Hi Shawn, I was simply adding to your explanation. The inband metadata/scripts "baloney" is often used as a simple way to embed captions into the video stream without requiring separate SAMI file that must be manually synchronized with video data (anyone who has used a SAMI file on a clip that has been trimmed knows how much of a pain in the ass it is without special software), and also doesn't require that the player implement the SAMI standard, or implement it correctly (older players do not support SAMI, or support it so poorly that it's useless). Accessibility issues aside, they're useful for making presentations that show gif/jpg/png slides or flash movies alongside the video. Granted, for the purpose of a 90 second video clip all of this is overkill, but it's nice to know about and I felt it worthwhile to share with the list. About linux, I don't believe microsoft can stop people from reading their formats using their legal team. If that were the case, they would have done so to openoffice long ago and killed StarOffice in the process. As a result, linux developers are free to read whatever file they want, so long as they reverse engineer the format themselves. Mplayer doesn't use the Microsoft codecs, they have their own codec (or in this case maybe just the "dec") that is able to read the windows media file format. The one exception to this may be DRM, and that exception would only apply in the US due to the DMCA. Speaking of DRM, placing rights management at a low level is a Good Thing(tm) as it helps the thwart content piracy. Of course DRM in general is an exercise in futility, but that's another discussion entirely. Regarding the opening off windows media 9 format, please see http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/030909/tech_microsoft_video_2.html. There is more information there. It seems more aimed at hardware companies (perhaps Microsoft is pushing for WMV9 dvds? I've seen demos of HDTV quality video played off of a standard DVD using WM9). For a quick blurb and link to more information regarding Microsoft's perceived strategy in this area, check out http://www.emediacommunications.biz/blog/archives/000032.html If you find any more information regarding any of this, especially regarding metadata in MPEG4, please let me know. I develop rich media applications and standards compliance is great for sales :) Cheers! -Javier -----Original Message----- From: Shawn K. Quinn [mailto:skquinn at frogger.kicks-ass.net] Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 10:55 AM To: thelist at lists.evolt.org Subject: Re: [thelist] formats for video [snipped and reformatted into something resembling a standard quoting format] On Monday 2003 October 06 11:38, Javier Muniz wrote: [I originally wrote:] > > On Thursday 2003 October 02 20:25, Timothy Martens wrote: > > > Hi Evolters, > > > > > > I have a client interested in offering a 90 second video preview > > > of their service. I'm little rusty on formats (real, mpeg, wmv, > > > mov, flash, etc.) and am looking for feedback about best delivery > > > methods for a predominantly version 5+ Browser / PC & Mac user > > > base. > > > > MPEG is the most standard (I assume some of those PCs and Macs will > > be running Linux, too). Forget the Windows Media formats; Microsoft > > introduces things like this to further their own objectives, often > > at the expense of the users. Same for RealVideo or whatever it's > > called now. > > > > A 90 second video in MPEG1 should not run much over 2 megabytes. You > > might be able to get it down to 1.5 megabytes, but the quality might > > degrade a bit. > > For a simple video this is true. However, Windows Media and Real (not > quicktime to my knowledge) support features that enable rich media > applications though embedding in-band metadata alongside video data. I don't think he said anything about a huge fancy movie that takes an hour to download on a 28.8 modem. I would think a simple 90 second movie clip doesn't need all this "rich media" and "in-band metadata" baloney you're talking about. > In any case, linux machines can play windows media and real formats as > well, In the former case, I have serious doubts about the squeaky clean legality of using codecs licensed for use under Windows. It is now typical Microsoft practice to only license their software for use under their version of Windows. > Microsoft is planning the release of the Windows Media 9 format for > public consumption (by standards bodies etc), Last I checked the same codecs that were formerly used in AVI files were broken on purpose for use in WMV such that attempts to read WMV files with other software besides Microsoft's own ran afoul of some patent they hold. What you describe is completely at odds with this as well as their attempt to add digital restrictions management (DRM) components at the lowest levels they can get access to. -- Shawn K. Quinn -- * * Please support the community that supports you. * * http://evolt.org/help_support_evolt/ For unsubscribe and other options, including the Tip Harvester and archives of thelist go to: http://lists.evolt.org Workers of the Web, evolt !