Home > All Posts > Sort by Topic
Topic #906

Flash

By Steve Garfield | Steve Garfield <steve@...> | sgarfield
August 25, 2004 | Post #906 | Topic #906

Just read this on the Userplane website: - Flash is installed on nearly 90% of all browsers... nothing to down load, install, or hassle with. Hmm... why then are we working with QT, WMV and Real? --------- [ Web Sites ] --------- Steve Garfield Video Production http://stevegarfield.com Video Blog http://stevegarfield.blogs.com/videoblog/ Weblog: Off On A Tangent http://offonatangent.blogspot.com/ [View]



Re: Flash

By The Dane | "The Dane" <thedaneof5683@...> | thedaneof5683
August 25, 2004 | Post #909 | Topic #906

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Steve Garfield <steve@o...> wrote: > Just read this on the Userplane website: > - Flash is installed on nearly 90% of all browsers... > nothing to down load, install, or hassle with. > Hmm... why then are we working with QT, WMV and Real? Got me *GRIN* Love, The Dane [View]



Re: Flash

By Deirdre Straughan, class of 81 | "Deirdre Straughan, class of 81" <lists@...> | deirdrebs2002
August 25, 2004 | Post #912 | Topic #906

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "The Dane" <thedaneof5683@y...> wrote= : > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Steve Garfield <steve@o...> > wr= ote: > > Just read this on the Userplane website: > > - Flash is installed = on nearly 90% of all browsers... > > nothing to down load, install, or has= sle with. > > Hmm... why then are we working with QT, WMV and Real? > > >= Got me *GRIN* Some of us (the Dane and me) are working with Flash for pre= cisely this reason. best regards, Deirdr=E9 Straughan http://www.straugh= an.com [View]



Re: [videoblogging] Flash

By Andreas Haugstrup | "Andreas Haugstrup" <videoblog@...> | andreashaugstrup
August 25, 2004 | Post #913 | Topic #906

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 13:36:15 -0400, Steve Garfield <steve@...> wrote: > - Flash is installed on nearly 90% of all browsers... nothing to down > load, install, or hassle with. > > Hmm... why then are we working with QT, WMV and Real? Flash MX costs $499 in the USA. WMV is free for me on Windows, QT is free to create on a Mac. I can't afford to pay $499 to make Flash movies.. Or rather since I'm in Denmark the prices for Flash MX *start* at $1000. My university has Flash available, but it is an academic license so I can't really use it for my personal projects. -- Personal: <http://www.solitude.dk&gt; File Thingie - PHP File Manager <http://www.solitude.dk/filethingie/&gt; [View]



Re: Flash

By Deirdre Straughan, class of 81 | "Deirdre Straughan, class of 81" <lists@...> | deirdrebs2002
August 25, 2004 | Post #915 | Topic #906

> I can't afford to pay $499 to make Flash movies.. Or rather since I'm in = > Denmark the prices for Flash MX *start* at $1000. My university has Fla= sh > available, but it is an academic license so I can't really use it fo= r my > personal projects. There's a Sorenson Squeeze version for Flash w= hich will encode directly to SWF, and costs only $99 (there may be some sor= t of trial offer discount available, too). And, unlike many American online= stores, Sorenson will let you order with a non-US credit card. On my recen= t postings, I've been using Sorenson to create the SWFs and have not opened= Flash at all. best regards, Deirdr=E9 Straughan http://www.straughan.co= m [View]



Re: [videoblogging] Re: Flash

By Andreas Haugstrup | "Andreas Haugstrup" <videoblog@...> | andreashaugstrup
August 25, 2004 | Post #917 | Topic #906

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 18:14:44 -0000, Deirdre Straughan, class of 81 <lists@...> wrote: > There's a Sorenson Squeeze version for Flash which will encode > directly to SWF, and costs only $99 (there may be some sort of trial > offer discount available, too). And, unlike many American online > stores, Sorenson will let you order with a non-US credit card. On my > recent postings, I've been using Sorenson to create the SWFs and have > not opened Flash at all. I'm glad to hear that you can do it cheaper. It's still no match for free though :o) Or $30 for QT Pro. Anyway, buying from US online stores is sadly not an option. I haven't met one yet that wouldn't accept my VISA card, but that's not the problem. When I make a purchase from a US store I have to pay all sorts of nice things in addition to the price and the freight. For example our nice and handy 25% sales tax and a customs fee. Effectively this makes ordering anything from the US too expensive (which is the whole purpose of customs fees). -- Personal: <http://www.solitude.dk&gt; File Thingie - PHP File Manager <http://www.solitude.dk/filethingie/&gt; [View]



Re: Flash

By Eric Rice | "Eric Rice" <eric@...> | audioblogdotcom
August 25, 2004 | Post #918 | Topic #906

Well, Flash (at the moment) is a streaming format, while others are portable. When it comes to the practical aspect of delivering content, and the ease of use of accessing it, it's impossible to ignore the value. Actually, I've heard higher percentages of flash penetration, but still, that's impressive. And forgive me for always having a business lean to my thinking, but the same issues that affect business affect indies. Triple formatting your video to accomodate allll users just triples the bandwidth usage and storage space. I can't afford that as a business, nor as an individual. It's a judgement call, basically. There is some content I want people to take with them and distribute freely, and there is other content that I want people to stay on my site and digest. The same process applies to using audio vs video vs text. ER --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Steve Garfield <steve@o...> wrote: > Just read this on the Userplane website: > > - Flash is installed on nearly 90% of all browsers... nothing to down > load, install, or hassle with. > > Hmm... why then are we working with QT, WMV and Real? > > --------- [ Web Sites ] --------- > Steve Garfield Video Production > http://stevegarfield.com > > Video Blog > http://stevegarfield.blogs.com/videoblog/ > > Weblog: Off On A Tangent > http://offonatangent.blogspot.com/ [View]



[videoblogging] Re: Flash

By M. Sean Gilligan | "M. Sean Gilligan" <seanlist@...> | M_Sean_Gilligan
August 25, 2004 | Post #919 | Topic #906

>affect business affect indies. Triple formatting your video to accomodate allll users just >triples the bandwidth usage and storage space. Providing video in multiple formats does increase the storage space, but *does not* increase bandwidth usage, as each person only views the video in a single format. -- Sean -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M. Sean Gilligan : 831-466-9788 x11 Catalla Systems, Inc. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- [View]



Re: Flash

By Eric Rice | "Eric Rice" <eric@...> | audioblogdotcom
August 25, 2004 | Post #920 | Topic #906

Maybe that's why we're working on an R&D project of the video version of audioblog to take input right from the browser and publish it to your blog either as individual posts or as a playlist. Sample here: http://eric.blognews.com/blog/_archives/2004/7/7/ 101237.html Those are three flash-recorded video clips that I saved online and published as a playlist. Only needed a camera and a web browser. If we believe in something, we can make great things happen. :-) ER --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Andreas Haugstrup" <videoblog@s...> wrote: > On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 13:36:15 -0400, Steve Garfield > <steve@o...> wrote: > > > - Flash is installed on nearly 90% of all browsers... nothing to down > > load, install, or hassle with. > > > > Hmm... why then are we working with QT, WMV and Real? > > Flash MX costs $499 in the USA. WMV is free for me on Windows, QT is free > to create on a Mac. > > I can't afford to pay $499 to make Flash movies.. Or rather since I'm in > Denmark the prices for Flash MX *start* at $1000. My university has Flash > available, but it is an academic license so I can't really use it for my > personal projects. > > -- > Personal: <http://www.solitude.dk&gt; > File Thingie - PHP File Manager <http://www.solitude.dk/filethingie/&gt; [View]



Re: Flash

By Eric Rice | "Eric Rice" <eric@...> | audioblogdotcom
August 25, 2004 | Post #921 | Topic #906

Sean, Sorry I wasn't clear, I meant bandwidth in the sense of having to UPLOAD all these versions to your site--bandwidth hit x 3. However, you are correct in downloading bandwidth issues too. ER --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "M. Sean Gilligan" <seanlist@m...> wrote: > >affect business affect indies. Triple formatting your video to accomodate allll users just > >triples the bandwidth usage and storage space. > > Providing video in multiple formats does increase the storage space, but *does not* increase bandwidth usage, as each person only views the video in a single format. > > -- Sean > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > M. Sean Gilligan : 831-466-9788 x11 > Catalla Systems, Inc. > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- [View]



[videoblogging] Re: Flash

By M. Sean Gilligan | "M. Sean Gilligan" <seanlist@...> | M_Sean_Gilligan
August 25, 2004 | Post #922 | Topic #906

>Sorry I wasn't clear, I meant bandwidth in the sense of having to UPLOAD all these versions >to your site--bandwidth hit x 3. Unless, of course, you upload a single movie and the conversion to the other formats occurs on the server. ;-) Also, there are no bandwidth costs involved with uploading video to your blog, only when people view it. -- Sean -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M. Sean Gilligan : 831-466-9788 x11 Catalla Systems, Inc. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- [View]



Re: [videoblogging] Re: Flash

By Lucas Gonze | Lucas Gonze <lgonze@...> | lucas_gonze
August 25, 2004 | Post #923 | Topic #906

However, streaming formats lose the bandwidth savings of HTTP caching, and they spend more resources on persistent sockets and on memory for session state. -L On Wed, 25 Aug 2004, Eric Rice wrote: > Sean, > > Sorry I wasn't clear, I meant bandwidth in the sense of having to UPLOAD all these versions > to your site--bandwidth hit x 3. However, you are correct in downloading bandwidth > issues too. > > ER > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "M. Sean Gilligan" <seanlist@m...> wrote: >>> affect business affect indies. Triple formatting your video to accomodate allll users just >>> triples the bandwidth usage and storage space. >> >> Providing video in multiple formats does increase the storage space, but *does not* > increase bandwidth usage, as each person only views the video in a single format. >> >> -- Sean >> >> -- >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> M. Sean Gilligan : 831-466-9788 x11 >> Catalla Systems, Inc. >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > [View]



Re: [videoblogging] Re: Flash

By M. Sean Gilligan | "M. Sean Gilligan" <seanlist@...> | M_Sean_Gilligan
August 25, 2004 | Post #925 | Topic #906

>However, streaming formats lose the bandwidth savings of HTTP caching, and It's not "streaming formats" you mean here, but "streaming delivery protocols". In many cases the same file format can be used for both streaming and non-streaming delivery. In the case of QuickTime/MP4 and additional hint track is added to make the file streamable, but the audio/video format is unchanged. There is a bandwidth downside to progressive download, as well. The browser may download the entire clip even though the user only watches the first couple of seconds, resulting in the vblogger paying for bandwidth that wasn't used to actually view video. (True streaming also lets you know exactly how much of your video was actually watched.) On lossy links, progressive download will re-transmit dropped packets resulting in bandwidth charges at the server for retransmission. >they spend more resources on persistent sockets and on memory for session >state. This depends upon the application, type of network, etc. I'm not an advocate of streaming over non-streaming, but there are advantages and disadvantages to each and the issues can get rather complex. (The vBlog Central service is currently configured to only use progressive download, BTW.) -- Sean -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M. Sean Gilligan : 831-466-9788 x11 Catalla Systems, Inc. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- [View]



Re: Flash

By Eric Rice | "Eric Rice" <eric@...> | audioblogdotcom
August 25, 2004 | Post #926 | Topic #906

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "M. Sean Gilligan" <seanlist@m...> wrote: > There is a bandwidth downside to progressive download, as well. The browser may download the entire clip even though the user only watches the first couple of seconds, resulting in the vblogger paying for bandwidth that wasn't used to actually view video. (True streaming also lets you know exactly how much of your video was actually watched.) Actually on a side note, people who publish audioblogs through us aren't charged for what's NOT played. Each audioblog will have stats that say "actual listen time" There's no dramatic pre-loading happening, since that would be an unfair bandwidth billing. Why should you pay for something loading that someone never listened to. So I think that's a hurdle that can be easily overcome. ER [View]



Re: Flash

By Deirdre Straughan, class of 81 | "Deirdre Straughan, class of 81" <lists@...> | deirdrebs2002
August 25, 2004 | Post #927 | Topic #906

> Anyway, buying from US online stores is sadly not an option. I haven't met > one yet that wouldn't accept my VISA card, but that's not the problem. > When I make a purchase from a US store I have to pay all sorts of nice > things in addition to the price and the freight. For example our nice and > handy 25% sales tax and a customs fee. Effectively this makes ordering > anything from the US too expensive (which is the whole purpose of customs > fees). Even if you order download only? If nothing is shipped to you, how will customs know about it? (I live in Italy - I have the same problems.) [View]



Re: [videoblogging] Flash

By Adrian Miles | Adrian Miles <adrian.miles@...> | adrianlmiles
August 25, 2004 | Post #929 | Topic #906

On 26/08/2004, at 3:36 AM, Steve Garfield wrote: > Hmm... why then are we working with QT, WMV and Real? > that's a very good question. i will write something about why i use qt and to start the argument: 1. most of what you can script in flash you can script in QT 2. this is the world's best kept secret 3. it is no harder than scripting flash, just different 4. qt *is* the architecture for time based media 5. flash *is* the architecture for animation that now wants to be time based media 6. flash is still quite 'thick' when it comes to the level of granularity it supports for video (though i may have that arse about) 7. flash has fantastic installed userbase which makes it hegemonically better 8. qt 6 fully reads flash 5 (and the best work in qt uses flash) 9. how did flash get here? i. because graphic designers took to the web. ii. graphic designers can draw (we can't, were film makers, thre's a difference). iii. flash let graphic designers become proto-film makers iv. (think aboiut it, you're a graphic designer, nothing moves. now you're an interactive artist/author/designer, the difference is staggering.) v. (think about it. you're a designer. frames per second doesnt' exist. you now have 12fps. you're a filmmaker. 24fps full screen is default. "What, I get 320x240 at 12fps, isn't that going backwards?") vi. graphic designers understood the... [View]



Re: Adrian's Flash vs. QT Analysis

By The Dane | "The Dane" <thedaneof5683@...> | thedaneof5683
August 25, 2004 | Post #933 | Topic #906

> Adrian Miles wrote: > 1. most of what you can script in flash you can script > in QT > 2. this is the world's best kept secret > 3. it is no harder than scripting flash, just different > 4. qt *is* the architecture for time based media > 5. flash *is* the architecture for animation that now > wants to be time based media > 6. flash is still quite 'thick' when it comes to the > level of granularity it supports for video (though i > may have that arse about) > 7. flash has fantastic installed userbase which makes > it hegemonically better > 8. qt 6 fully reads flash 5 (and the best work in qt > uses flash) > 9. how did flash get here? > i. because graphic designers took to the web. > ii. graphic designers can draw (we can't, were film > makers, thre's a difference). > iii. flash let graphic designers become proto-film makers > iv. (think aboiut it, you're a graphic designer, nothing > moves. now you're an interactive artist/author/designer, > the difference is staggering.) > v. (think about it. you're a designer. frames per second > doesnt' exist. you now have 12fps. you're a filmmaker. > 24fps full screen is default. "What, I get 320x240 at > 12fps, isn't that going backwards?") > vi. graphic designers understood the web, used Flash, became > web artists. got their... [View]



Re: Flash

By Deirdre Straughan, class of 81 | "Deirdre Straughan, class of 81" <lists@...> | deirdrebs2002
August 26, 2004 | Post #936 | Topic #906

Being neither a filmmaker nor a web designer, I will thank you for the valu= able info, rather than throwing you about. ; ) This format "war" is a majo= r pain. I posted WMV to my blog yesterday, and at least two people on Macs = (Charlene and Mica) can't view it. I think Jay was able to, by downloading = the Microsoft player, though I'm not 100% sure. Anyone else? I'm not findi= ng QT entirely well behaved, at least in some implementations. I was never = able to see all of Chris' latest Human Dog post. In Firefox, it kept asking= me to download a plug-in, which turned out to be QT which is already insta= lled. I reinstalled it twice, but kept getting that plug-in message. Then I= tried IE, but could only get about 30 seconds into the movie before it wou= ld simply stall. I'll try again today and see if that was just some sort of= server choke. So far I'm seeing fewer problems with people viewing the SW= F on my site, though that may be wishful thinking - I haven't had a lot of = comments from you guys on my videos, one way or the other. One downside of = SWF seems to be that it's not eligible (probably because not usable) for yo= ur vogroll, and may not be re-voggable, so I feel like I'm missing out on b=... [View]



Re: [videoblogging] Re: Flash

By Adrian Miles | Adrian Miles <adrian.miles@...> | adrianlmiles
August 26, 2004 | Post #937 | Topic #906

On 26/08/2004, at 5:02 PM, Deirdre Straughan, class of 81 wrote: > I'm not finding QT entirely well behaved, at least in some > implementations. I was never able to see all of Chris' latest Human > Dog post. In Firefox, it kept asking me to download a plug-in, which > turned out to be QT which is already installed. I reinstalled it > twice, but kept getting that plug-in message. Then I tried IE, but > could only get about 30 seconds into the movie before it would simply > stall. I'll try again today and see if that was just some sort of > server choke. yeah, this sometimes happen. quite a bit of my stuff breaks on PC but i describe it as 'experimental' rather than accessible :-) > > So far I'm seeing fewer problems with people viewing the SWF on my > site, though that may be wishful thinking - I haven't had a lot of > comments from you guys on my videos, one way or the other. One > downside of SWF seems to be that it's not eligible (probably because > not usable) for your vogroll, and may not be re-voggable, so I feel > like I'm missing out on being part of the community! flash plays the same everywhere. QT and other formats don't. There are cross platform issues. on the other hand if we all used mpeg4 (which can be... [View]



Re: [videoblogging] Re: Flash

By Christopher Weagel | Christopher Weagel <humandog@...> | ronnalddd
August 26, 2004 | Post #943 | Topic #906

--Apple-Mail-1--740819139 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; format=flowed I've had WMV 9 on my mac for a while now. As much as I dislike it, it has = always worked for any WMV from the web I get including all vidblogs to dat= e. I don't know what further plug-in the browser is requesting of you. But= for my posts on 8/24 and 8/26 I embedded them using the MIME video/mp4 in= stead of my normal video/quicktime. You're the first person reporting prob= lems with that, but it may be the cause nonetheless. Unfortunately, I've = never been able to view your flash videos. I have the latest flash plugin = running in Safari, but nothing happens when I clik on the controls. I just= see the still frame. The flash videos that the Dane produces, however, I = have no trouble watching. Chris On Aug 26, 2004, at 3:02 AM, Deirdre = Straughan, class of 81 wrote: > Being neither a filmmaker nor a web design= er, I will thank you for the > valuable info, rather than throwing you abo= ut. ; ) > > This format "war" is a major pain. I posted WMV to my blog yes= terday, > and at least two people on Macs (Charlene and Mica) can't view i= t. I > think Jay was able to, by downloading the Microsoft player, though = I'm > not 100% sure. Anyone else? > > I'm... [View]