Home > All Posts > Individual Post
Post #462

Re: New Video Blog post from the DNC

By Eric Rice | "Eric Rice" <eric@...> | audioblogdotcom
July 29, 2004 | Post #462 | Topic #449

It's funny, as much drama that surrounds the entire standards conversation (as a whole), no one acknowledges that everyone can see all the content. Flash=in 96% of all browsers; all movie trailers=Quicktime; as for Real, WMV are used liberally depending on publisher ideology. Yet we can all SEE it. Flash is awesome, and for streaming solutions, it works swimmingly. Most of you have seen some of my latest videos, and they're in Flash. No big deal. When I'm ready to release portable content (mpeg 4 or windows media), I will. I'm also not too crazy about standards-purity. I loved IE extensions because they made a better product in the end. For those that used IE to get online, they got a better experience. It's not like these web sites are locked in place for 50 years. Change will happen and today's standards will be different tomorrow since people develop NEW standards. Doesn't sound too standardized, does it? Heh. One more thing. MPEG4 didn't work in Windows Media or Real Player *or* WMP on PocketPC 2003. I would've thought otherwise. There is no standard. There is only variety. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "The Dane" <thedaneof5683@y...> wrote: > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay Dedman <jay@m...> wrote: > > if Im exporting to Quicktime in Imovie, can i > > export to MPEG4? it'd be good if we all agreed > > on a standard. we discussed this once...but the > > other conversations came up. > > > Personally, I'm not all that excited about a standard. I enjoy using > Flash because I adore the ability to load my vidblogs apart from the > running of QuickTime, WMP, or especially that devil, RealPlayer. > Plus, I can do things in Flash that I wouldn't have the faintest > idea how to do in other programs. And I wouldn't want to draw people > into the web of Flash if they're competent in another format. > > I also think that protmotion of a standard format works counter your > desire to make vidblogging broadly accessible to a range of content > producers. My camera shoots MPEG1 and comes with a very rudimentary > editor. If I didn't have Flash available to me through my > occupation, I would be locked out of the vidblogging discussion, > trapped by the low level of my tech. > > No, I think diversity at this point is a bonus - as it lets more > people become involved. At least until the point when vidblogging > becomes more ubiquitous.