WMV vs Quicktime. Which format do you prefer?

[Richard]

For all the reasons cited above I would prefer wmv.

[Boomer]

I fully understand that more people have Windows machines, but Quicktime is such a superior format that it would be a shame if we couldn't take advantage of it. Windows users can play Quicktime files.


WMV is yet another case of Microsoft cramming a second rate product down people's throats because of the sheer numbers associated with their OS. I'd really prefer not to have to give in to that.

[jon42]

WMV is yet another case of Microsoft cramming a second rate product down people's throats because of the sheer numbers associated with their OS. I'd really prefer not to have to give in to that.

A little off topic, but can anyone say "EU competition rules fine"?

That said, WMV is looking like the popular vote and probably the safest way to go if only a single format is available.

[Miss T]

Out of interest, what software does he use to convert the movies? We edit on Final Cut Pro and are currently playing with Flip2Mac for WMV transfer but there is probably something better.

Good question Bill.... not sure if there is anything better out there, would love to hear if there is, but Vic - who is also fully 'Mac'ed up' swears by it!

[Blue Jelly Balls]

Quicktime is the work of Beelezub himself i much prefer WMV.

[driversoft]

As a software engineer by trade, with some interest in digital video, I prefer DivX - not that that's an issue here. For me, any video format is good, but those with compression that don't impact as much upon quality win out - at the end of the day hard drive space isn't infinite (just cheap, admittedly), and download time plays a part too. I tend to use VLC to play videos, as its compact, and works well - little of the software bloat that MS gives us, and plays pretty much everything thrown at it.

Having said all that, if I was running a download site, and only had enough server space to have a single format, I'd definitely go for WMV - its just easier - why make things difficult for yourself? Whatever your personal views are on Windoze, it's out there, and its a commercial reality, and its easier to utilise it if not simply because a number of customers will expect that level of automatic integration, and may shout vociferously (and probably ungrammatically - but hey, they're customers) if they don't get it!

Actually, I worked for MS for three years in the UK - not for the Windoze side, I have to say, but for the embedded telephony team - and personally witnessed a discussion for a Windoze embedded product in which a couple of the more senior execs (American admittedly) wanted to use the slogan "it just works" - without any trace of irony, or potential interpretation at all...

[matt2matt2002]

Any idea yet of the charges you will be making?

[yaoilover]

i will say i hate quick time (never works for me )

always a problem so i like avi or other files that my zoom player can open

[BillShipton]

At the moment it looks like we will be doing both WMV and Quicktime and then seeing if QT is worth hosting. On our system QT does look better but we could try a higher bit rate WMV and see if that helps.

In answer to the pricing question. We expect the films to be between £3 and £6 depending on length. Prices will be in dollars but with sterling being just over half the dollar price it is easy to work out.

Any other comments eagerly accepted.

Bill

[Lizzie_Claymore]

Bill,

What I'm about to mention probably isn't worth worrying about too much at the moment but it might be useful to be aware of MXF. This has been in development for a number of years, primarily at the origination end of the broadcast industry for exchanging video essence and metadata (i.e. the video 'content' and its associated file information) between editing systems and servers for playout on TV.

However, MXF has been designed to be compression-system independent and exists to allow easy transfer of content between machines while being suitable for streaming.

People such as Avid are already using it, as are others. From what I recall hearing, Apple was on board, then realised it wanted to protect the lead it thought it had with QT and now realises that it's missed the bandwagon that everyone else has boarded and is now running behind to try to jump on again.

If you want to know more, there's a reasonable introduction to it here. That was written in 2002 for the European Broadcasting Union, so it shows you how much has been going on in the background - these things take years to establish!

Regards,
C_W

-------------------------------------
The UK Regional WAM e-Mail Notification Groups