[thelist] Opinion on movieformats

[John Dowdell]

I prefer them under 90 minutes myself, too long to sit through otherwise,
although with a good drama I can watch for two hours... oh, I see what
we're talking about, sorry.... ;-)


I'd discourage the use of SWF for captured video content... although you
could convert a video stream to sequential bitmaps, Flash currently has no
way to do interframe compression. A video codec is much more efficient.

For "Which digital video architecture is most prominent?", then Media
Metrix regularly audits online consumers each quarter to see what they can
see:
<http://www.macromedia.com/software/player_census/flashplayer/tech_breakdown
.html>

Note that the above numbers would have version dependencies too... if
you're using a codec that's only in the most recent Real or QuickTime
engines then reduce those overall numbers correspondingly.

In addition to architecture, consider the pipeline: if you're offering a QT
and WMP stream, it can be helpful to offer smaller versions for modem too.

If you'll be doing a lot of video content, then the multi-publishing from
Generic Media can offer advantages:
http://www.genericmedia.com/
(Disclaimer: I know folks who work there, but objectively think it's cool too.)

If you'll be doing digital video work for the first time, then it pays to
experiment with various compression techniques, and you can even influence
the data rate by how you work with the camera:
http://www.dv.com/magazine/1999/1099/webvideo1099.pdf

If the goal is just to explain something through animation, then
sprite-based animation may be more efficient than capturing video.

jd