Oops that was supposed to read .mov not .moc Would be keen to hear from others with opinions on this sort of stuff too, I know a lot of people are probably keeping things simple by offering 2 or 3 different versions, eg a mpeg4 or h264 .mp4 or .mov, and a flash version thats usually encoded for them by the video host.
Where are we with resoluton these days? Seems like quite a few people ahve been toying with moving up from 320x240 to 480x or 640xresolutions, but understandably not much HD yet. I waffled about flash h.264 support being out a while back, and got no responses at all, has this appeared on the radar much yet? Oh and just to round off my (much rarer these days) codec waffle, I see DivX bought Mainconcept, a company that does stuff with h264, a while back, thus reducing the likelihood that they will become completely irrelevant, although I dont know what their plans are in regards h264, they are in a strange position really, strong brand, in an increasingly claustrophobic h264 based world. We are so near to format convergence and common standards, and yet so far away still from the benefits this could bring. And thats without even mentioning the open format issues, that it would be better if we were embracing something non-proprietary, without licensing fee's, but how the actual practical realities of ogg theora are not going to encourage mass uptake as things stand. Meanwhile the next version of HTML gets ever closer, with its support for a video tag that will make embedding video into web pages very easy, but only if all the browsers support a common format. Wibble! Cheers Steve Elbows --- In [email protected], "Steve Watkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > too). Files ending in .moc could be mpeg4 or h264 or many other codec types > (that people > shouldnt normally be using for web distribution, so for vlogs the movs are > usually mpeg4 > or h264).
