avi video

[olz]

Hi,

Does anyone know how what tool you ned to place an avi video file on a
webpage? No help on google with this one..

Thanks, Olaf

 

[cwdjrxyz]

Hi,

Does anyone know how what tool you ned to place an avi video file on a
webpage? No help on google with this one..

The avi video files come in various types. Go to my video zoo at
http://www.cwdjr.info/video_extreme/VideoZoo.php . You will find a
divx/avi among other file types. If you have a recent WMP the button
will take you to the video. Note I am using quite large high
resolution files, and you need a good broadband connection for viewing
the video in a reasonable time. If you do not get a player, read the
information concerning the item 13 on down the video zoo page. Note
that the code on the page for the avi uses a wvx playlist/redirector
file for the WMP that points to the .avi with the full url under item
13 near the bottom of the video zoo page.

I usually do not like to use an .avi on a web page, because it can be
difficult to impossible to make it stream unless you use a streaming
server. Also .avi files tend to be larger than many other video types.
If someone has a fast connection and does not mind waiting a bit, an
avi can give good resolution.

My favorite video format at the moment is the relatively new flv/swf
format. Flash is installed on many computers, and the new flv/swf
format can give very high video resolution, if you wish. Several large
sites such as Google, MySpace, and news organizations have now
converted to this video format for streaming video. An example of this
format is also given at the video zoo. The .swf is of fairly small
file size, and produces the player, controls, any logos etc. The
actual video is the .flv(flash video) which is in the same directory
as the .swf, and the .swf automatically links to it. The viewer will
not see a reference to the .flv in the code, but it is downloaded to
the temporary cache of the browser, where it can be found.

 

[J.O. Aho]

My favorite video format at the moment is the relatively new flv/swf
format.

The problem with flv/swf is that adobe do not support a lot of platforms, the
mpeg file format is widely supported and will work on far more platforms, see
the example in the previously provided link.

Flash is installed on many computers, and the new flv/swf
format can give very high video resolution, if you wish. Several large
sites such as Google, MySpace, and news organizations have now
converted to this video format for streaming video.

These videos are usually of quite poor quality, just look at youtube.

 

[cwdjrxyz]

The problem with flv/swf is that adobe do not support a lot of platforms, the
mpeg file format is widely supported and will work on far more platforms, see
the example in the previously provided link.

Probably flash is supported by a larger number of computers than most
other major video formats that serious media companies usually use for
streaming. It does not support some of the little used operating
systems, but they account for such a small number of computers, that
this is of little importance. The fact remains that if you are
interested in viewing streaming video on the web from many of the
larger sites, you must be able to support flash, and WMV, and to a
lesser extent Real. Like it or not, this is how the world is at
present. Unfortunately the situation means that you often must have a
recent Microsoft or Apple OS to play many videos on the web unless
your know a lot about computers and are willing to fret with obscure
players that sometimes will play certain videos on little used OSs. Of
course one can use a dual boot computer if you hate Microsoft, and use
one of the little used OSs unless you absolutely have to fire up
Microsoft OS to view something. Most computer users now consider a
computer as just another household appliance. They expect a page to
work when they view it. They are not interested in obscure OSs that
will not work on the page or if they have to jump through hoops to get
the page to work. They have absolutely no interest in how a computer
works. Unfortunately, that is the real world. People who post in
groups such as this are very far removed from a typical computer
user.

These videos are usually of quite poor quality, just look at youtube.

You are comparing apples with oranges, If you use high resolution flv
files you get high resolution images. If you use low resolution files
you get low resolution images. Youtube has to consider that many of
their viewers may not have very high speed broadband and they want
their videos to stream. In some cases Google uses the flv flash for
streaming the video, but provides a much higher resolution video for
those who are interested enough in the video to want to download it to
the Google player.

 

[J.O. Aho]

Probably flash is supported by a larger number of computers than most
other major video formats that serious media companies usually use for
streaming.

So it's better that 90% of the users may see the video than 99% who could see it?

Flash is CPU intensive too, it's far from optimal video format on older machines.

You are comparing apples with oranges, If you use high resolution flv
files you get high resolution images. If you use low resolution files
you get low resolution images. Youtube has to consider that many of
their viewers may not have very high speed broadband and they want
their videos to stream. In some cases Google uses the flv flash for
streaming the video, but provides a much higher resolution video for
those who are interested enough in the video to want to download it to
the Google player.

If you call those videos for good quality, then you must be quite blind, even
if the resolution is higher on google, it's not much better than the youtube
videos, the format hasn't been made to have good quality but lower bandwidth
usage (poor quality -> smaller file -> less bandwidth needed).

 

[dorayme]

So it's better that 90% of the users may see the video than 99% who could see
it?

Yes, I am afraid it is slightly better! The users that exist in
the here and now are 90% of them happy. The 99% of people who
could see it are also 90% happy because 90% of them can see it.
But 90% of the 99% is a lesser number of people being happy than
the 90% of internet users that can see it.

The form of this argument is a convex inverse of a well known
Aristotelian syllogism developed on my home planet.

 

[cwdjrxyz]

So it's better that 90% of the users may see the video than 99% who could see it?

Flash is CPU intensive too, it's far from optimal video format on older machines.

I thought that everyone know that all video formats are CPU intensive,
and especially if you are doing elaborate video processing. Many
programs that are used to process video will work only on Microsoft
and sometimes Mac OSs. The reason is there are just not enough other
OS users out there to justify the expense of making processing
programs that will work on them.

If you call those videos for good quality, then you must be quite blind, even
if the resolution is higher on google, it's not much better than the youtube
videos, the format hasn't been made to have good quality but lower bandwidth
usage (poor quality -> smaller file -> less bandwidth needed).

But the discussion concerning the higher resolution videos on Google
has nothing to do with flash. The low resolution videos that stream on
Google are usually flv/swf. However, for those with an interest in
downloading some of these videos at higher resolution to a special
Google player that you have to download, you find that an avi often is
used. The bit rate is increased over that used for their streaming
flash to about 128 kbps for the avi, resulting in considerably higher
resolution for the video, if the source material is good enough. Some
of these downloadable videos are encrypted and sold, so that likely is
one reason an avi is used as well as a special player. Avi files have
long been used for downloading encrypted video files that are bought.
You must also keep in mind that many of the videos submitted by users
of Google, Youtube, MySpace etc are made by inexperienced video
makers, often using inexpensive equipment. For many of these videos,
you will get poor resolution no matter what video format is used for
them.

You have pushed your extreme mpeg crusade in great detail here many
times in the past. If you want to get something done, replying to me
and many others here will do little. You will have to discuss it with
programmers at Google, YouTube, MySpace, many major news sites, etc. I
think you will find that there are many other considerations of
importance to them other than how many OSs can view a format. Some
relate to selling video - many want part of that market, and this
partly explains why there is a glut of video formats now.

My discussion with you is closed. I doubt if anyone will change your
mind, and I really don't care what video format or OS you use.

 

[J.O. Aho]

You have pushed your extreme mpeg crusade in great detail here many
times in the past.

As you for your flash and limiting the user base.

If you want to get something done, replying to me
and many others here will do little.

Of course it will, it can lead to that people choose to use none closed
formats and some of those people may be the ones who will work at big
companies and set a new trend of using more open solutions.

 

[olz]

Thanks to all, the video I want to post is short and of low quality, taken
with an average photo camera and not meant to looks really pro. I'm going to
study all these answers which are most of a higher technical level than mine
(which is not so difficult...). It seems so far that the flash option is the
most appropriate. Lets look for a converter - or does someone have a good
advice about avi-flash converters?
Thanks again - Olaf

 

[cwdjrxyz]

Thanks to all, the video I want to post is short and of low quality, taken
with an average photo camera and not meant to looks really pro. I'm going to
study all these answers which are most of a higher technical level than mine
(which is not so difficult...). It seems so far that the flash option is the
most appropriate. Lets look for a converter - or does someone have a good
advice about avi-flash converters?

I use a program Flash Video Mx. See http://www.flash-video-mx.com/ .
This converts from many video formats to flv/swf or just old fashioned
swf as you desire. I believe you can download a trial version that
watermarks the video unless you pay. Although this is a pay program,
it is fairly low in price and does all I need to do. There are other
programs around, and of course if you have a recent official flash
creation program, it works also. Be sure the program you select uses
flv/swf and not just flv alone or it uses just old fashioned swf. Most
current players will not play a raw flv without the swf part made at
the same time which contains the player, controls, etc.There are a few
players for raw flv without the swf container you can download, but
many people will not have such a player installed.

 

[bsa]

Hi,

Does anyone know how what tool you ned to place an avivideofile on a
webpage? No help on google with this one..

Thanks, Olaf

Olaf,
just to have another way, try the Home Edition
http://www.vista.it

Let me know.

Fabio
"Video Streaming Solution"