their site (in a sidebar), they 
 claim it is not their product and wouldn't help him with it. That 
 was a surprise to me and a bit disappointing.
 
 Randolfe (Randy) Wicker
 Hoboken, NJ 07030
 www.RandyWickerReporting.blogspot.com 
 
 --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Steve Watkins steve@ 
 wrote:
 
  Reasons people in general would buy a PC:
  
  Cost (I know its not an issue for you but its a large reason that 
 the
  PC isnt dying out significantly, and that most people I know dont 
 even
  look at a Mac before buying a PC)
  
  3D gamers probably want better graphics cards than most Macs dont 
 have
  
  Certain other specific hardware may not run on Mac
  
  They havent seen or dont like OS X, or they dont know that windows
  works on Intel macs.
  
  They dont like Apple for some other reason, or there just doesnt 
 seem
  to be a Mac with the right spec for them available.
  
  For your needs it sounds like a Mac would be a great fit. Parallels
  desktop will run things like Word very nicely, and if you needed
  higher performance for video editing or games or something, then
  Bootcamp works well. The Intel Macs are effectively at least 90%
  standard PC hardware so the performance should be about the same as 
 an
  equivalently spec'd PC. Even Vista works mostly fine on the 
 Macbooks,
  just have to fiddle about with drivers a bit and it really helps if
  you bung at least 2GB of RAM in whatever Mac you get.  
  
  Did you ever see the demo Michael Verdi (I think) did of Parallels
  feature where you can have Windows programs appear in windows as if
  they were within OSX, with things like dragdrop working. Its wild 
 and
  really starts to blur the lines.
  
  Maybe a good idea to wait till Leopard comes out before buying a new
  Mac, as I dont think it can be very far away now? Not that Leopard
  seems to have any 'killer' must-have features from what Ive seen, 
 but
  inevitably software that needs Leopard will appear at some point.
  
  Cheers
  
  Steve Elbows
  
  --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, humancloner1997 rhwicker@
  wrote:
  
   Daryl, you mention that you would also have pc accessability 
 while 
   working with flash.  Would the new Mac

[videoblogging] Re: flash video

Cheers for the info. My fear is that what plays through media center
is not exactly the same as what can be made to play through windows
media player. I have sucessfully watched mp4 through windows media
player, by installing a codec, and back in the days where I was always
ranting about mpeg4  h264, I hoped that there would be plenty of less
obscure ways that people could watch mp4's without quicktime or VLC,
on windows. This was part of my call for people to consider using .mp4
not .mov and to get away from the idea that .mp4 is an Apple or
quicktime specific format. In the end the player  encoder that comes
with nero burning rom suite of software proved to be a good
alternative, but thats going way off topic as its nothing to dow ith
media center or media player.

So, need to check whether you can actually play all formats you have
directshow codecs for, in media center, and that its not limited by
file extension or something. Certainly I wouldnt expect the media
xtender part of the xbox360 to be able to handle anything other than
wmv, which is where the M$ solution starts to stink for me.

I share your opinion on the Apple TV, I think its one of Apple's
riskiest products in the last few years, but it did seem like a good
fit with all the video theyve started selling on itunes. I think I was
underimpressed with its maximum resolution, considering the emerging
HD age, and I cant see it selling in huge numbers like ipods do. It
either needs to do more, or cost less. Wit their current design they
probably cant make it all that much cheaper, so it will remain on the
fringes to a certain extent, or maybe not and I am s wrong. Im
glad they are giving it a try anyway.

Meanwhile I think microsoft have been trying to get onto set-top-boxes
connected to televisions for very many years. Think they probably had
trouble finding enough partners, getting the price right etc. There
must be something good about media center PC's because I know a few
people that use them, but I think Microsoft hoped in the past to
conqeur this market from a different direction. Most Media Centers are
being bought as new PC's with that capability, coming with the TV card
and the remote and that version of Windows, and which traditionally
were at the more expensive end of the PC market. Costs seem to have
dropped and the software improved over the years, so now there are sub
£400 media center PC's, so maybe it will catch on more. Plus Media
Center stuff is included with some versions of Vista, so more people
might build their own. I wonder how the range of purchasable video
content that has DRM compatible with media center, compares to the
apple tv. 

As I worry about the energy outlook in the future, I suppose I should
factor that into my thinking. So I should not like solutions that
require a PC to be on somewhere else at the same time to stream
content to the extender. I guess the ipod would class as about as low
powered a device as you can get to give a reasonable TV video watching
experience, although these issues are rather overshadowed by the large
wattage of many of todays large televisions. So maybe I shouldnt be
trying to watch stuff on a big screen at all if I care that much!

Cheers

Steve Elbows

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  On 15 Mar 2007, at 18:34, Steve Watkins wrote:
  So anyways Im interested in Ruperts opinions of the Windows Media
  Center thang, why he thinks it is right. I havent tried it much but I
  was under the impression it was mostly compatible with wmv,a nd
  whatever microsofts format is for recording digital tv. So I assumed
  media of other formats has to be converted to be watched, which is an
  instant turnoff for me. Have I got this detail all wrong?
 
 Steve,
 MS doesn't provide support out of the box, because they're evil  
 bastards, but Windows Media Player will play MP4 if you download a  
 decoder pack.  So it's a relatively small hack. This is from the  
 Windows Media Player multimedia file formats support page:
 http://support.microsoft.com/kb/316992#34
 Windows Media Player does not support the playback of the .mp4 file  
 format.  You can play back .mp4 media files in Windows Media Player  
 when you install DirectShow-compatible MPEG-4 decoder packs.  
 DirectShow-compatible MPEG-4 decoder packs include the Ligos LSX-MPEG  
 Player and the EnvivioTV.
 http://www.ligos.com (http://www.ligos.com)
 http://www.envivio.com/products/
 
 But no Quicktime, of course, under any circumstances, ever.  Which is  
 a drag.  What's wrong with these people?  Why can't they all just  
 hold hands and be friends.  If we all held hands, no one would be  
 able to make a fist.
 
 I'm interested in my opinion, too :-) -- I haven't actually used WM  
 Center yet, but the way I look at it, this is what the public will  
 use if they use anything, so I'm intrigued... and I think Apple have  
 shot themselves in the foot by not integrating TV and Hard disk

Re: [videoblogging] Re: flash video

They *say* that what works in the Player works in the Center, and  
their troubleshooting guide certainly gives that impression... but  
we'll see.
As for the energy saving thing... I thought I was being good by  
multitasking the one computer rather than having separate Mac Mini or  
PC.  Oh God, I have so many devices on right now.  I'm going to turn  
them off and go to bed in moral despair.  Goodnight :-)

Rupert
http://www.fatgirlinohio.org
http://www.crowdabout.us/fatgirlinohio/myshow/


On 15 Mar 2007, at 21:25, Steve Watkins wrote:

Cheers for the info. My fear is that what plays through media center
is not exactly the same as what can be made to play through windows
media player. I have sucessfully watched mp4 through windows media
player, by installing a codec, and back in the days where I was always
ranting about mpeg4  h264, I hoped that there would be plenty of less
obscure ways that people could watch mp4's without quicktime or VLC,
on windows. This was part of my call for people to consider using .mp4
not .mov and to get away from the idea that .mp4 is an Apple or
quicktime specific format. In the end the player  encoder that comes
with nero burning rom suite of software proved to be a good
alternative, but thats going way off topic as its nothing to dow ith
media center or media player.

So, need to check whether you can actually play all formats you have
directshow codecs for, in media center, and that its not limited by
file extension or something. Certainly I wouldnt expect the media
xtender part of the xbox360 to be able to handle anything other than
wmv, which is where the M$ solution starts to stink for me.

I share your opinion on the Apple TV, I think its one of Apple's
riskiest products in the last few years, but it did seem like a good
fit with all the video theyve started selling on itunes. I think I was
underimpressed with its maximum resolution, considering the emerging
HD age, and I cant see it selling in huge numbers like ipods do. It
either needs to do more, or cost less. Wit their current design they
probably cant make it all that much cheaper, so it will remain on the
fringes to a certain extent, or maybe not and I am s wrong. Im
glad they are giving it a try anyway.

Meanwhile I think microsoft have been trying to get onto set-top-boxes
connected to televisions for very many years. Think they probably had
trouble finding enough partners, getting the price right etc. There
must be something good about media center PC's because I know a few
people that use them, but I think Microsoft hoped in the past to
conqeur this market from a different direction. Most Media Centers are
being bought as new PC's with that capability, coming with the TV card
and the remote and that version of Windows, and which traditionally
were at the more expensive end of the PC market. Costs seem to have
dropped and the software improved over the years, so now there are sub
£400 media center PC's, so maybe it will catch on more. Plus Media
Center stuff is included with some versions of Vista, so more people
might build their own. I wonder how the range of purchasable video
content that has DRM compatible with media center, compares to the
apple tv.

As I worry about the energy outlook in the future, I suppose I should
factor that into my thinking. So I should not like solutions that
require a PC to be on somewhere else at the same time to stream
content to the extender. I guess the ipod would class as about as low
powered a device as you can get to give a reasonable TV video watching
experience, although these issues are rather overshadowed by the large
wattage of many of todays large televisions. So maybe I shouldnt be
trying to watch stuff on a big screen at all if I care that much!

Cheers

Steve Elbows

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
   On 15 Mar 2007, at 18:34, Steve Watkins wrote:
   So anyways Im interested in Ruperts opinions of the Windows Media
   Center thang, why he thinks it is right. I havent tried it much  
but I
   was under the impression it was mostly compatible with wmv,a nd
   whatever microsofts format is for recording digital tv. So I  
assumed
   media of other formats has to be converted to be watched, which  
is an
   instant turnoff for me. Have I got this detail all wrong?
 
  Steve,
  MS doesn't provide support out of the box, because they're evil
  bastards, but Windows Media Player will play MP4 if you download a
  decoder pack. So it's a relatively small hack. This is from the
  Windows Media Player multimedia file formats support page:
  http://support.microsoft.com/kb/316992#34
  Windows Media Player does not support the playback of the .mp4 file
  format. You can play back .mp4 media files in Windows Media Player
  when you install DirectShow-compatible MPEG-4 decoder packs.
  DirectShow-compatible MPEG-4 decoder packs include the Ligos LSX-MPEG
  Player and the EnvivioTV.
  http://www.ligos.com (http://www.ligos.com)

[videoblogging] Re: flash video

2007-03-14 Thread caroosky

Thanks, John, I wasn't aware of a couple of those links.

The Nelly-Moser encoder is certainly optimized for the two-way
requirements of Flash Player, but it's so proprietary I suspect even
Adobe is regretting licensing it.  It has locked out some really
creative development in the area of getting audio and video in and out
of the Flash environment into more portable and reuseable file
formats, such as avi or wav. Don't get me wrong, I like what the
encoder lets me do, but I am beyond frustrated with what it WON'T let
me do as a developer.  There is simply no legal way of getting
something encoded using Nelly-Moser transcoded into another format
without spending thousands of dollars.  Unless you know of something I
don't know...

Best,
Carter Harkins
http://crowdabout.us

 
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, John Dowdell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 caroosky wrote:
  Any chance the next version of flash player will start supporting
  other formats besides mp3 and .flv?  Maybe even do away with the pesky
  nellymoser codec for FMS recorded audio? (Please please please???)
 
 Sorry, I haven't seen any other announcements from Adobe's Flash Player 
 team. (That press release came from Adobe's Mobile group, and they cook 
 up the smaller Flash Lite engine for handhelds.)
 
 Here are some of the staffers on the Player team, if you care to put 
 them on a watchlist for any news:
 http://weblogs.macromedia.com/emmy/
 http://www.kaourantin.net/
 http://blogs.adobe.com/penguin.swf/
 
 Adding new codecs to the Player download has been hard, because every 
 additional kilobyte reduces the clientside adoption. (Essentially we're 
 trying to upgrade the world's consumer machines, so it's a 
 carrot-and-stick approach of new functionality with minimal 
 download/installation hassle.) I know that there's pressure this
release 
 for many improvements in audio/video, but me, I don't know how the team 
 will balance all those desires yet.
 
 The Nelly-Moser audio encoder embedded within each download of Adobe 
 Flash Player is invaluable for two-way communications -- it lets the 
 audience speak as well as hear.
 
 For info on factors affecting codec choice, Tinic Uro's Aug05 essay is 
 still the definitive resource:

http://www.kaourantin.net/2005/08/quest-for-new-video-codec-in-flash-8.html
 
 
  Also, the whole chipmunk effect with mp3s encoded at unsupported
  bitrates is frustrating to us and tens of thousands of other
  podcasters who would more readily adopt flash player widgets...can you
  tell the powers that be to support more bitrates?
 
 I'm not sure how to describe this accurately enough to the product team 
 to make sure they address the correct chipmunks scenario, but you can 
 submit the change-request to the team yourself:
 http://www.macromedia.com/go/wish
 (It's an old address, but redirects correctly... choose Flash 
 Player in the dropdown list.)
 
 
 jd
 
 
 
 
 
 -- 
 John Dowdell . Adobe Developer Support . San Francisco CA USA
 Weblog: http://weblogs.macromedia.com/jd
 Aggregator: http://weblogs.macromedia.com/mxna
 Technotes: http://www.macromedia.com/support/
 Spam killed my private email -- public record is best, thanks.

Re: [videoblogging] Re: flash video

2007-03-12 Thread John Dowdell

caroosky wrote:
 Now, if only the portable device manufacturers would get on the ball.
 I'd love to load up a portable media device with a bunch of flash
 video from YouTube, Revver, Blip and others...

This is coming, but it's not here yet. The next version of the Adobe 
Flash Lite engine will include support for regular web-video formats:
http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/pressroom/pressreleases/200702/021207FlashVideo.html

Right now Adobe Flash Lite 2 is being baked into phones, and this 
supports device video, where the Player asks the operating system to 
play a video, and where different devices could require different video 
formats. The next version of Adobe Flash Lite will smooth over the 
differences between pocket devices, and also smooth over the difference 
between pocket devices and laptop computers, so that you can focus more 
on your content, less on the formats. It will take awhile to finish and 
deploy, though.

(Good point about the compression process itself being a key determinant 
in final video quality, thanks.)

jd




-- 
John Dowdell . Adobe Developer Support . San Francisco CA USA
Weblog: http://weblogs.macromedia.com/jd
Aggregator: http://weblogs.macromedia.com/mxna
Technotes: http://www.macromedia.com/support/
Spam killed my private email -- public record is best, thanks.

[videoblogging] Re: flash video

2007-03-12 Thread Steve Watkins

Thats great news to hear John, the more formats get properly supported
on mobile devices the better, and it sounds like you are taking a good
approach in future which will keep things simple for those doing the
encoding. 

To answer Daryl's question, what a lot of people do is encode their
video to a mov, mp4 or wmv, and then upload it to a service that
converts their video automatically to flash. So then they have 2
versions of the video available, flash and something else, which is a
farily good balance for most. But of course there are plenty of videos
that are flash only, and plenty that are in multiple formats, so there
is not quite a 'golden rule' on this yet, dunno if there ever will be.

If when you talk about navigation buttons, you mean like the timeline,
play, pause controls for the video, these are taken care of for you if
you use a service like blip.tv to make  host the flash video. If you
are making and hosting the .flv videos yourself, people normally put a
.swf player file on their server and that loads the relevant .flv and
handles the controls. I could of got some of this detail wrong though,
 not used flash myself for a few years.

Cheers

Steve Elbows
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, John Dowdell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 The next version of Adobe Flash Lite will smooth over the 
 differences between pocket devices, and also smooth over the difference 
 between pocket devices and laptop computers, so that you can focus more 
 on your content, less on the formats. It will take awhile to finish and 
 deploy, though.
 -- 
 John Dowdell . Adobe Developer Support . San Francisco CA USA
 Weblog: http://weblogs.macromedia.com/jd
 Aggregator: http://weblogs.macromedia.com/mxna
 Technotes: http://www.macromedia.com/support/
 Spam killed my private email -- public record is best, thanks.

[videoblogging] Re: flash video

2007-03-12 Thread caroosky

John Dowdell, you are my new best friend!  That's awesome news!  Since
CrowdAbout.us uses Flash extensively, and we have had reservations
about jumping into the mobile market, I am always looking to find out
more about what's being developed in new releases of the platform.

Any chance the next version of flash player will start supporting
other formats besides mp3 and .flv?  Maybe even do away with the pesky
nellymoser codec for FMS recorded audio? (Please please please???)

Also, the whole chipmunk effect with mp3s encoded at unsupported
bitrates is frustrating to us and tens of thousands of other
podcasters who would more readily adopt flash player widgets...can you
tell the powers that be to support more bitrates?

Sorry, I'm gushing and we've only just met. =)  It's just that I feel
like I'm sitting in Santa's lap, telling him all the things I want for
Christmas...

Best,
Carter Harkins
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, John Dowdell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 caroosky wrote:
  Now, if only the portable device manufacturers would get on the ball.
  I'd love to load up a portable media device with a bunch of flash
  video from YouTube, Revver, Blip and others...
 
 This is coming, but it's not here yet. The next version of the Adobe 
 Flash Lite engine will include support for regular web-video formats:

http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/pressroom/pressreleases/200702/021207FlashVideo.html
 
 Right now Adobe Flash Lite 2 is being baked into phones, and this 
 supports device video, where the Player asks the operating system to 
 play a video, and where different devices could require different video 
 formats. The next version of Adobe Flash Lite will smooth over the 
 differences between pocket devices, and also smooth over the difference 
 between pocket devices and laptop computers, so that you can focus more 
 on your content, less on the formats. It will take awhile to finish and 
 deploy, though.
 
 (Good point about the compression process itself being a key
determinant 
 in final video quality, thanks.)
 
 jd
 
 
 
 
 -- 
 John Dowdell . Adobe Developer Support . San Francisco CA USA
 Weblog: http://weblogs.macromedia.com/jd
 Aggregator: http://weblogs.macromedia.com/mxna
 Technotes: http://www.macromedia.com/support/
 Spam killed my private email -- public record is best, thanks.

[videoblogging] Re: flash video

2007-03-12 Thread Daryl Urig

so is the best format for flash video a .swf file or are you talking a .flv 
file format?

Daryl

[videoblogging] Re: flash video

2007-03-12 Thread caroosky

.flv, definitely.  The reason is simple.  .flv is the bare media file,
and .swf takes an .flv, adds a player to play it (and some other
optional things that I won't get in to now) and makes a new packaged
file that is executable, or will open and play in its own player when
clicked.

The reason that .flv is the format I prefer is because it gives me the
most flexibility in picking players and services to use with my media.
 For instance, there are many .flv player plugins for WordPress blogs
and other embeddable players that require an .flv.

But using both is a good strategy too, come to think of it.  swf works
for getting a video up quickly.  flv works when you want to use your
video in other ways, such as additional services that require just the
media file.

Did any of that make sense?  Someone else want to take a stab at it? 
I'm exhausted tonight.

Carter Harkins
http://crowdabout.us




--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Daryl Urig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 so is the best format for flash video a .swf file or are you talking
a .flv file format?
 
 Daryl

Re: [videoblogging] Re: flash video

2007-03-12 Thread sull

inevitable, but figured it would not begin until end of year.
this is great to hear!  thanks for the update.

sull

On 3/12/07, John Dowdell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

   caroosky wrote:
  Now, if only the portable device manufacturers would get on the ball.
  I'd love to load up a portable media device with a bunch of flash
  video from YouTube, Revver, Blip and others...

 This is coming, but it's not here yet. The next version of the Adobe
 Flash Lite engine will include support for regular web-video formats:

 http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/pressroom/pressreleases/200702/021207FlashVideo.html

 Right now Adobe Flash Lite 2 is being baked into phones, and this
 supports device video, where the Player asks the operating system to
 play a video, and where different devices could require different video
 formats. The next version of Adobe Flash Lite will smooth over the
 differences between pocket devices, and also smooth over the difference
 between pocket devices and laptop computers, so that you can focus more
 on your content, less on the formats. It will take awhile to finish and
 deploy, though.

 (Good point about the compression process itself being a key determinant
 in final video quality, thanks.)

 jd

 --
 John Dowdell . Adobe Developer Support . San Francisco CA USA
 Weblog: http://weblogs.macromedia.com/jd
 Aggregator: http://weblogs.macromedia.com/mxna
 Technotes: http://www.macromedia.com/support/
 Spam killed my private email -- public record is best, thanks.
  




-- 
Sull
http://vlogdir.com (a project)
http://SpreadTheMedia.org (my blog)
http://interdigitate.com (otherly)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [videoblogging] Re: flash video

2007-03-12 Thread sull

this is also good to have for quicktime to handle flv on mac:

http://perian.org/


On 12 Mar 2007 20:19:59 -0700, caroosky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

   .flv, definitely. The reason is simple. .flv is the bare media file,
 and .swf takes an .flv, adds a player to play it (and some other
 optional things that I won't get in to now) and makes a new packaged
 file that is executable, or will open and play in its own player when
 clicked.

 The reason that .flv is the format I prefer is because it gives me the
 most flexibility in picking players and services to use with my media.
 For instance, there are many .flv player plugins for WordPress blogs
 and other embeddable players that require an .flv.

 But using both is a good strategy too, come to think of it. swf works
 for getting a video up quickly. flv works when you want to use your
 video in other ways, such as additional services that require just the
 media file.

 Did any of that make sense? Someone else want to take a stab at it?
 I'm exhausted tonight.

 Carter Harkins
 http://crowdabout.us

 --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com,
 Daryl Urig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  so is the best format for flash video a .swf file or are you talking
 a .flv file format?
 
  Daryl
 

  




-- 
Sull
http://vlogdir.com (a project)
http://SpreadTheMedia.org (my blog)
http://interdigitate.com (otherly)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[videoblogging] Re: flash video

2007-03-11 Thread caroosky

Hi Daryl,
Not sure what you mean by using navigation buttons...

In my experience, after testing the newest flash encoder (On2 Flix
Engine with Sorenson encoders) used by Blip.tv and others, I have to
say, I don't see any real disadvantages to Flash anymore.  There was a
time when the Flash video output looked awful, but it's getting to the
point that I can't tell what's what except by the player that opens to
play it. Oh, and the slightly smaller file sizes of Flash videos.

Plus, there are a whole host of services popping up that make flash
even more attractive for embedding custom players on your site,
mashing up the video and adding metadata layers.

Now, if only the portable device manufacturers would get on the ball.
 I'd love to load up a portable media device with a bunch of flash
video from YouTube, Revver, Blip and others...

Carter Harkins
http://crowdabout.us


--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Daryl Urig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 I have seen many versions of saving video files.
 
 Is it easier or better to just save them in a flash format so every
body can use them? 
 
 Does this work best?
 
 Can I use navigation buttons when saving my files as a flash video. 
 
 Daryl

RE: [videoblogging] Re: Flash Video question for Actionscripters

2006-06-02 Thread Will Law






Josh

1. There is no magic workaround. If the duration is missing 
from the metadata of an FLV, then your only options are a) inject it yourself b) 
use FMS to query the file length. You cannot get or even estimatethe 
duration from the NetStream properties that are exposed, other than by playing 
it to completion.

2. If your app is a web app, then keep a local copy of FMS 
running and use it for nothing but querying the length of FLV files on your 
SAN.

3.If your app is a desktop app, then write your own 
very simple parser that would figure out the duration of a FLV file and build it 
into your app. Since FLV is an open format (see http://www.adobe.com/licensing/developer/),this 
should be simple and quick. In fact I know it's both since a guy at 
VitalStream wrote exactly this to figure out the duration of user-uploaded files 
(they have the same problem of missing metatdata from older encoders) and it 
only took him a morning to create. I doubt they would release that code, since 
its company specific, but if you approached your Fireant C++ guru, he may have 
as quick an answer.

Cheers

Will



From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joshua 
KinbergSent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 8:50 PMTo: 
videoblogging@yahoogroups.comSubject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: Flash 
Video question for Actionscripters
 I've been looking for a Flash player that will load FLV 
files from a RSS feed and play through them. Any chance that this 
project will have this functionality?Yes, exactly. It currently supports 
FLV videos from RSS and XSPFplaylists. But the videos must be Flash 8 (or 
have proper FLV metadatainjected) until I can figure out a work around for 
the issue mentionedin this thread. Unfortunately, all the docs on Adobe 
simply suggest toeither re-encode the videos or inject the 
metadata...I'm having a hard time believing that there is just no other 
workaround. Come on, Adobe!-JoshOn 6/1/06, Bill Streeter 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Josh, I'm sorry I don't 
have an answer to your problem but I would like to know more about the 
project. I've been looking for a Flash player that will load FLV files 
from a RSS feed and play through them. Any chance that this project will 
have this functionality? Bill Streeter LO-FI SAINT 
LOUIS www.lofistl.com --- In 
videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Joshua Kinberg" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:   This is a question for the Flash developers out 
there...   I'm creating a little side-project Flash 
application that plays Flash  Video files (FLV) from a 
playlist.   I've run into a documented bug in FLV 
versions prior to Flash 8 where  the duration metadata is incorrect. 
This screws up the time progress  bar and seeking functionality of 
my video controller. There must be a  trick to get the duration for 
older versions of FLV since its obvious  that other Flash video 
controllers can do this. Any advice from the  Actionscripters out 
there?   Here's some documentation of the bug (scroll to 
the bottom):  http://www.jeroenwijering.com/?item=FLV_Video_Compression 
  and here: http://www.sti-media.com/blog/archives/000111.html 
  This documented bug is quite common since most video upload 
sites  automatically compress with Sorensen (Flash Video 6/7 
codec).   I've used a tool called FLV Metadata Injector 
to correct the FLV metadata:  http://www.buraks.com/flvmdi/ 
  This does work, but I'd rather be backwards compatible with 
Flash Video 6/7.-Josh 
 
Yahoo! Groups Links__ NOD32 1.1574 
(20060601) Information __This message was checked by NOD32 
antivirus system.http://www.eset.com




  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Fireant
  
  
Individual
  
  
Typepad
  
  


Use
  
  
Explains
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



  Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.
  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

[videoblogging] Re: Flash Video question for Actionscripters




Which is the lowest version of Flash you want to support (7 has
several versions, I think the most recent is 7.2)? And how are you
loading the FLVs? Is it with NetConnection and NetStream or the Media
class?

 -- Enric
 -==-
 http://www.cirne.com
 http://www.cinegage.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

  I've been looking for a Flash player that
  will load FLV files from a RSS feed and play through them. Any chance
  that this project will have this functionality?
 
 Yes, exactly. It currently supports FLV videos from RSS and XSPF
 playlists. But the videos must be Flash 8 (or have proper FLV metadata
 injected) until I can figure out a work around for the issue mentioned
 in this thread. Unfortunately, all the docs on Adobe simply suggest to
 either re-encode the videos or inject the metadata...
 
 I'm having a hard time believing that there is just no other work
 around. Come on, Adobe!
 
 -Josh
 
 
 On 6/1/06, Bill Streeter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  Josh,
 
  I'm sorry I don't have an answer to your problem but I would like to
  know more about the project. I've been looking for a Flash player that
  will load FLV files from a RSS feed and play through them. Any chance
  that this project will have this functionality?
 
  Bill Streeter
  LO-FI SAINT LOUIS
  www.lofistl.com
 
  --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Joshua Kinberg jkinberg@
  wrote:
  
   This is a question for the Flash developers out there...
  
   I'm creating a little side-project Flash application that plays
Flash
   Video files (FLV) from a playlist.
  
   I've run into a documented bug in FLV versions prior to Flash 8
where
   the duration metadata is incorrect. This screws up the time progress
   bar and seeking functionality of my video controller. There must
be a
   trick to get the duration for older versions of FLV since its
obvious
   that other Flash video controllers can do this. Any advice from the
   Actionscripters out there?
  
   Here's some documentation of the bug (scroll to the bottom):
   http://www.jeroenwijering.com/?item=FLV_Video_Compression
  
   and here: http://www.sti-media.com/blog/archives/000111.html
  
   This documented bug is quite common since most video upload sites
   automatically compress with Sorensen (Flash Video 6/7 codec).
  
   I've used a tool called FLV Metadata Injector to correct the FLV
  metadata:
   http://www.buraks.com/flvmdi/
  
   This does work, but I'd rather be backwards compatible with Flash
  Video 6/7.
  
  
   -Josh
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Yahoo! Groups Links
 
 
 
 
 
 
 










  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Fireant
  
  
Individual
  
  
Typepad
  
  


Use
  
  
Explains
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



  Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.
  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Flash Video question for Actionscripters

2006-06-02 Thread Michael Sullivan

Jeroen (developer of the standard flv player that most of us use) is also working on xspf and rss playlisting support. I have spoken with him a number of times but i am not sure where he is on this task or if he has started it.
Not to discourage Joshua of course. Either way, more flv players with xspf/rss etc support the better.sullOn 6/1/06, Bill Streeter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Josh,I'm sorry I don't have an answer to your problem but I would like to
know more about the project. I've been looking for a Flash player thatwill load FLV files from a RSS feed and play through them. Any chancethat this project will have this functionality?Bill Streeter
LO-FI SAINT LOUISwww.lofistl.com--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote: This is a question for the Flash developers out there... I'm creating a little side-project Flash application that plays Flash Video files (FLV) from a playlist. I've run into a documented bug in FLV versions prior to Flash 8 where
the duration metadata is incorrect. This screws up the time progress bar and seeking functionality of my video controller. There must be a trick to get the duration for older versions of FLV since its obvious
that other Flash video controllers can do this. Any advice from the Actionscripters out there? Here's some documentation of the bug (scroll to the bottom):
http://www.jeroenwijering.com/?item=FLV_Video_Compression and here: http://www.sti-media.com/blog/archives/000111.html
This documented bug is quite common since most video upload sites automatically compress with Sorensen (Flash Video 6/7 codec). I've used a tool called FLV Metadata Injector to correct the FLV
metadata: http://www.buraks.com/flvmdi/ This does work, but I'd rather be backwards compatible with FlashVideo 6/7. -Josh
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--Everything you need is oneclick away. Make Yahoo! your home pagenow.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/AHchtC/4FxNAA/yQLSAA/lBLqlB/TM~-Yahoo! Groups Links* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
-- Sullhttp://vlogdir.com http://SpreadTheMedia.org

SPONSORED LINKS

Fireant

Individual

Typepad

Use

Explains

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Flash Video question for Actionscripters

2006-06-02 Thread bertrand

Hello,I'm using this FLV player by neolao :http://resources.neolao.com/flash/components/player_flv/templates/multi
exemple with my settings: http://demo.podesk.com/podesk/index.php?2006/05/29/54-vj-bertranol-zagros
There is a lot of nice options, and there is a basic playlist support. It should be easy to ask the developper to add a rss support or to do it ourself as it is open source.Bertrand

2006/6/2, Michael Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED]:

LO-FI SAINT LOUISwww.lofistl.com--- In

videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote: This is a question for the Flash developers out there... I'm creating a little side-project Flash application that plays Flash Video files (FLV) from a playlist.

I've run into a documented bug in FLV versions prior to Flash 8 where
the duration metadata is incorrect. This screws up the time progress bar and seeking functionality of my video controller. There must be a trick to get the duration for older versions of FLV since its obvious
that other Flash video controllers can do this. Any advice from the Actionscripters out there? Here's some documentation of the bug (scroll to the bottom):

http://www.jeroenwijering.com/?item=FLV_Video_Compression and here:

http://www.sti-media.com/blog/archives/000111.html
This documented bug is quite common since most video upload sites automatically compress with Sorensen (Flash Video 6/7 codec). I've used a tool called FLV Metadata Injector to correct the FLV
metadata: http://www.buraks.com/flvmdi/ This does work, but I'd rather be backwards compatible with Flash
Video 6/7. -Josh
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--Everything you need is oneclick away. Make Yahoo! your home pagenow.

http://us.click.yahoo.com/AHchtC/4FxNAA/yQLSAA/lBLqlB/TM~-Yahoo! Groups Links* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

[EMAIL PROTECTED]* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
-- Sullhttp://vlogdir.com

http://SpreadTheMedia.org

SPONSORED LINKS

Fireant

Individual

Typepad

Use

Explains

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group videoblogging on the web.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service

-- Bertrand Gondouin, Mixnbrew StudiosVJ Bertranol live visuals:
http://mjukma.free.frLaeterna Machina - digital dance :
http://www.laeterna.netGrains Pixels Performance:
http://www.mixnbrew.com/gpPodesk Software :
http://www.podesk.com

SPONSORED LINKS

Fireant

Individual

Typepad

Use

Explains

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Flash Video question for Actionscripters

Hey Will,

This is great info!
Just a couple notes... this is not part of the FireAnt desktop
application, but just a small little web app I'm making. I don't have
Flash Media Server (seems expensive for a small little side project
like this).

Re: FLV support in FireAnt, this is definitely something we wish to
improve. The Mac version of FireAnt supports FLV playback, but it
could be done in a much better way (we have this duration issue with
FireAnt on the Mac too). On Windows, FireAnt plays Flash through the
Flash OCX, but it does not yet handle FLV. This is something we plan
to address soon. I've done some research here and think I have a good
starting point for that problem on the C++ side. Perhaps we should
also join the Adobe Developers Network.

Thanks!

-Josh

On 6/1/06, Will Law [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Josh

1. There is no magic workaround. If the duration is missing from the metadata of an FLV, then your only options are a) inject it yourself b) use FMS to query the file length. You cannot get or even estimate the duration from the NetStream properties that are exposed, other than by playing it to completion.

2. If your app is a web app, then keep a local copy of FMS running and use it for nothing but querying the length of FLV files on your SAN.

3. If your app is a desktop app, then write your own very simple parser that would figure out the duration of a FLV file and build it into your app. Since FLV is an open format (see http://www.adobe.com/licensing/developer/), this should be simple and quick. In fact I know it's both since a guy at VitalStream wrote exactly this to figure out the duration of user-uploaded files (they have the same problem of missing metatdata from older encoders) and it only took him a morning to create. I doubt they would release that code, since its company specific, but if you approached your Fireant C++ guru, he may have as quick an answer.

Cheers

Will

From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joshua Kinberg
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 8:50 PM
To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: Flash Video question for Actionscripters

I've been looking for a Flash player that
will load FLV files from a RSS feed and play through them. Any chance
that this project will have this functionality?

Yes, exactly. It currently supports FLV videos from RSS and XSPF
playlists. But the videos must be Flash 8 (or have proper FLV metadata
injected) until I can figure out a work around for the issue mentioned
in this thread. Unfortunately, all the docs on Adobe simply suggest to
either re-encode the videos or inject the metadata...

I'm having a hard time believing that there is just no other work
around. Come on, Adobe!

-Josh

On 6/1/06, Bill Streeter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Josh,

I'm sorry I don't have an answer to your problem but I would like to
know more about the project. I've been looking for a Flash player that
will load FLV files from a RSS feed and play through them. Any chance
that this project will have this functionality?

Bill Streeter
LO-FI SAINT LOUIS
www.lofistl.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

This is a question for the Flash developers out there...

I'm creating a little side-project Flash application that plays Flash
Video files (FLV) from a playlist.

I've run into a documented bug in FLV versions prior to Flash 8 where
the duration metadata is incorrect. This screws up the time progress
bar and seeking functionality of my video controller. There must be a
trick to get the duration for older versions of FLV since its obvious
that other Flash video controllers can do this. Any advice from the
Actionscripters out there?

Here's some documentation of the bug (scroll to the bottom):
http://www.jeroenwijering.com/?item=FLV_Video_Compression

and here: http://www.sti-media.com/blog/archives/000111.html

This documented bug is quite common since most video upload sites
automatically compress with Sorensen (Flash Video 6/7 codec).

I've used a tool called FLV Metadata Injector to correct the FLV
metadata:
http://www.buraks.com/flvmdi/

This does work, but I'd rather be backwards compatible with Flash
Video 6/7.

-Josh

Yahoo! Groups Links

__ NOD32 1.1574 (20060601) Information __

This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com

SPONSORED LINKS
Fireant Individual Typepad
Use Explains

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group videoblogging on the web.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

SPONSORED LINKS

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Flash Video question for Actionscripters




 Which is the lowest version of Flash you want to support (7 has
 several versions, I think the most recent is 7.2)?

I'd like to support FLV, and that means both Flash 7 and Flash 8 (and
Flash 6?? not sure if FLV was part of Flash 6).

 And how are you
 loading the FLVs? Is it with NetConnection and NetStream or the Media
 class?

I'm using NetConnection and NetStream. Currently getting duration
metadata through the NetStream.onMetaData method. Older versions of
FLV simply return undefined because they don't properly have the
metadata inside. Hence the need for the metadata injection.

-Josh


On 6/2/06, Enric [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Which is the lowest version of Flash you want to support (7 has
 several versions, I think the most recent is 7.2)? And how are you
 loading the FLVs? Is it with NetConnection and NetStream or the Media
 class?

 -- Enric
 -==-
 http://www.cirne.com
 http://www.cinegage.com

 --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
 
   I've been looking for a Flash player that
   will load FLV files from a RSS feed and play through them. Any chance
   that this project will have this functionality?
 
  Yes, exactly. It currently supports FLV videos from RSS and XSPF
  playlists. But the videos must be Flash 8 (or have proper FLV metadata
  injected) until I can figure out a work around for the issue mentioned
  in this thread. Unfortunately, all the docs on Adobe simply suggest to
  either re-encode the videos or inject the metadata...
 
  I'm having a hard time believing that there is just no other work
  around. Come on, Adobe!
 
  -Josh
 
 
  On 6/1/06, Bill Streeter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   Josh,
  
   I'm sorry I don't have an answer to your problem but I would like to
   know more about the project. I've been looking for a Flash player that
   will load FLV files from a RSS feed and play through them. Any chance
   that this project will have this functionality?
  
   Bill Streeter
   LO-FI SAINT LOUIS
   www.lofistl.com
  
   --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Joshua Kinberg jkinberg@
   wrote:
   
This is a question for the Flash developers out there...
   
I'm creating a little side-project Flash application that plays
 Flash
Video files (FLV) from a playlist.
   
I've run into a documented bug in FLV versions prior to Flash 8
 where
the duration metadata is incorrect. This screws up the time progress
bar and seeking functionality of my video controller. There must
 be a
trick to get the duration for older versions of FLV since its
 obvious
that other Flash video controllers can do this. Any advice from the
Actionscripters out there?
   
Here's some documentation of the bug (scroll to the bottom):
http://www.jeroenwijering.com/?item=FLV_Video_Compression
   
and here: http://www.sti-media.com/blog/archives/000111.html
   
This documented bug is quite common since most video upload sites
automatically compress with Sorensen (Flash Video 6/7 codec).
   
I've used a tool called FLV Metadata Injector to correct the FLV
   metadata:
http://www.buraks.com/flvmdi/
   
This does work, but I'd rather be backwards compatible with Flash
   Video 6/7.
   
   
-Josh
   
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
   Yahoo! Groups Links
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 








 Yahoo! Groups Links













  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Fireant
  
  
Individual
  
  
Typepad
  
  


Use
  
  
Explains
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



  Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.
  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Flash Video question for Actionscripters

Yes, I'm pretty much combining Jeroen's FLV player and his MP3 player
that handles RSS/XSPF playlists.

-Josh

On 6/2/06, Michael Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

sull

On 6/1/06, Bill Streeter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Josh,

Bill Streeter
LO-FI SAINT LOUIS
www.lofistl.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

This is a question for the Flash developers out there...

I'm creating a little side-project Flash application that plays Flash
Video files (FLV) from a playlist.

I've run into a documented bug in FLV versions prior to Flash 8 where
the duration metadata is incorrect. This screws up the time progress
bar and seeking functionality of my video controller. There must be a
trick to get the duration for older versions of FLV since its obvious
that other Flash video controllers can do this. Any advice from the
Actionscripters out there?

Here's some documentation of the bug (scroll to the bottom):
http://www.jeroenwijering.com/?item=FLV_Video_Compression

and here: http://www.sti-media.com/blog/archives/000111.html

This documented bug is quite common since most video upload sites
automatically compress with Sorensen (Flash Video 6/7 codec).

I've used a tool called FLV Metadata Injector to correct the FLV
metadata:
http://www.buraks.com/flvmdi/

This does work, but I'd rather be backwards compatible with Flash
Video 6/7.

-Josh

Yahoo! Groups Links

--
Sull
http://vlogdir.com
http://SpreadTheMedia.org

SPONSORED LINKS
Fireant Individual Typepad
Use Explains

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group videoblogging on the web.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

SPONSORED LINKS

Fireant

Individual

Typepad

Use

Explains

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

[videoblogging] Re: Flash Video question for Actionscripters




--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

  Which is the lowest version of Flash you want to support (7 has
  several versions, I think the most recent is 7.2)?
 
 I'd like to support FLV, and that means both Flash 7 and Flash 8 (and
 Flash 6?? not sure if FLV was part of Flash 6).
 
  And how are you
  loading the FLVs? Is it with NetConnection and NetStream or the Media
  class?
 
 I'm using NetConnection and NetStream. Currently getting duration
 metadata through the NetStream.onMetaData method. Older versions of
 FLV simply return undefined because they don't properly have the
 metadata inside. Hence the need for the metadata injection.
 
 -Josh

I'm using the MediaDisplay control with the associated Media class. 
Although the documentation says the total duration is only available
when the FLV completely loads, I'm abile to get it at the start of the
FLV load in the Media.progress event. This seems to work on Flash 7.2
and 8, though I haven't thoroughly tested it.

Here's a sample of the progress event:

flvListener.progress = function(){
...

 if (nPercentLoaded  .01  nTotalTime = 0) {
  nTotalTime = [MediaDisplay instance name].totalTime;
 }
...
}

Let me know if this works.

 -- Enric
 -==-
 http://www.cirne.com
 http://www.cinegage.com

 
 
 On 6/2/06, Enric [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  Which is the lowest version of Flash you want to support (7 has
  several versions, I think the most recent is 7.2)? And how are you
  loading the FLVs? Is it with NetConnection and NetStream or the Media
  class?
 
  -- Enric
  -==-
  http://www.cirne.com
  http://www.cinegage.com
 
  --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Joshua Kinberg jkinberg@
  wrote:
  
I've been looking for a Flash player that
will load FLV files from a RSS feed and play through them. Any
chance
that this project will have this functionality?
  
   Yes, exactly. It currently supports FLV videos from RSS and XSPF
   playlists. But the videos must be Flash 8 (or have proper FLV
metadata
   injected) until I can figure out a work around for the issue
mentioned
   in this thread. Unfortunately, all the docs on Adobe simply
suggest to
   either re-encode the videos or inject the metadata...
  
   I'm having a hard time believing that there is just no other work
   around. Come on, Adobe!
  
   -Josh
  
  
   On 6/1/06, Bill Streeter bill@ wrote:
Josh,
   
I'm sorry I don't have an answer to your problem but I would
like to
know more about the project. I've been looking for a Flash
player that
will load FLV files from a RSS feed and play through them. Any
chance
that this project will have this functionality?
   
Bill Streeter
LO-FI SAINT LOUIS
www.lofistl.com
   
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Joshua Kinberg jkinberg@
wrote:

 This is a question for the Flash developers out there...

 I'm creating a little side-project Flash application that plays
  Flash
 Video files (FLV) from a playlist.

 I've run into a documented bug in FLV versions prior to Flash 8
  where
 the duration metadata is incorrect. This screws up the time
progress
 bar and seeking functionality of my video controller. There must
  be a
 trick to get the duration for older versions of FLV since its
  obvious
 that other Flash video controllers can do this. Any advice
from the
 Actionscripters out there?

 Here's some documentation of the bug (scroll to the bottom):
 http://www.jeroenwijering.com/?item=FLV_Video_Compression

 and here: http://www.sti-media.com/blog/archives/000111.html

 This documented bug is quite common since most video upload
sites
 automatically compress with Sorensen (Flash Video 6/7 codec).

 I've used a tool called FLV Metadata Injector to correct the FLV
metadata:
 http://www.buraks.com/flvmdi/

 This does work, but I'd rather be backwards compatible with
Flash
Video 6/7.


 -Josh

   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
Yahoo! Groups Links
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Yahoo! Groups Links
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 










  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Fireant
  
  
Individual
  
  
Typepad
  
  


Use
  
  
Explains
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



  Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.
  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Flash Video question for Actionscripters




Try downloading a video from YouTube and tell me if that works for you.
Use http://keepvid.com to get the FLV from YouTube.

-Josh


On 6/2/06, Enric [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
 
   Which is the lowest version of Flash you want to support (7 has
   several versions, I think the most recent is 7.2)?
 
  I'd like to support FLV, and that means both Flash 7 and Flash 8 (and
  Flash 6?? not sure if FLV was part of Flash 6).
 
   And how are you
   loading the FLVs? Is it with NetConnection and NetStream or the Media
   class?
 
  I'm using NetConnection and NetStream. Currently getting duration
  metadata through the NetStream.onMetaData method. Older versions of
  FLV simply return undefined because they don't properly have the
  metadata inside. Hence the need for the metadata injection.
 
  -Josh

 I'm using the MediaDisplay control with the associated Media class.
 Although the documentation says the total duration is only available
 when the FLV completely loads, I'm abile to get it at the start of the
 FLV load in the Media.progress event. This seems to work on Flash 7.2
 and 8, though I haven't thoroughly tested it.

 Here's a sample of the progress event:

 flvListener.progress = function(){
 ...

 if (nPercentLoaded  .01  nTotalTime = 0) {
 nTotalTime = [MediaDisplay instance name].totalTime;
 }
 ...
 }

 Let me know if this works.

 -- Enric
 -==-
 http://www.cirne.com
 http://www.cinegage.com

 
 
  On 6/2/06, Enric [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   Which is the lowest version of Flash you want to support (7 has
   several versions, I think the most recent is 7.2)? And how are you
   loading the FLVs? Is it with NetConnection and NetStream or the Media
   class?
  
   -- Enric
   -==-
   http://www.cirne.com
   http://www.cinegage.com
  
   --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Joshua Kinberg jkinberg@
   wrote:
   
 I've been looking for a Flash player that
 will load FLV files from a RSS feed and play through them. Any
 chance
 that this project will have this functionality?
   
Yes, exactly. It currently supports FLV videos from RSS and XSPF
playlists. But the videos must be Flash 8 (or have proper FLV
 metadata
injected) until I can figure out a work around for the issue
 mentioned
in this thread. Unfortunately, all the docs on Adobe simply
 suggest to
either re-encode the videos or inject the metadata...
   
I'm having a hard time believing that there is just no other work
around. Come on, Adobe!
   
-Josh
   
   
On 6/1/06, Bill Streeter bill@ wrote:
 Josh,

 I'm sorry I don't have an answer to your problem but I would
 like to
 know more about the project. I've been looking for a Flash
 player that
 will load FLV files from a RSS feed and play through them. Any
 chance
 that this project will have this functionality?

 Bill Streeter
 LO-FI SAINT LOUIS
 www.lofistl.com

 --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Joshua Kinberg jkinberg@
 wrote:
 
  This is a question for the Flash developers out there...
 
  I'm creating a little side-project Flash application that plays
   Flash
  Video files (FLV) from a playlist.
 
  I've run into a documented bug in FLV versions prior to Flash 8
   where
  the duration metadata is incorrect. This screws up the time
 progress
  bar and seeking functionality of my video controller. There must
   be a
  trick to get the duration for older versions of FLV since its
   obvious
  that other Flash video controllers can do this. Any advice
 from the
  Actionscripters out there?
 
  Here's some documentation of the bug (scroll to the bottom):
  http://www.jeroenwijering.com/?item=FLV_Video_Compression
 
  and here: http://www.sti-media.com/blog/archives/000111.html
 
  This documented bug is quite common since most video upload
 sites
  automatically compress with Sorensen (Flash Video 6/7 codec).
 
  I've used a tool called FLV Metadata Injector to correct the FLV
 metadata:
  http://www.buraks.com/flvmdi/
 
  This does work, but I'd rather be backwards compatible with
 Flash
 Video 6/7.
 
 
  -Josh
 








 Yahoo! Groups Links







   
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
   Yahoo! Groups Links
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 








 Yahoo! Groups Links













  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Fireant
  
  
Individual
  
  
Typepad
  
  


Use
  
  
Explains
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



  Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.
  To unsubscribe from

[videoblogging] Re: Flash Video question for Actionscripters




Nope, it doesn't work with FLVs encoded by YouTube (bottom of
http://utilities.cinegage.com/vpip-test-page/ ). However, it works
with FLVs encoded by blip.tv
(http://www.cirne.com/vlog/2006/04/14/pixars-acquisition-by-disney-509/ ).

 -- Enric
 -==-
 http://www.cirne.com
 http://www.cinegage.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

 Try downloading a video from YouTube and tell me if that works for you.
 Use http://keepvid.com to get the FLV from YouTube.
 
 -Josh
 
 
 On 6/2/06, Enric [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Joshua Kinberg jkinberg@
  wrote:
  
Which is the lowest version of Flash you want to support (7 has
several versions, I think the most recent is 7.2)?
  
   I'd like to support FLV, and that means both Flash 7 and Flash 8
(and
   Flash 6?? not sure if FLV was part of Flash 6).
  
And how are you
loading the FLVs? Is it with NetConnection and NetStream or
the Media
class?
  
   I'm using NetConnection and NetStream. Currently getting duration
   metadata through the NetStream.onMetaData method. Older versions of
   FLV simply return undefined because they don't properly have the
   metadata inside. Hence the need for the metadata injection.
  
   -Josh
 
  I'm using the MediaDisplay control with the associated Media class.
  Although the documentation says the total duration is only available
  when the FLV completely loads, I'm abile to get it at the start of the
  FLV load in the Media.progress event. This seems to work on Flash 7.2
  and 8, though I haven't thoroughly tested it.
 
  Here's a sample of the progress event:
 
  flvListener.progress = function(){
  ...
 
  if (nPercentLoaded  .01  nTotalTime = 0) {
  nTotalTime = [MediaDisplay instance name].totalTime;
  }
  ...
  }
 
  Let me know if this works.
 
  -- Enric
  -==-
  http://www.cirne.com
  http://www.cinegage.com
 
  
  
   On 6/2/06, Enric enric@ wrote:
Which is the lowest version of Flash you want to support (7 has
several versions, I think the most recent is 7.2)? And how
are you
loading the FLVs? Is it with NetConnection and NetStream or
the Media
class?
   
-- Enric
-==-
http://www.cirne.com
http://www.cinegage.com
   
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Joshua Kinberg jkinberg@
wrote:

  I've been looking for a Flash player that
  will load FLV files from a RSS feed and play through them. Any
  chance
  that this project will have this functionality?

 Yes, exactly. It currently supports FLV videos from RSS and XSPF
 playlists. But the videos must be Flash 8 (or have proper FLV
  metadata
 injected) until I can figure out a work around for the issue
  mentioned
 in this thread. Unfortunately, all the docs on Adobe simply
  suggest to
 either re-encode the videos or inject the metadata...

 I'm having a hard time believing that there is just no other
work
 around. Come on, Adobe!

 -Josh


 On 6/1/06, Bill Streeter bill@ wrote:
  Josh,
 
  I'm sorry I don't have an answer to your problem but I would
  like to
  know more about the project. I've been looking for a Flash
  player that
  will load FLV files from a RSS feed and play through them. Any
  chance
  that this project will have this functionality?
 
  Bill Streeter
  LO-FI SAINT LOUIS
  www.lofistl.com
 
  --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Joshua Kinberg
jkinberg@
  wrote:
  
   This is a question for the Flash developers out there...
  
   I'm creating a little side-project Flash application
that plays
Flash
   Video files (FLV) from a playlist.
  
   I've run into a documented bug in FLV versions prior to
Flash 8
where
   the duration metadata is incorrect. This screws up the time
  progress
   bar and seeking functionality of my video controller.
There must
be a
   trick to get the duration for older versions of FLV
since its
obvious
   that other Flash video controllers can do this. Any advice
  from the
   Actionscripters out there?
  
   Here's some documentation of the bug (scroll to the bottom):
   http://www.jeroenwijering.com/?item=FLV_Video_Compression
  
   and here:
http://www.sti-media.com/blog/archives/000111.html
  
   This documented bug is quite common since most video upload
  sites
   automatically compress with Sorensen (Flash Video 6/7
codec).
  
   I've used a tool called FLV Metadata Injector to correct
the FLV
  metadata:
   http://www.buraks.com/flvmdi/
  
   This does work, but I'd rather be backwards compatible with
  Flash
  Video 6/7.
  
  
   -Josh
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Yahoo! Groups Links
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
Yahoo! Groups

[videoblogging] Re: Flash Video question for Actionscripters