So far BluRay has not lived up to expectations in terms of consumer
acceptance.
HDTV and huge flat screens are drawing attention to the antiquated
quality of DVD.
What is the best current format for delivering HiDef material?
I am creating a movie for a local winery to use at tastings around the
country. They want to be able to leave a copy with the hosts, so we
are looking at the possibility of using flash drives, but:
1) Which format (QT/wmv/Flash/other) has the best picture quality
2) and has most universal acceptance at the moment?
3) and does not demand the purchase of a new computer?
Having agreed upon such a format is there are any way to "package" it?
ie providing a menu and generally avoiding the feeling that the client
is having to spool the reels himself?
Been wondering about that, too: what format do I need to encode a 720 or 1080 clip into, for it to be playable on nearly any computer? (Outside of hosting it on YouTube.) My gut feeling is that Flash has the most lightweight player that is likely to run on nearly any computer. As far as packaging: autorun on a flash drive or CD/DVD that will fire up a web page with an invitation to click and play the movie. This seems to not require a user to do a lot of "reel spooling" yet gives him/her a choice, to play the video or not.
On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 9:12 AM, BearsHead <jam...@bearshead.com> wrote:
> What is the best current format for delivering HiDef material?
> I am creating a movie for a local winery to use at tastings around the > country. They want to be able to leave a copy with the hosts, so we > are looking at the possibility of using flash drives, but: > 1) Which format (QT/wmv/Flash/other) has the best picture quality > 2) and has most universal acceptance at the moment? > 3) and does not demand the purchase of a new computer?
> Having agreed upon such a format is there are any way to "package" it? > ie providing a menu and generally avoiding the feeling that the client > is having to spool the reels himself?
The same AVC file you create now can be used to build a blu-ray later. But if you intend to upload this file for viewing online, you'll be cutting a lot of corners to lower the file size. Depending on which site you intend to display it on, you should check their guidelines as to what types of files they prefer - e.g. Vimeo will take a vbr, YouTube wants cbr (IIRC).
Older computers (e.g. Pentium 4) may have trouble with .mp4. That's why sites convert your file to flash. But you can also use .wmv or mpg 2.
On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Alex G. <alex...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Been wondering about that, too: what format do I need to encode a 720 or 1080 clip into, for it to be playable on nearly any computer? (Outside of hosting it on YouTube.) My gut feeling is that Flash has the most lightweight player that is likely to run on nearly any computer. > As far as packaging: autorun on a flash drive or CD/DVD that will fire up a web page with an invitation to click and play the movie. This seems to not require a user to do a lot of "reel spooling" yet gives him/her a choice, to play the video or not. > Alex.
> On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 9:12 AM, BearsHead <jam...@bearshead.com> wrote:
>> What is the best current format for delivering HiDef material?
>> I am creating a movie for a local winery to use at tastings around the >> country. They want to be able to leave a copy with the hosts, so we >> are looking at the possibility of using flash drives, but: >> 1) Which format (QT/wmv/Flash/other) has the best picture quality >> 2) and has most universal acceptance at the moment? >> 3) and does not demand the purchase of a new computer?
>> Having agreed upon such a format is there are any way to "package" it? >> ie providing a menu and generally avoiding the feeling that the client >> is having to spool the reels himself?
Another issue you need to address is the frame size. At 720p, the user still needs a monitor with a minimum resolution of 1280pixels wide and at 1080 it needs to be 1920wide. If you want it to be viewable on older machines, many of those came with monitors of 1024x768 or even 600x800. So you may be producing a video that is too large.
You may need to decide on the lowest resolution you wish to support and make the video to fit on that.
A stand alone Flash presentation is probably the most widely usable as it requires no outside player. It also has the ability to add interactive content.
You could have different size movies and Flash can detect what size the user's screen is set to, and play the version appropriate to that user.
>The same AVC file you create now can be used to build a blu-ray later.
>But if you intend to upload this file for viewing online, you'll be
>cutting a lot of corners to lower the file size. Depending on which
>site you intend to display it on, you should check their guidelines as
>to what types of files they prefer - e.g. Vimeo will take a vbr,
>YouTube wants cbr (IIRC).
>Older computers (e.g. Pentium 4) may have trouble with .mp4. That's
>why sites convert your file to flash. But you can also use .wmv or mpg
>2.
>On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Alex G. <alex...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Been wondering about that, too: what format do I need to encode a >>720 or 1080 clip into, for it to be playable on nearly any >>computer? (Outside of hosting it on YouTube.) My gut feeling is >>that Flash has the most lightweight player that is likely to run on >>nearly any computer.
>> As far as packaging: autorun on a flash drive or CD/DVD that will >>fire up a web page with an invitation to click and play the movie. >> This seems to not require a user to do a lot of "reel spooling" >>yet gives him/her a choice, to play the video or not.
>> Alex.
>> On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 9:12 AM, BearsHead <jam...@bearshead.com> wrote:
>>> What is the best current format for delivering HiDef material?
>>> I am creating a movie for a local winery to use at tastings around the
>>> country. They want to be able to leave a copy with the hosts, so we
>>> are looking at the possibility of using flash drives, but:
>>> 1) Which format (QT/wmv/Flash/other) has the best picture quality
>>> 2) and has most universal acceptance at the moment?
>>> 3) and does not demand the purchase of a new computer?
>>> Having agreed upon such a format is there are any way to "package" it?
>>> ie providing a menu and generally avoiding the feeling that the client
>>> is having to spool the reels himself?
-- UTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUT
Bill Haddad
TRANSMEDIA Lab Tech
Department of Art & Art History
The University of Texas at Austin
512.232.1877
http://art20.art.utexas.edu/ UTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUT
FWIW, modern ATSC receivers can reproduce ALL these frame sizes. i.e., You do not need a 1080p monitor to view a 1080p program.
I'm not following you on your Flash recommendation. Perhaps you meant to say that all internet browsing machines should be capable of playing Flash. But there are different versions of Flash, so even this statement wouldn't be true. Anyway, I've never seen a DVD player or too many blu-ray players that could play Flash. There have been .mp4 (.divx) versions of both for years.
On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Bill Haddad <bhad...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> Another issue you need to address is the frame size. At 720p, the > user still needs a monitor with a minimum resolution of 1280pixels > wide and at 1080 it needs to be 1920wide. If you want it to be > viewable on older machines, many of those came with monitors of > 1024x768 or even 600x800. So you may be producing a video that is > too large.
> You may need to decide on the lowest resolution you wish to support > and make the video to fit on that.
> A stand alone Flash presentation is probably the most widely usable > as it requires no outside player. It also has the ability to add > interactive content.
> You could have different size movies and Flash can detect what size > the user's screen is set to, and play the version appropriate to that > user.
> bh
>>Blu-ray is gaining acceptance a bit quicker than DVD did, so you're >>starting with a false assumption.
>>The same AVC file you create now can be used to build a blu-ray later. >>But if you intend to upload this file for viewing online, you'll be >>cutting a lot of corners to lower the file size. Depending on which >>site you intend to display it on, you should check their guidelines as >>to what types of files they prefer - e.g. Vimeo will take a vbr, >>YouTube wants cbr (IIRC).
>>Older computers (e.g. Pentium 4) may have trouble with .mp4. That's >>why sites convert your file to flash. But you can also use .wmv or mpg >>2.
>>On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Alex G. <alex...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Been wondering about that, too: what format do I need to encode a >>>720 or 1080 clip into, for it to be playable on nearly any >>>computer? (Outside of hosting it on YouTube.) My gut feeling is >>>that Flash has the most lightweight player that is likely to run on >>>nearly any computer. >>> As far as packaging: autorun on a flash drive or CD/DVD that will >>>fire up a web page with an invitation to click and play the movie. >>> This seems to not require a user to do a lot of "reel spooling" >>>yet gives him/her a choice, to play the video or not. >>> Alex.
>>> On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 9:12 AM, BearsHead <jam...@bearshead.com> wrote:
>>>> What is the best current format for delivering HiDef material?
>>>> I am creating a movie for a local winery to use at tastings around the >>>> country. They want to be able to leave a copy with the hosts, so we >>>> are looking at the possibility of using flash drives, but: >>>> 1) Which format (QT/wmv/Flash/other) has the best picture quality >>>> 2) and has most universal acceptance at the moment? >>>> 3) and does not demand the purchase of a new computer?
>>>> Having agreed upon such a format is there are any way to "package" it? >>>> ie providing a menu and generally avoiding the feeling that the client >>>> is having to spool the reels himself?
Negative Joe.
Flash can produce a projector file that is a stand alone application. It does not require a browser of any kind.
If you read the original post, you will see that James is asking for an alternative delivery method to DVD or Blu-Ray. Specifically, the possibility of using a flash drive to deliver, and providing a menu interface for the user.
The point about the frame size refers to viewing the file in a computer. Why force the projector to scale the 1080 file down to fit on a standard screen, when you can present a file optimized for the viewer's resolution?
>FWIW, modern ATSC receivers can reproduce ALL these frame sizes. i.e.,
>You do not need a 1080p monitor to view a 1080p program.
>I'm not following you on your Flash recommendation. Perhaps you meant
>to say that all internet browsing machines should be capable of
>playing Flash. But there are different versions of Flash, so even this
>statement wouldn't be true. Anyway, I've never seen a DVD player or
>too many blu-ray players that could play Flash. There have been .mp4
>(.divx) versions of both for years.
>On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Bill Haddad <bhad...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>> Another issue you need to address is the frame size. At 720p, the
>> user still needs a monitor with a minimum resolution of 1280pixels
>> wide and at 1080 it needs to be 1920wide. If you want it to be
>> viewable on older machines, many of those came with monitors of
>> 1024x768 or even 600x800. So you may be producing a video that is
>> too large.
>> You may need to decide on the lowest resolution you wish to support
>> and make the video to fit on that.
>> A stand alone Flash presentation is probably the most widely usable
>> as it requires no outside player. It also has the ability to add
>> interactive content.
>> You could have different size movies and Flash can detect what size
>> the user's screen is set to, and play the version appropriate to that
>> user.
>> bh
>>>Blu-ray is gaining acceptance a bit quicker than DVD did, so you're
>>>starting with a false assumption.
>>>The same AVC file you create now can be used to build a blu-ray later.
>>>But if you intend to upload this file for viewing online, you'll be
>>>cutting a lot of corners to lower the file size. Depending on which
>>>site you intend to display it on, you should check their guidelines as
>>>to what types of files they prefer - e.g. Vimeo will take a vbr,
>>>YouTube wants cbr (IIRC).
>>>Older computers (e.g. Pentium 4) may have trouble with .mp4. That's
>>>why sites convert your file to flash. But you can also use .wmv or mpg
>>>2.
>>>On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Alex G. <alex...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Been wondering about that, too: what format do I need to encode a
>>>>720 or 1080 clip into, for it to be playable on nearly any
>>>>computer? (Outside of hosting it on YouTube.) My gut feeling is
>>>>that Flash has the most lightweight player that is likely to run on
>>>>nearly any computer.
>>>> As far as packaging: autorun on a flash drive or CD/DVD that will
>>>>fire up a web page with an invitation to click and play the movie.
>>>> This seems to not require a user to do a lot of "reel spooling"
>>>>yet gives him/her a choice, to play the video or not.
>>>> Alex.
>>>> On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 9:12 AM, BearsHead <jam...@bearshead.com> wrote:
>>>>> What is the best current format for delivering HiDef material?
>>>>> I am creating a movie for a local winery to use at tastings around the
>>>>> country. They want to be able to leave a copy with the hosts, so we
>>>>> are looking at the possibility of using flash drives, but:
>>>>> 1) Which format (QT/wmv/Flash/other) has the best picture quality
>>>>> 2) and has most universal acceptance at the moment?
>>>>> 3) and does not demand the purchase of a new computer?
>>>>> Having agreed upon such a format is there are any way to "package" it?
>>>>> ie providing a menu and generally avoiding the feeling that the client
>>>>> is having to spool the reels himself?
-- UTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUT
Bill Haddad
TRANSMEDIA Lab Tech
Department of Art & Art History
The University of Texas at Austin
512.232.1877
http://art20.art.utexas.edu/ UTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUT
I think you are mistaken. Please provide a link to a projector that can play a .flv Flash file. I don't think there are any, but I'll be fascinated to see one. Obviously, a PS3 could do that, but it's not a display device.
The OP is *not* asking for "an alternative delivery method to DVD or Blu-Ray.". It asks:"What is the best current format for delivering HiDef material?". The answer to that specific question, on 5/20/09, is: Blu-ray.
On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 10:37 PM, Bill Haddad <bhad...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> Negative Joe. > Flash can produce a projector file that is a stand alone application. > It does not require a browser of any kind. > If you read the original post, you will see that James is asking for > an alternative delivery method to DVD or Blu-Ray. Specifically, the > possibility of using a flash drive to deliver, and providing a menu > interface for the user.
> The point about the frame size refers to viewing the file in a > computer. Why force the projector to scale the 1080 file down to fit > on a standard screen, when you can present a file optimized for the > viewer's resolution?
>>FWIW, modern ATSC receivers can reproduce ALL these frame sizes. i.e., >>You do not need a 1080p monitor to view a 1080p program.
>>I'm not following you on your Flash recommendation. Perhaps you meant >>to say that all internet browsing machines should be capable of >>playing Flash. But there are different versions of Flash, so even this >>statement wouldn't be true. Anyway, I've never seen a DVD player or >>too many blu-ray players that could play Flash. There have been .mp4 >>(.divx) versions of both for years.
>>On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Bill Haddad <bhad...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>>> Another issue you need to address is the frame size. At 720p, the >>> user still needs a monitor with a minimum resolution of 1280pixels >>> wide and at 1080 it needs to be 1920wide. If you want it to be >>> viewable on older machines, many of those came with monitors of >>> 1024x768 or even 600x800. So you may be producing a video that is >>> too large.
>>> You may need to decide on the lowest resolution you wish to support >>> and make the video to fit on that.
>>> A stand alone Flash presentation is probably the most widely usable >>> as it requires no outside player. It also has the ability to add >>> interactive content.
>>> You could have different size movies and Flash can detect what size >>> the user's screen is set to, and play the version appropriate to that >>> user.
>>> bh
>>>>Blu-ray is gaining acceptance a bit quicker than DVD did, so you're >>>>starting with a false assumption.
>>>>The same AVC file you create now can be used to build a blu-ray later. >>>>But if you intend to upload this file for viewing online, you'll be >>>>cutting a lot of corners to lower the file size. Depending on which >>>>site you intend to display it on, you should check their guidelines as >>>>to what types of files they prefer - e.g. Vimeo will take a vbr, >>>>YouTube wants cbr (IIRC).
>>>>Older computers (e.g. Pentium 4) may have trouble with .mp4. That's >>>>why sites convert your file to flash. But you can also use .wmv or mpg >>>>2.
>>>>On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Alex G. <alex...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Been wondering about that, too: what format do I need to encode a >>>>>720 or 1080 clip into, for it to be playable on nearly any >>>>>computer? (Outside of hosting it on YouTube.) My gut feeling is >>>>>that Flash has the most lightweight player that is likely to run on >>>>>nearly any computer. >>>>> As far as packaging: autorun on a flash drive or CD/DVD that will >>>>>fire up a web page with an invitation to click and play the movie. >>>>> This seems to not require a user to do a lot of "reel spooling" >>>>>yet gives him/her a choice, to play the video or not. >>>>> Alex.
>>>>> On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 9:12 AM, BearsHead <jam...@bearshead.com> wrote:
>>>>>> What is the best current format for delivering HiDef material?
>>>>>> I am creating a movie for a local winery to use at tastings around the >>>>>> country. They want to be able to leave a copy with the hosts, so we >>>>>> are looking at the possibility of using flash drives, but: >>>>>> 1) Which format (QT/wmv/Flash/other) has the best picture quality >>>>>> 2) and has most universal acceptance at the moment? >>>>>> 3) and does not demand the purchase of a new computer? >> >>>> >>>>>> Having agreed upon such a format is there are any way to "package" it? >>>>>> ie providing a menu and generally avoiding the feeling that the client >>>>>> is having to spool the reels himself?
Here is a link to a sample projector.
Unzip and launch the "test.exe".
It will play the .flv from the "video" folder.
Obviously, the appearance could be cleaned up and presented in full screen, etc.
The OP goes on to describe the goals of the project as:
I am creating a movie for a local winery to use at tastings around the
country. They want to be able to leave a copy with the hosts, so we
are looking at the possibility of using flash drives, but:
1) Which format (QT/wmv/Flash/other) has the best picture quality
2) and has most universal acceptance at the moment?
3) and does not demand the purchase of a new computer?
Having agreed upon such a format is there are any way to "package" it?
ie providing a menu and generally avoiding the feeling that the client
is having to spool the reels himself?
So this method would meet the project goals, particularly #2 and #3, and also provide a menu, etc.
>I think you are mistaken. Please provide a link to a projector that
>can play a .flv Flash file. I don't think there are any, but I'll be
>fascinated to see one. Obviously, a PS3 could do that, but it's not a
>display device.
>The OP is *not* asking for "an alternative delivery method to DVD or
>Blu-Ray.". It asks:"What is the best current format for delivering
>HiDef material?". The answer to that specific question, on 5/20/09,
>is: Blu-ray.
>On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 10:37 PM, Bill Haddad <bhad...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>> Negative Joe.
>> Flash can produce a projector file that is a stand alone application.
>> It does not require a browser of any kind.
>> If you read the original post, you will see that James is asking for
>> an alternative delivery method to DVD or Blu-Ray. Specifically, the
>> possibility of using a flash drive to deliver, and providing a menu
>> interface for the user.
>> The point about the frame size refers to viewing the file in a
>> computer. Why force the projector to scale the 1080 file down to fit
>> on a standard screen, when you can present a file optimized for the
>> viewer's resolution?
>>>FWIW, modern ATSC receivers can reproduce ALL these frame sizes. i.e.,
>>>You do not need a 1080p monitor to view a 1080p program.
>>>I'm not following you on your Flash recommendation. Perhaps you meant
>>>to say that all internet browsing machines should be capable of
>>>playing Flash. But there are different versions of Flash, so even this
>>>statement wouldn't be true. Anyway, I've never seen a DVD player or
>>>too many blu-ray players that could play Flash. There have been .mp4
>>>(.divx) versions of both for years.
>>>On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Bill Haddad >>><bhad...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>>>> Another issue you need to address is the frame size. At 720p, the
>>>> user still needs a monitor with a minimum resolution of 1280pixels
>>>> wide and at 1080 it needs to be 1920wide. If you want it to be
>>>> viewable on older machines, many of those came with monitors of
>>>> 1024x768 or even 600x800. So you may be producing a video that is
>>>> too large.
>>>> You may need to decide on the lowest resolution you wish to support
>>>> and make the video to fit on that.
>>>> A stand alone Flash presentation is probably the most widely usable
>>>> as it requires no outside player. It also has the ability to add
>>>> interactive content.
>>>> You could have different size movies and Flash can detect what size
>>>> the user's screen is set to, and play the version appropriate to that
>>>> user.
>>>> bh
>>>>>Blu-ray is gaining acceptance a bit quicker than DVD did, so you're
>>>>>starting with a false assumption.
>>>>>The same AVC file you create now can be used to build a blu-ray later.
>>>>>But if you intend to upload this file for viewing online, you'll be
> >>>>cutting a lot of corners to lower the file size. Depending on which
>>>>>site you intend to display it on, you should check their guidelines as
>>>>>to what types of files they prefer - e.g. Vimeo will take a vbr,
>>>>>YouTube wants cbr (IIRC).
>>>>>Older computers (e.g. Pentium 4) may have trouble with .mp4. That's
>>>>>why sites convert your file to flash. But you can also use .wmv or mpg
>>>>>2.
>>>>>On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Alex G. <alex...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Been wondering about that, too: what format do I need to encode a
>>>>>>720 or 1080 clip into, for it to be playable on nearly any
>>>>>>computer? (Outside of hosting it on YouTube.) My gut feeling is
>>>>>>that Flash has the most lightweight player that is likely to run on
>>>>>>nearly any computer.
>>>>>> As far as packaging: autorun on a flash drive or CD/DVD that will
>>>>>>fire up a web page with an invitation to click and play the movie.
>>>>>> This seems to not require a user to do a lot of "reel spooling"
>>>>>>yet gives him/her a choice, to play the video or not.
>>>>>> Alex.
>>>>>> On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 9:12 AM, BearsHead >>>>>><jam...@bearshead.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> What is the best current format for delivering HiDef material?
>>>>>>> I am creating a movie for a local winery to use at tastings >>>>>>>around the
>>>>>>> country. They want to be able to leave a copy with the hosts, so we
>>>>>>> are looking at the possibility of using flash drives, but:
>>>>>>> 1) Which format (QT/wmv/Flash/other) has the best picture quality
>>>>>>> 2) and has most universal acceptance at the moment?
>>>>>>> 3) and does not demand the purchase of a new computer?
>>>>>>> Having agreed upon such a format is there are any way to >>>>>>>"package" it?
>>>>>>> ie providing a menu and generally avoiding the feeling that >>>>>>>the client
>>>>>>> is having to spool the reels himself?
-- UTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUT
Bill Haddad
TRANSMEDIA Lab Tech
Department of Art & Art History
The University of Texas at Austin
512.232.1877
http://art20.art.utexas.edu/ UTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUT
You and I clearly have a different definition of "projector". Mine have lights in them and throw pictures on a screen. Yours require a working computer to play.
Sorry, but there is simply no way I would recommend he try to distribute his hd product as .flv files. The concept seems absurd. Hand a client a stack of DVDs (or flash drives) with FLV players and files on them that they then must play in a compatible computer? Unless you work for Adobe I really can't understand why you would tell anyone that.
Unless perhaps he specifically said he had a website with lots of bandwidth and needed to embed the videos there. But few of us have resources like that, so today it would be much more common to use someone else's bandwidth to serve the file, which I spoke about in my first response, where I pointed out they probably _would_ convert his file to a flash variant. However, I do not believe all these sites will _accept_ an .flv (or .swf) file.
The specific wine tasting scenario he describes would call for DVDs, as that would be most compatible. They could be displayed upconverted to widescreen 1080p by the client, but handed out to be viewed at home by anyone with a cheap DVD player.
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 1:12 AM, Bill Haddad <bhad...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote: > Here is a link to a sample projector. > Unzip and launch the "test.exe". > It will play the .flv from the "video" folder. > Obviously, the appearance could be cleaned up and presented in full screen, > etc. > http://art20.art.utexas.edu/%20FacultyProfiles/BH_links/old/flv_proje... > The OP goes on to describe the goals of the project as: > I am creating a movie for a local winery to use at tastings around the > country. They want to be able to leave a copy with the hosts, so we > are looking at the possibility of using flash drives, but: > 1) Which format (QT/wmv/Flash/other) has the best picture quality > 2) and has most universal acceptance at the moment? > 3) and does not demand the purchase of a new computer?
> Having agreed upon such a format is there are any way to "package" it? > ie providing a menu and generally avoiding the feeling that the client > is having to spool the reels himself? > So this method would meet the project goals, particularly #2 and #3, and > also provide a menu, etc.
> I think you are mistaken. Please provide a link to a projector that > can play a .flv Flash file. I don't think there are any, but I'll be > fascinated to see one. Obviously, a PS3 could do that, but it's not a > display device.
> The OP is *not* asking for "an alternative delivery method to DVD or > Blu-Ray.". It asks:"What is the best current format for delivering > HiDef material?". The answer to that specific question, on 5/20/09, > is: Blu-ray.
> On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 10:37 PM, Bill Haddad <bhad...@mail.utexas.edu> > wrote:
>> Negative Joe. >> Flash can produce a projector file that is a stand alone application. >> It does not require a browser of any kind. >> If you read the original post, you will see that James is asking for >> an alternative delivery method to DVD or Blu-Ray. Specifically, the >> possibility of using a flash drive to deliver, and providing a menu >> interface for the user.
>> The point about the frame size refers to viewing the file in a >> computer. Why force the projector to scale the 1080 file down to fit >> on a standard screen, when you can present a file optimized for the >> viewer's resolution?
>>>FWIW, modern ATSC receivers can reproduce ALL these frame sizes. i.e., >>>You do not need a 1080p monitor to view a 1080p program.
>>>I'm not following you on your Flash recommendation. Perhaps you meant >>>to say that all internet browsing machines should be capable of >>>playing Flash. But there are different versions of Flash, so even this >>>statement wouldn't be true. Anyway, I've never seen a DVD player or >>>too many blu-ray players that could play Flash. There have been .mp4 >>>(.divx) versions of both for years.
>>>On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Bill Haddad <bhad...@mail.utexas.edu> >>> wrote:
>>>> Another issue you need to address is the frame size. At 720p, the >>>> user still needs a monitor with a minimum resolution of 1280pixels >>>> wide and at 1080 it needs to be 1920wide. If you want it to be >>>> viewable on older machines, many of those came with monitors of >>>> 1024x768 or even 600x800. So you may be producing a video that is >>>> too large.
>>>> You may need to decide on the lowest resolution you wish to support >>>> and make the video to fit on that.
>>>> A stand alone Flash presentation is probably the most widely usable >>>> as it requires no outside player. It also has the ability to add >>>> interactive content.
>>>> You could have different size movies and Flash can detect what size >>>> the user's screen is set to, and play the version appropriate to that >>>> user.
>>>> bh
>>>>>Blu-ray is gaining acceptance a bit quicker than DVD did, so you're >>>>>starting with a false assumption.
>>>>>The same AVC file you create now can be used to build a blu-ray later. >>>>>But if you intend to upload this file for viewing online, you'll be
>>>>>cutting a lot of corners to lower the file size. Depending on which >>>>>site you intend to display it on, you should check their guidelines as >>>>>to what types of files they prefer - e.g. Vimeo will take a vbr, >>>>>YouTube wants cbr (IIRC).
>>>>>Older computers (e.g. Pentium 4) may have trouble with .mp4. That's >>>>>why sites convert your file to flash. But you can also use .wmv or mpg >>>>>2.
>>>>>On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Alex G. <alex...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Been wondering about that, too: what format do I need to encode a >>>>>>720 or 1080 clip into, for it to be playable on nearly any >>>>>>computer? (Outside of hosting it on YouTube.) My gut feeling is >>>>>>that Flash has the most lightweight player that is likely to run on >>>>>>nearly any computer. >>>>>> As far as packaging: autorun on a flash drive or CD/DVD that will >>>>>>fire up a web page with an invitation to click and play the movie. >>>>>> This seems to not require a user to do a lot of "reel spooling" >>>>>>yet gives him/her a choice, to play the video or not. >>>>>> Alex.
>>>>>> On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 9:12 AM, BearsHead <jam...@bearshead.com> >>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> What is the best current format for delivering HiDef material?
>>>>>>> I am creating a movie for a local winery to use at tastings around >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> country. They want to be able to leave a copy with the hosts, so we >>>>>>> are looking at the possibility of using flash drives, but: >>>>>>> 1) Which format (QT/wmv/Flash/other) has the best picture quality >>>>>>> 2) and has most universal acceptance at the moment? >>>>>>> 3) and does not demand the purchase of a new computer? >>> >>>> >>>>>>> Having agreed upon such a format is there are any way to "package" >>>>>>> it? >>>>>>> ie providing a menu and generally avoiding the feeling that the >>>>>>> client >>>>>>> is having to spool the reels himself?
The self running files that Flash creates are commonly referred to as "projectors".
Yes, I see the confusion now.
You were referring to a video projector, and I was referring to a software player that is very widely used, does not require the purchase of a "new" computer, can provide a menu driven user interface, and can display HD video.
Since James mentioned his opinions on the shortcomings of BluRay and DVD, I assumed he had discounted those an option.
I was also expanding on Alex's suggestion regarding an autorun to access a website, I wanted to point out that the flv file could be played off the same local media and does not require a website with lots of bandwidth.
>You and I clearly have a different definition of "projector". Mine
>have lights in them and throw pictures on a screen. Yours require a
>working computer to play.
>Sorry, but there is simply no way I would recommend he try to
>distribute his hd product as .flv files. The concept seems absurd.
>Hand a client a stack of DVDs (or flash drives) with FLV players and
>files on them that they then must play in a compatible computer?
>Unless you work for Adobe I really can't understand why you would tell
>anyone that.
>Unless perhaps he specifically said he had a website with lots of
>bandwidth and needed to embed the videos there. But few of us have
>resources like that, so today it would be much more common to use
>someone else's bandwidth to serve the file, which I spoke about in my
>first response, where I pointed out they probably _would_ convert his
>file to a flash variant. However, I do not believe all these sites
>will _accept_ an .flv (or .swf) file.
>The specific wine tasting scenario he describes would call for DVDs,
>as that would be most compatible. They could be displayed upconverted
>to widescreen 1080p by the client, but handed out to be viewed at home
>by anyone with a cheap DVD player.
>On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 1:12 AM, Bill Haddad <bhad...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>> Here is a link to a sample projector.
>> Unzip and launch the "test.exe".
>> It will play the .flv from the "video" folder.
>> Obviously, the appearance could be cleaned up and presented in full screen,
>> etc.
>>http://art20.art.utexas.edu/%20FacultyProfiles/BH_links/old/flv_proje... >> The OP goes on to describe the goals of the project as:
>> I am creating a movie for a local winery to use at tastings around the
>> country. They want to be able to leave a copy with the hosts, so we
>> are looking at the possibility of using flash drives, but:
>> 1) Which format (QT/wmv/Flash/other) has the best picture quality
>> 2) and has most universal acceptance at the moment?
>> 3) and does not demand the purchase of a new computer?
>> Having agreed upon such a format is there are any way to "package" it?
>> ie providing a menu and generally avoiding the feeling that the client
>> is having to spool the reels himself?
>> So this method would meet the project goals, particularly #2 and #3, and
>> also provide a menu, etc.
>> I think you are mistaken. Please provide a link to a projector that
>> can play a .flv Flash file. I don't think there are any, but I'll be
>> fascinated to see one. Obviously, a PS3 could do that, but it's not a
>> display device.
>> The OP is *not* asking for "an alternative delivery method to DVD or
>> Blu-Ray.". It asks:"What is the best current format for delivering
>> HiDef material?". The answer to that specific question, on 5/20/09,
>> is: Blu-ray.
>> On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 10:37 PM, Bill Haddad <bhad...@mail.utexas.edu>
>> wrote:
>>> Negative Joe.
>>> Flash can produce a projector file that is a stand alone application.
>>> It does not require a browser of any kind.
>>> If you read the original post, you will see that James is asking for
>>> an alternative delivery method to DVD or Blu-Ray. Specifically, the
>>> possibility of using a flash drive to deliver, and providing a menu
>>> interface for the user.
>>> The point about the frame size refers to viewing the file in a
>>> computer. Why force the projector to scale the 1080 file down to fit
>>> on a standard screen, when you can present a file optimized for the
>>> viewer's resolution?
>>>>FWIW, modern ATSC receivers can reproduce ALL these frame sizes. i.e.,
>>>>You do not need a 1080p monitor to view a 1080p program.
>>>>I'm not following you on your Flash recommendation. Perhaps you meant
>>>>to say that all internet browsing machines should be capable of
>>>>playing Flash. But there are different versions of Flash, so even this
>>>>statement wouldn't be true. Anyway, I've never seen a DVD player or
>>>>too many blu-ray players that could play Flash. There have been .mp4
>>>>(.divx) versions of both for years.
>>>>On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Bill Haddad <bhad...@mail.utexas.edu>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Another issue you need to address is the frame size. At 720p, the
>>>>> user still needs a monitor with a minimum resolution of 1280pixels
>>>>> wide and at 1080 it needs to be 1920wide. If you want it to be
>>>>> viewable on older machines, many of those came with monitors of
>>>>> 1024x768 or even 600x800. So you may be producing a video that is
>>>>> too large.
>>>>> You may need to decide on the lowest resolution you wish to support
>>>>> and make the video to fit on that.
>>>>> A stand alone Flash presentation is probably the most widely usable
>>>>> as it requires no outside player. It also has the ability to add
>>>>> interactive content.
>>>>> You could have different size movies and Flash can detect what size
>>>>> the user's screen is set to, and play the version appropriate to that
>>>>> user.
>>>>> bh
>>>>>>Blu-ray is gaining acceptance a bit quicker than DVD did, so you're
>>>>>>starting with a false assumption.
>>>>>>The same AVC file you create now can be used to build a blu-ray later.
>>>>>>But if you intend to upload this file for viewing online, you'll be
>>>>>>cutting a lot of corners to lower the file size. Depending on which
>>>>>>site you intend to display it on, you should check their guidelines as
>>>>>>to what types of files they prefer - e.g. Vimeo will take a vbr,
>>>>>>YouTube wants cbr (IIRC).
>>>>>>Older computers (e.g. Pentium 4) may have trouble with .mp4. That's
>>>>>>why sites convert your file to flash. But you can also use .wmv or mpg
>>>>>>2.
>>>>>>On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Alex G. <alex...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Been wondering about that, too: what format do I need to encode a
>>>>>>>720 or 1080 clip into, for it to be playable on nearly any
>>>>>>>computer? (Outside of hosting it on YouTube.) My gut feeling is
>>>>>>>that Flash has the most lightweight player that is likely to run on
>>>>>>>nearly any computer.
>>>>>>> As far as packaging: autorun on a flash drive or CD/DVD that will
>>>>>>>fire up a web page with an invitation to click and play the movie.
>>>>>>> This seems to not require a user to do a lot of "reel spooling"
>>>>>>>yet gives him/her a choice, to play the video or not.
>>>>>>> Alex.
>>>>>>> On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 9:12 AM, BearsHead <jam...@bearshead.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> What is the best current format for delivering HiDef material?
>>>>>>>> I am creating a movie for a local winery to use at tastings around
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> country. They want to be able to leave a copy with the hosts, so we
>>>>>>>> are looking at the possibility of using flash drives, but:
>>>>>>>> 1) Which format (QT/wmv/Flash/other) has the best picture quality
>>>>>>>> 2) and has most universal acceptance at the moment?
>>>>>>>> 3) and does not demand the purchase of a new computer?
>>>>>>>> Having agreed upon such a format is there are any way to "package"
>>>>>>>> it?
>>>>>>>> ie providing a menu and generally avoiding the feeling that the
>>>>>>>> client
> >>>>>>> is having to spool the reels himself?
-- UTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUT
Bill Haddad
TRANSMEDIA Lab Tech
Department of Art & Art History
The University of Texas at Austin
512.232.1877
http://art20.art.utexas.edu/ UTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUT
Apologies to all for setting these hares a'running and then just
leaving (other technical crises needed emergency attention....and then
there are always movies to be made!)
My concern about BluRay is based on the medium's apparent need for
continuous updates, which several users have complained about to me.
If you are itching to watch a new 2hour movie on your fancy new TV,
then a few minutes tinkering with updates might seem a small price to
pay (although that is not the way these early adopters saw it at all!)
however, to go through the same BS for a small promotional piece is
unlikely to happen (although in the case of my "small promotional
piece" such a spineless lack of perseverance would be a tragic
mistake, as I am sure you all can appreciate). So while I agree with
Joe that BluRay is the best medium in principle, I think that in
practice there are a few obstacles in the way. We will be providing an
SD DVD version as well, but our breathtaking aerial footage of the
Napa Valley in early summer does cry out for HD.
I don't want this hosted on a website for fear of connection issues-
some of the tastings tend to take place in out of the way rural
hideaways- hence the self contained flashdrive concept. In that case
Bill's Flash Projector (which could of course be connected to Joe's
classic lights and screen projector) looks like an interesting option.
Thanks for all the input
best wishes
James
On May 21, 8:27 am, Bill Haddad <bhad...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> The self running files that Flash creates are commonly referred to as
> "projectors".
> Yes, I see the confusion now.
> You were referring to a video projector, and I was referring to a
> software player that is very widely used, does not require the
> purchase of a "new" computer, can provide a menu driven user
> interface, and can display HD video.
> Since James mentioned his opinions on the shortcomings of BluRay and
> DVD, I assumed he had discounted those an option.
> I was also expanding on Alex's suggestion regarding an autorun to
> access a website, I wanted to point out that the flv file could be
> played off the same local media and does not require a website with
> lots of bandwidth.
> >You and I clearly have a different definition of "projector". Mine
> >have lights in them and throw pictures on a screen. Yours require a
> >working computer to play.
> >Sorry, but there is simply no way I would recommend he try to
> >distribute his hd product as .flv files. The concept seems absurd.
> >Hand a client a stack of DVDs (or flash drives) with FLV players and
> >files on them that they then must play in a compatible computer?
> >Unless you work for Adobe I really can't understand why you would tell
> >anyone that.
> >Unless perhaps he specifically said he had a website with lots of
> >bandwidth and needed to embed the videos there. But few of us have
> >resources like that, so today it would be much more common to use
> >someone else's bandwidth to serve the file, which I spoke about in my
> >first response, where I pointed out they probably _would_ convert his
> >file to a flash variant. However, I do not believe all these sites
> >will _accept_ an .flv (or .swf) file.
> >The specific wine tasting scenario he describes would call for DVDs,
> >as that would be most compatible. They could be displayed upconverted
> >to widescreen 1080p by the client, but handed out to be viewed at home
> >by anyone with a cheap DVD player.
> >On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 1:12 AM, Bill Haddad <bhad...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> >> Here is a link to a sample projector.
> >> Unzip and launch the "test.exe".
> >> It will play the .flv from the "video" folder.
> >> Obviously, the appearance could be cleaned up and presented in full screen,
> >> etc.
> >>http://art20.art.utexas.edu/%20FacultyProfiles/BH_links/old/flv_proje...
> >> The OP goes on to describe the goals of the project as:
> >> I am creating a movie for a local winery to use at tastings around the
> >> country. They want to be able to leave a copy with the hosts, so we
> >> are looking at the possibility of using flash drives, but:
> >> 1) Which format (QT/wmv/Flash/other) has the best picture quality
> >> 2) and has most universal acceptance at the moment?
> >> 3) and does not demand the purchase of a new computer?
> >> Having agreed upon such a format is there are any way to "package" it?
> >> ie providing a menu and generally avoiding the feeling that the client
> >> is having to spool the reels himself?
> >> So this method would meet the project goals, particularly #2 and #3, and
> >> also provide a menu, etc.
> >> I think you are mistaken. Please provide a link to a projector that
> >> can play a .flv Flash file. I don't think there are any, but I'll be
> >> fascinated to see one. Obviously, a PS3 could do that, but it's not a
> >> display device.
> >> The OP is *not* asking for "an alternative delivery method to DVD or
> >> Blu-Ray.". It asks:"What is the best current format for delivering
> >> HiDef material?". The answer to that specific question, on 5/20/09,
> >> is: Blu-ray.
> >> On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 10:37 PM, Bill Haddad <bhad...@mail.utexas.edu>
> >> wrote:
> >>> Negative Joe.
> >>> Flash can produce a projector file that is a stand alone application.
> >>> It does not require a browser of any kind.
> >>> If you read the original post, you will see that James is asking for
> >>> an alternative delivery method to DVD or Blu-Ray. Specifically, the
> >>> possibility of using a flash drive to deliver, and providing a menu
> >>> interface for the user.
> >>> The point about the frame size refers to viewing the file in a
> >>> computer. Why force the projector to scale the 1080 file down to fit
> >>> on a standard screen, when you can present a file optimized for the
> >>> viewer's resolution?
> >>>>FWIW, modern ATSC receivers can reproduce ALL these frame sizes. i.e.,
> >>>>You do not need a 1080p monitor to view a 1080p program.
> >>>>I'm not following you on your Flash recommendation. Perhaps you meant
> >>>>to say that all internet browsing machines should be capable of
> >>>>playing Flash. But there are different versions of Flash, so even this
> >>>>statement wouldn't be true. Anyway, I've never seen a DVD player or
> >>>>too many blu-ray players that could play Flash. There have been .mp4
> >>>>(.divx) versions of both for years.
> >>>>On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Bill Haddad <bhad...@mail.utexas.edu>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>> Another issue you need to address is the frame size. At 720p, the
> >>>>> user still needs a monitor with a minimum resolution of 1280pixels
> >>>>> wide and at 1080 it needs to be 1920wide. If you want it to be
> >>>>> viewable on older machines, many of those came with monitors of
> >>>>> 1024x768 or even 600x800. So you may be producing a video that is
> >>>>> too large.
> >>>>> You may need to decide on the lowest resolution you wish to support
> >>>>> and make the video to fit on that.
> >>>>> A stand alone Flash presentation is probably the most widely usable
> >>>>> as it requires no outside player. It also has the ability to add
> >>>>> interactive content.
> >>>>> You could have different size movies and Flash can detect what size
> >>>>> the user's screen is set to, and play the version appropriate to that
> >>>>> user.
> >>>>> bh
> >>>>>>Blu-ray is gaining acceptance a bit quicker than DVD did, so you're
> >>>>>>starting with a false assumption.
> >>>>>>The same AVC file you create now can be used to build a blu-ray later.
> >>>>>>But if you intend to upload this file for viewing online, you'll be
> >>>>>>cutting a lot of corners to lower the file size. Depending on which
> >>>>>>site you intend to display it on, you should check their guidelines as
> >>>>>>to what types of files they prefer - e.g. Vimeo will take a vbr,
> >>>>>>YouTube wants cbr (IIRC).
> >>>>>>Older computers (e.g. Pentium 4) may have trouble with .mp4. That's
> >>>>>>why sites convert your file to flash. But you can also use .wmv or mpg
> >>>>>>2.
> >>>>>>On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Alex G. <alex...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Been wondering about that, too: what format do I need to encode a
> >>>>>>>720 or 1080 clip into, for it to be playable on nearly any
> >>>>>>>computer? (Outside of hosting it on YouTube.) My gut feeling is
> >>>>>>>that Flash has the most lightweight player that is likely to run on
> >>>>>>>nearly any computer.
> >>>>>>> As far as packaging: autorun on a flash drive or CD/DVD that will
> >>>>>>>fire up a web page with an invitation to click and play the movie.
> >>>>>>> This seems to not require a user to do a lot of "reel spooling"
> >>>>>>>yet gives him/her a choice, to play the video or not.
> >>>>>>> Alex.
> >>>>>>> On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 9:12 AM, BearsHead <jam...@bearshead.com>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> What is the best current format for delivering HiDef material?
> >>>>>>>> I am creating a movie for a local winery to use at tastings around
> >>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>> country. They want to be able to leave a copy with the hosts, so we
> >>>>>>>> are looking at the possibility of using flash drives, but:
> >>>>>>>> 1) Which format (QT/wmv/Flash/other) has the best picture quality
> >>>>>>>> 2) and has most universal acceptance at the moment?
> >>>>>>>> 3) and does not demand the purchase of a new computer?
No hostility. We were simply discussing modern output options. This is
certainly a hot topic today when ATSC is king and there's no longer a
single SD 4:3 720X480 30i project to work with.
Actually, I *do* hate that we have so little control over how the end
user is going to view this product. Your beautiful 1080i footage
probably won't look so good on a 720p TV or his ipod. Mobile,
internet, DVD, bluray - too darn _many_ formats! ARG! :)
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 11:27 AM, Bill Haddad <bhad...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> Joe, what's with all the hostility?
> The self running files that Flash creates are commonly referred to as
> "projectors".
> Yes, I see the confusion now.
> You were referring to a video projector, and I was referring to a
> software player that is very widely used, does not require the
> purchase of a "new" computer, can provide a menu driven user
> interface, and can display HD video.
> Since James mentioned his opinions on the shortcomings of BluRay and
> DVD, I assumed he had discounted those an option.
> I was also expanding on Alex's suggestion regarding an autorun to
> access a website, I wanted to point out that the flv file could be
> played off the same local media and does not require a website with
> lots of bandwidth.
>>You and I clearly have a different definition of "projector". Mine
>>have lights in them and throw pictures on a screen. Yours require a
>>working computer to play.
>>Sorry, but there is simply no way I would recommend he try to
>>distribute his hd product as .flv files. The concept seems absurd.
>>Hand a client a stack of DVDs (or flash drives) with FLV players and
>>files on them that they then must play in a compatible computer?
>>Unless you work for Adobe I really can't understand why you would tell
>>anyone that.
>>Unless perhaps he specifically said he had a website with lots of
>>bandwidth and needed to embed the videos there. But few of us have
>>resources like that, so today it would be much more common to use
>>someone else's bandwidth to serve the file, which I spoke about in my
>>first response, where I pointed out they probably _would_ convert his
>>file to a flash variant. However, I do not believe all these sites
>>will _accept_ an .flv (or .swf) file.
>>The specific wine tasting scenario he describes would call for DVDs,
>>as that would be most compatible. They could be displayed upconverted
>>to widescreen 1080p by the client, but handed out to be viewed at home
>>by anyone with a cheap DVD player.
>>On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 1:12 AM, Bill Haddad <bhad...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>>> Here is a link to a sample projector.
>>> Unzip and launch the "test.exe".
>>> It will play the .flv from the "video" folder.
>>> Obviously, the appearance could be cleaned up and presented in full screen,
>>> etc.
>>>http://art20.art.utexas.edu/%20FacultyProfiles/BH_links/old/flv_proje... >>> The OP goes on to describe the goals of the project as:
>>> I am creating a movie for a local winery to use at tastings around the
>>> country. They want to be able to leave a copy with the hosts, so we
>>> are looking at the possibility of using flash drives, but:
>>> 1) Which format (QT/wmv/Flash/other) has the best picture quality
>>> 2) and has most universal acceptance at the moment?
>>> 3) and does not demand the purchase of a new computer?
>>> Having agreed upon such a format is there are any way to "package" it?
>>> ie providing a menu and generally avoiding the feeling that the client
>>> is having to spool the reels himself?
>>> So this method would meet the project goals, particularly #2 and #3, and
>>> also provide a menu, etc.
>>> I think you are mistaken. Please provide a link to a projector that
>>> can play a .flv Flash file. I don't think there are any, but I'll be
>>> fascinated to see one. Obviously, a PS3 could do that, but it's not a
>>> display device.
>>> The OP is *not* asking for "an alternative delivery method to DVD or
>>> Blu-Ray.". It asks:"What is the best current format for delivering
>>> HiDef material?". The answer to that specific question, on 5/20/09,
>>> is: Blu-ray.
>>> On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 10:37 PM, Bill Haddad <bhad...@mail.utexas.edu>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Negative Joe.
>>>> Flash can produce a projector file that is a stand alone application.
>>>> It does not require a browser of any kind.
>>>> If you read the original post, you will see that James is asking for
>>>> an alternative delivery method to DVD or Blu-Ray. Specifically, the
>>>> possibility of using a flash drive to deliver, and providing a menu
>>>> interface for the user.
>> >>
>>>> The point about the frame size refers to viewing the file in a
>>>> computer. Why force the projector to scale the 1080 file down to fit
>>>> on a standard screen, when you can present a file optimized for the
>>>> viewer's resolution?
>>>>>FWIW, modern ATSC receivers can reproduce ALL these frame sizes. i.e.,
>>>>>You do not need a 1080p monitor to view a 1080p program.
>>>>>I'm not following you on your Flash recommendation. Perhaps you meant
>>>>>to say that all internet browsing machines should be capable of
>>>>>playing Flash. But there are different versions of Flash, so even this
>>>>>statement wouldn't be true. Anyway, I've never seen a DVD player or
>>>>>too many blu-ray players that could play Flash. There have been .mp4
>>>>>(.divx) versions of both for years.
>>>>>On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Bill Haddad <bhad...@mail.utexas.edu>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Another issue you need to address is the frame size. At 720p, the
>>>>>> user still needs a monitor with a minimum resolution of 1280pixels
>>>>>> wide and at 1080 it needs to be 1920wide. If you want it to be
>>>>>> viewable on older machines, many of those came with monitors of
>>>>>> 1024x768 or even 600x800. So you may be producing a video that is
>>>>>> too large.
>>>>>> You may need to decide on the lowest resolution you wish to support
>>>>>> and make the video to fit on that.
>>>>>> A stand alone Flash presentation is probably the most widely usable
>>>>>> as it requires no outside player. It also has the ability to add
>>>>>> interactive content.
>>>>>> You could have different size movies and Flash can detect what size
>>>>>> the user's screen is set to, and play the version appropriate to that
>>>>>> user.
>>>>>> bh
>>>>>>>Blu-ray is gaining acceptance a bit quicker than DVD did, so you're
>>>>>>>starting with a false assumption.
>>>>>>>The same AVC file you create now can be used to build a blu-ray later.
>>>>>>>But if you intend to upload this file for viewing online, you'll be
>>>>>>>cutting a lot of corners to lower the file size. Depending on which
>>>>>>>site you intend to display it on, you should check their guidelines as
>>>>>>>to what types of files they prefer - e.g. Vimeo will take a vbr,
>>>>>>>YouTube wants cbr (IIRC).
>>>>>>>Older computers (e.g. Pentium 4) may have trouble with .mp4. That's
>>>>>>>why sites convert your file to flash. But you can also use .wmv or mpg
>>>>>>>2.
>>>>>>>On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Alex G. <alex...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Been wondering about that, too: what format do I need to encode a
>>>>>>>>720 or 1080 clip into, for it to be playable on nearly any
>>>>>>>>computer? (Outside of hosting it on YouTube.) My gut feeling is
>>>>>>>>that Flash has the most lightweight player that is likely to run on
>>>>>>>>nearly any computer.
>>>>>>>> As far as packaging: autorun on a flash drive or CD/DVD that will
>>>>>>>>fire up a web page with an invitation to click and play the movie.
>>>>>>>> This seems to not require a user to do a lot of "reel spooling"
>>>>>>>>yet gives him/her a choice, to play the video or not.
>>>>>>>> Alex.
>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 9:12 AM, BearsHead <jam...@bearshead.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> What is the best current format for delivering HiDef material?
>>>>>>>>> I am creating a movie for a local winery to use at tastings around
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> country. They want to be able to leave a copy with the hosts, so we
>>>>>>>>> are looking at the possibility of using flash drives, but:
>>>>>>>>> 1) Which format (QT/wmv/Flash/other) has the best picture quality
>>>>>>>>> 2) and has most universal acceptance at the moment?
>>>>>>>>> 3) and does not demand the purchase of a new computer?
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>>>> Having agreed upon such a format is there are any way to "package"
>>>>>>>>> it?
>>>>>>>>> ie providing a menu and generally avoiding the feeling that the
>>>>>>>>> client
>> >>>>>>> is having to spool the reels himself?
> --
> UTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUT
> Bill Haddad
> TRANSMEDIA Lab Tech
> Department of Art & Art History
> The University of Texas at Austin
> 512.232.1877
> http://art20.art.utexas.edu/ > UTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUT
OK continuing the Flash HD line of enquiry:
Sorenson Squeeze 5.1 does not seem to offer any (real) HD presets. Can
I just create a custom preset that uses full 1920x1080 or will that
just choke whatever machine it encounters?
On May 21, 10:26 am, Joe Parker <joepark...@gmail.com> wrote:
> No hostility. We were simply discussing modern output options. This is
> certainly a hot topic today when ATSC is king and there's no longer a
> single SD 4:3 720X480 30i project to work with.
> Actually, I *do* hate that we have so little control over how the end
> user is going to view this product. Your beautiful 1080i footage
> probably won't look so good on a 720p TV or his ipod. Mobile,
> internet, DVD, bluray - too darn _many_ formats! ARG! :)
> On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 11:27 AM, Bill Haddad <bhad...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> > Joe, what's with all the hostility?
> > The self running files that Flash creates are commonly referred to as
> > "projectors".
> > Yes, I see the confusion now.
> > You were referring to a video projector, and I was referring to a
> > software player that is very widely used, does not require the
> > purchase of a "new" computer, can provide a menu driven user
> > interface, and can display HD video.
> > Since James mentioned his opinions on the shortcomings of BluRay and
> > DVD, I assumed he had discounted those an option.
> > I was also expanding on Alex's suggestion regarding an autorun to
> > access a website, I wanted to point out that the flv file could be
> > played off the same local media and does not require a website with
> > lots of bandwidth.
> >>You and I clearly have a different definition of "projector". Mine
> >>have lights in them and throw pictures on a screen. Yours require a
> >>working computer to play.
> >>Sorry, but there is simply no way I would recommend he try to
> >>distribute his hd product as .flv files. The concept seems absurd.
> >>Hand a client a stack of DVDs (or flash drives) with FLV players and
> >>files on them that they then must play in a compatible computer?
> >>Unless you work for Adobe I really can't understand why you would tell
> >>anyone that.
> >>Unless perhaps he specifically said he had a website with lots of
> >>bandwidth and needed to embed the videos there. But few of us have
> >>resources like that, so today it would be much more common to use
> >>someone else's bandwidth to serve the file, which I spoke about in my
> >>first response, where I pointed out they probably _would_ convert his
> >>file to a flash variant. However, I do not believe all these sites
> >>will _accept_ an .flv (or .swf) file.
> >>The specific wine tasting scenario he describes would call for DVDs,
> >>as that would be most compatible. They could be displayed upconverted
> >>to widescreen 1080p by the client, but handed out to be viewed at home
> >>by anyone with a cheap DVD player.
> >>On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 1:12 AM, Bill Haddad <bhad...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> >>> Here is a link to a sample projector.
> >>> Unzip and launch the "test.exe".
> >>> It will play the .flv from the "video" folder.
> >>> Obviously, the appearance could be cleaned up and presented in full screen,
> >>> etc.
> >>>http://art20.art.utexas.edu/%20FacultyProfiles/BH_links/old/flv_proje...
> >>> The OP goes on to describe the goals of the project as:
> >>> I am creating a movie for a local winery to use at tastings around the
> >>> country. They want to be able to leave a copy with the hosts, so we
> >>> are looking at the possibility of using flash drives, but:
> >>> 1) Which format (QT/wmv/Flash/other) has the best picture quality
> >>> 2) and has most universal acceptance at the moment?
> >>> 3) and does not demand the purchase of a new computer?
> >>> Having agreed upon such a format is there are any way to "package" it?
> >>> ie providing a menu and generally avoiding the feeling that the client
> >>> is having to spool the reels himself?
> >>> So this method would meet the project goals, particularly #2 and #3, and
> >>> also provide a menu, etc.
> >>> I think you are mistaken. Please provide a link to a projector that
> >>> can play a .flv Flash file. I don't think there are any, but I'll be
> >>> fascinated to see one. Obviously, a PS3 could do that, but it's not a
> >>> display device.
> >>> The OP is *not* asking for "an alternative delivery method to DVD or
> >>> Blu-Ray.". It asks:"What is the best current format for delivering
> >>> HiDef material?". The answer to that specific question, on 5/20/09,
> >>> is: Blu-ray.
> >>> On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 10:37 PM, Bill Haddad <bhad...@mail.utexas.edu>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> Negative Joe.
> >>>> Flash can produce a projector file that is a stand alone application.
> >>>> It does not require a browser of any kind.
> >>>> If you read the original post, you will see that James is asking for
> >>>> an alternative delivery method to DVD or Blu-Ray. Specifically, the
> >>>> possibility of using a flash drive to deliver, and providing a menu
> >>>> interface for the user.
> >> >>
> >>>> The point about the frame size refers to viewing the file in a
> >>>> computer. Why force the projector to scale the 1080 file down to fit
> >>>> on a standard screen, when you can present a file optimized for the
> >>>> viewer's resolution?
> >>>>>FWIW, modern ATSC receivers can reproduce ALL these frame sizes. i.e.,
> >>>>>You do not need a 1080p monitor to view a 1080p program.
> >>>>>I'm not following you on your Flash recommendation. Perhaps you meant
> >>>>>to say that all internet browsing machines should be capable of
> >>>>>playing Flash. But there are different versions of Flash, so even this
> >>>>>statement wouldn't be true. Anyway, I've never seen a DVD player or
> >>>>>too many blu-ray players that could play Flash. There have been .mp4
> >>>>>(.divx) versions of both for years.
> >>>>>On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Bill Haddad <bhad...@mail.utexas.edu>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> Another issue you need to address is the frame size. At 720p, the
> >>>>>> user still needs a monitor with a minimum resolution of 1280pixels
> >>>>>> wide and at 1080 it needs to be 1920wide. If you want it to be
> >>>>>> viewable on older machines, many of those came with monitors of
> >>>>>> 1024x768 or even 600x800. So you may be producing a video that is
> >>>>>> too large.
> >>>>>> You may need to decide on the lowest resolution you wish to support
> >>>>>> and make the video to fit on that.
> >>>>>> A stand alone Flash presentation is probably the most widely usable
> >>>>>> as it requires no outside player. It also has the ability to add
> >>>>>> interactive content.
> >>>>>> You could have different size movies and Flash can detect what size
> >>>>>> the user's screen is set to, and play the version appropriate to that
> >>>>>> user.
> >>>>>> bh
> >>>>>>>Blu-ray is gaining acceptance a bit quicker than DVD did, so you're
> >>>>>>>starting with a false assumption.
> >>>>>>>Probably what you're looking for is h.264 AKA MPEG-4 AVC (for Advanced
> >>>>>>>Video Coding).http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264
> >>>>>>>The same AVC file you create now can be used to build a blu-ray later.
> >>>>>>>But if you intend to upload this file for viewing online, you'll be
> >>>>>>>cutting a lot of corners to lower the file size. Depending on which
> >>>>>>>site you intend to display it on, you should check their guidelines as
> >>>>>>>to what types of files they prefer - e.g. Vimeo will take a vbr,
> >>>>>>>YouTube wants cbr (IIRC).
> >>>>>>>Older computers (e.g. Pentium 4) may have trouble with .mp4. That's
> >>>>>>>why sites convert your file to flash. But you can also use .wmv or mpg
> >>>>>>>2.
> >>>>>>>On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Alex G. <alex...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Been wondering about that, too: what format do I need to encode a
> >>>>>>>>720 or 1080 clip into, for it to be playable on nearly any
> >>>>>>>>computer? (Outside of hosting it on YouTube.) My gut feeling is
> >>>>>>>>that Flash has the most lightweight player that is likely to run on
> >>>>>>>>nearly any computer.
> >>>>>>>> As far as packaging: autorun on a flash drive or CD/DVD that will
> >>>>>>>>fire up a web page with an invitation to click and play the movie.
> >>>>>>>> This seems to not require a user to do a lot of "reel spooling"
> >>>>>>>>yet gives him/her a choice, to play the video or not.
> >>>>>>>> Alex.
> >>>>>>>> On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 9:12 AM, BearsHead <jam...@bearshead.com>
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> What is the best current format for delivering HiDef material?
> >>>>>>>>> I am creating a movie for a local winery to use at tastings around
> >>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>> country. They want to be able to leave a copy with the hosts, so we
> >>>>>>>>> are looking at the possibility of using flash drives, but:
> >>>>>>>>> 1) Which format (QT/wmv/Flash/other) has the best picture quality
> >>>>>>>>> 2) and has most universal acceptance at the moment?
> >>>>>>>>> 3) and does not demand the purchase of a new computer?
> >>>>> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Having agreed upon such a format is there are any way to "package"
> >>>>>>>>> it?
> >>>>>>>>> ie providing a menu and generally avoiding the feeling that the
> >>>>>>>>> client
> >> >>>>>>> is having to spool the reels himself?
> > --
> > UTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUT
> > Bill Haddad
> > TRANSMEDIA Lab Tech
> > Department of Art & Art History
> > The University of Texas at Austin
> > 512.232.1877
> >http://art20.art.utexas.edu/
Sorry for not being clear. I meant a locally run HTML code. Autorun would invoke (silently or with an option to cancel, or not at all, depending on the OS and its configuration) a local HTML page residing on the same media, that could ask nicely, "would you like to play this awesome video that we created for your enjoyment?", and then if the answer is "yes", would play a flash file within a local HTML page with an option to run full-screen. This way, the playback can be customized not only to fit full screen, whatever it is, but also the browser area. Client is king, even in its misery. <soapbox> I passionately hate software that auto-expands to full screen. Yes, even PP CS4. Especially PP CS4 because it also requires an extra click or two before you can bring it back into obedience, and because otherwise, it's not a bad piece of software. The software doesn't own your desktop real estate - you do. Software that auto-expands to full screen, gives me the willies. =:-O </soapbox>
Alex.
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 8:27 AM, Bill Haddad <bhad...@mail.utexas.edu>wrote:
> I was also expanding on Alex's suggestion regarding an autorun to > access a website, I wanted to point out that the flv file could be > played off the same local media and does not require a website with > lots of bandwidth.
Newer Core2 machines can probably handle 1080 okay, depending how it's
encoded. I don't use Flash, but I think it can contain several
different codecs like h.263, VP6, h.264 etc. I suppose the older h.263
might work better on older machines. Doesn't Youtube still use the
older Flash 7, presumably for that reason?
Also, don't forget that most computers won't be able to display a 1080
picture natively; they'll have to resize it. Probably better to just
distribute it in a smaller size to start with so there's no confusion.
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 3:05 PM, James Forbes <jam...@bearshead.com> wrote:
> OK continuing the Flash HD line of enquiry:
> Sorenson Squeeze 5.1 does not seem to offer any (real) HD presets. Can
> I just create a custom preset that uses full 1920x1080 or will that
> just choke whatever machine it encounters?
> On May 21, 10:26 am, Joe Parker <joepark...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> No hostility. We were simply discussing modern output options. This is
>> certainly a hot topic today when ATSC is king and there's no longer a
>> single SD 4:3 720X480 30i project to work with.
>> Actually, I *do* hate that we have so little control over how the end
>> user is going to view this product. Your beautiful 1080i footage
>> probably won't look so good on a 720p TV or his ipod. Mobile,
>> internet, DVD, bluray - too darn _many_ formats! ARG! :)
>> On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 11:27 AM, Bill Haddad <bhad...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>> > Joe, what's with all the hostility?
>> > The self running files that Flash creates are commonly referred to as
>> > "projectors".
>> > Yes, I see the confusion now.
>> > You were referring to a video projector, and I was referring to a
>> > software player that is very widely used, does not require the
>> > purchase of a "new" computer, can provide a menu driven user
>> > interface, and can display HD video.
>> > Since James mentioned his opinions on the shortcomings of BluRay and
>> > DVD, I assumed he had discounted those an option.
>> > I was also expanding on Alex's suggestion regarding an autorun to
>> > access a website, I wanted to point out that the flv file could be
>> > played off the same local media and does not require a website with
>> > lots of bandwidth.
>> >>You and I clearly have a different definition of "projector". Mine
>> >>have lights in them and throw pictures on a screen. Yours require a
>> >>working computer to play.
>> >>Sorry, but there is simply no way I would recommend he try to
>> >>distribute his hd product as .flv files. The concept seems absurd.
>> >>Hand a client a stack of DVDs (or flash drives) with FLV players and
>> >>files on them that they then must play in a compatible computer?
>> >>Unless you work for Adobe I really can't understand why you would tell
>> >>anyone that.
>> >>Unless perhaps he specifically said he had a website with lots of
>> >>bandwidth and needed to embed the videos there. But few of us have
>> >>resources like that, so today it would be much more common to use
>> >>someone else's bandwidth to serve the file, which I spoke about in my
>> >>first response, where I pointed out they probably _would_ convert his
>> >>file to a flash variant. However, I do not believe all these sites
>> >>will _accept_ an .flv (or .swf) file.
>> >>The specific wine tasting scenario he describes would call for DVDs,
>> >>as that would be most compatible. They could be displayed upconverted
>> >>to widescreen 1080p by the client, but handed out to be viewed at home
>> >>by anyone with a cheap DVD player.
>> >>On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 1:12 AM, Bill Haddad <bhad...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>> >>> Here is a link to a sample projector.
>> >>> Unzip and launch the "test.exe".
>> >>> It will play the .flv from the "video" folder.
>> >>> Obviously, the appearance could be cleaned up and presented in full screen,
>> >>> etc.
>> >>>http://art20.art.utexas.edu/%20FacultyProfiles/BH_links/old/flv_proje...
>> >>> The OP goes on to describe the goals of the project as:
>> >>> I am creating a movie for a local winery to use at tastings around the
>> >>> country. They want to be able to leave a copy with the hosts, so we
>> >>> are looking at the possibility of using flash drives, but:
>> >>> 1) Which format (QT/wmv/Flash/other) has the best picture quality
>> >>> 2) and has most universal acceptance at the moment?
>> >>> 3) and does not demand the purchase of a new computer?
>> >>> Having agreed upon such a format is there are any way to "package" it?
>> >>> ie providing a menu and generally avoiding the feeling that the client
>> >>> is having to spool the reels himself?
>> >>> So this method would meet the project goals, particularly #2 and #3, and
>> >>> also provide a menu, etc.
>> >>> I think you are mistaken. Please provide a link to a projector that
>> >>> can play a .flv Flash file. I don't think there are any, but I'll be
>> >>> fascinated to see one. Obviously, a PS3 could do that, but it's not a
>> >>> display device.
>> >>> The OP is *not* asking for "an alternative delivery method to DVD or
>> >>> Blu-Ray.". It asks:"What is the best current format for delivering
>> >>> HiDef material?". The answer to that specific question, on 5/20/09,
>> >>> is: Blu-ray.
>> >>> On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 10:37 PM, Bill Haddad <bhad...@mail.utexas.edu>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>> Negative Joe.
>> >>>> Flash can produce a projector file that is a stand alone application.
>> >>>> It does not require a browser of any kind.
>> >>>> If you read the original post, you will see that James is asking for
>> >>>> an alternative delivery method to DVD or Blu-Ray. Specifically, the
>> >>>> possibility of using a flash drive to deliver, and providing a menu
>> >>>> interface for the user.
>> >> >>
>> >>>> The point about the frame size refers to viewing the file in a
>> >>>> computer. Why force the projector to scale the 1080 file down to fit
>> >>>> on a standard screen, when you can present a file optimized for the
>> >>>> viewer's resolution?
>> >>>>>FWIW, modern ATSC receivers can reproduce ALL these frame sizes. i.e.,
>> >>>>>You do not need a 1080p monitor to view a 1080p program.
>> >>>>>I'm not following you on your Flash recommendation. Perhaps you meant
>> >>>>>to say that all internet browsing machines should be capable of
>> >>>>>playing Flash. But there are different versions of Flash, so even this
>> >>>>>statement wouldn't be true. Anyway, I've never seen a DVD player or
>> >>>>>too many blu-ray players that could play Flash. There have been .mp4
>> >>>>>(.divx) versions of both for years.
>> >>>>>On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Bill Haddad <bhad...@mail.utexas.edu>
>> >>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>> Another issue you need to address is the frame size. At 720p, the
>> >>>>>> user still needs a monitor with a minimum resolution of 1280pixels
>> >>>>>> wide and at 1080 it needs to be 1920wide. If you want it to be
>> >>>>>> viewable on older machines, many of those came with monitors of
>> >>>>>> 1024x768 or even 600x800. So you may be producing a video that is
>> >>>>>> too large.
>> >>>>>> You may need to decide on the lowest resolution you wish to support
>> >>>>>> and make the video to fit on that.
>> >>>>>> A stand alone Flash presentation is probably the most widely usable
>> >>>>>> as it requires no outside player. It also has the ability to add
>> >>>>>> interactive content.
>> >>>>>> You could have different size movies and Flash can detect what size
>> >>>>>> the user's screen is set to, and play the version appropriate to that
>> >>>>>> user.
>> >>>>>> bh
>> >>>>>>>Blu-ray is gaining acceptance a bit quicker than DVD did, so you're
>> >>>>>>>starting with a false assumption.
>> >>>>>>>Probably what you're looking for is h.264 AKA MPEG-4 AVC (for Advanced
>> >>>>>>>Video Coding).http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264
>> >>>>>>>The same AVC file you create now can be used to build a blu-ray later.
>> >>>>>>>But if you intend to upload this file for viewing online, you'll be
>> >>>>>>>cutting a lot of corners to lower the file size. Depending on which
>> >>>>>>>site you intend to display it on, you should check their guidelines as
>> >>>>>>>to what types of files they prefer - e.g. Vimeo will take a vbr,
>> >>>>>>>YouTube wants cbr (IIRC).
>> >>>>>>>Older computers (e.g. Pentium 4) may have trouble with .mp4. That's
>> >>>>>>>why sites convert your file to flash. But you can also use .wmv or mpg
>> >>>>>>>2.
>> >>>>>>>On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Alex G. <alex...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>> Been wondering about that, too: what format do I need to encode a
>> >>>>>>>>720 or 1080 clip into, for it to be playable on nearly any
>> >>>>>>>>computer? (Outside of hosting it on YouTube.) My gut feeling is
>> >>>>>>>>that Flash has the most lightweight player that is likely to run on
>> >>>>>>>>nearly any computer.
>> >>>>>>>> As far as packaging: autorun on a flash drive or CD/DVD that will
>> >>>>>>>>fire up a web page with an invitation to click and play the movie.
>> >>>>>>>> This seems to not require a user to do a lot of "reel spooling"
>> >>>>>>>>yet gives him/her a choice, to play the video or not.
>> >>>>>>>> Alex.
>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 9:12 AM, BearsHead <jam...@bearshead.com>
>> >>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>> What is the best current format for delivering HiDef material?
>> >>>>>>>>> I am creating a movie for a local winery to use at tastings around
>> >>>>>>>>> the
>> >>>>>>>>> country. They want to be able to leave a copy with the hosts, so we
>> >>>>>>>>> are looking
|
