Hey all...

What format/video player do people use for the samples on their websites. I use quicktime, though not thrilled about the compressions.

I have been coming across this thing called the JW Player on sites a lot and the video it plays looks pretty good and loads quickly. Anyone use it or know anything about it? Or any other video format that they can recommend that they are happy with?

I started using that a few months ago and I'm very happy with it.

I use Flix to convert my files to flash
On2 Flix Standard - Flash Video Encoding Software for Windows and Mac OS (http://www.on2.com/index.php?387)

and then use this code to post the player on each page
Setup Wizard (http://www.jeroenwijering.com/?page=wizard)


Matt

I use JW Player for Quicktime right now. I'd strongly recommend you pay the $20 or so to legally license it, since it's only free for noncommercial use.

We're considering switching to WMV with a Silverlight player during our next site upgrade. I realize Silverlight does not have the penetration of Flash, but there are other "political" reasons behind our switch.

I'm using vimeo. No complaints here.

Stictly for quality, you cannot beat wmv players. Unfortunately flash players are so much easier for me to configure within dreamweaver than other.

If you use dreamweaver for your website, a flash player with built-in skins is already available to you.

The JW player is probably the most widely used third-party flash player on the planet. You can't go wrong with it.

BTW, JW has a WMV player, but I'm sure you already know that.

Really? I have never liked the Windows Media player. Very choppy, video lags, 90% of the time the color looks washed out.

With .wmv files, you're eliminating any Mac users from being able to see your videos.

With .wmv files, you're eliminating any Mac users from being able to see your videos.
agreed..

Personally, I think flash is the way to go to reach the masses. btw, have any of you looked at youtube lately? The have gone 16x9. Not saying I would use it... but they look like they are on the right track. Some videos have a 'watch in high quality' which looks pretty darn good (depending on the initial source...)

Really? I have never liked the Windows Media player. Very choppy, video lags, 90% of the time the color looks washed out.

Playback of wmv or flash has nothing to do with format, but your pc or the site using it. No offense, but that should be common sense. People uploading wmv files often use incorrect file sizes and bit rates. Flv converters often set these settings automatically therefore the playback will be better. Quality isn't better, but playback is better, but again its not because of the format.

I've uploaded and tested dozens if not hundreds of videos using both. Wmv files almost perfectly match the original files, flv videos are darker and have poorer contrast. That is a look we are accustomed to, and that further adds to the perception that wmv files look "washed out". Often the original videos are poor to begin with, and the lower contrast inherent in flash videos compensate for this.

The worst thing about FLV files IMO is the way they deal with motion. Many advertisements are now shot specifically to deal with this issue. This issue is almost non-existent with wmv files.

Many macs have wmv players. If your customer base are brides-to-be, most view videos at work and are not on Macs anyway.

I can tell you that reaction to my videos was much more dramatic when I used wmv files, they looked amazing. With flash they just don't pop.

If you have a good looking video to begin with and use correct bit rates, etc., wmv video will be better every time. If your videos are washed out to begin with, then using flash for video to compensate I suppose is one way to do it.

With .wmv files, you're eliminating any Mac users from being able to see your videos.

Not even close to accurate. Many Macs have wmv players, and if they don't they can download one. Flash definitely has higher market penetration, particularly for Macs, and I personally use it on my website, but only because it is easier to configure within Dreamweaver.

I started using that a few months ago and I'm very happy with it.

I use Flix to convert my files to flash
On2 Flix Standard - Flash Video Encoding Software for Windows and Mac OS (http://www.on2.com/index.php?387)

and then use this code to post the player on each page
Setup Wizard (http://www.jeroenwijering.com/?page=wizard)


Matt

I used to use Flix to produce Flash files too (played back with the JW Player embedded on my website) until I realised the Flash v.10 (the current version) plays H.264 files - which you can encode with the (cheap) Quicktime Pro (or even better from Compressor, if you're a Mac house).

Looks better than any Flix produced .flv files, I find. (See my website - not a blatant plug, but a genuine offer of samples - those are all Quicktime Pro encoded H.264 files played back with the JW player using Flash v.10 - and they work on just about any flavour of PC and browser.) Good filesize/quality/download-bitrate ratios too!

I use the JW FLV player on my site primarily with h.264 content. I used to use FLV but I havent in the last few months.

Demo Video (http://www.simplethoughtproductions.com/wp-content/plugins/simple-flash-video/video.php?height=378&width=608&file_name=/wp-content/uploads/Sports/Rollins/Basketball/womens/08/RWBBALLVsPuertoRicoCayey08.mp4)

Vimeo. Nothing else comes close.

Vimeo. Nothing else comes close.

. . . unless you want to upload commercial content, in which case you can't use it :-(

From a quality viewpoint it is great, which is why I considered using it for the clips on my website - but any promotional material is forbidden, so that's out.

And to comment on some of the Windows Media observations . . .

Absolutely no quibbles with the quality of wmv - playback performance, colour reproduction, all seem miles ahead of anything else (to me). However, I have had issues with some - note, some not all - Mac users being unable to view wmv files. Also a few snags with Firefox users - again, only some. Mac and Firefox users combined account for around 6% of visitors to my site and they are given alternatives if they can't see the video. I was going to convert all the clips to Flash but I'm not so sure that 6% of my audience can justify it (apologies to the 6%!).

Vimeo is the way to go... It's a great flash player thats easy to embed on your site. You can easily change the settings (ie. Different color font, changing the initial picture, privacy controls, and size). I messed around with loading QT videos onto my site, but that was a huge pain in the a** for everyone. For me and the viewer.

I'll also recommend Vimeo as a hosting service. Been using it for a year and it all looks quite good.

That said, if you can host your videos yourself you will likely get a little better quality images because you can transcode directly from the source footage to the ultimate delivery format. Vimeo and other similar services effectively require that you transcode to a lossy, intermediate format for uploading, then they transcode to the delivery format. Since I'm old enough to have lived a long time in the analog world where generational losses were to be avoided at all costs, the "generational loss" of an intermediate deliverable goes against my grain. But I do it.

Tripp, I absolutely agree with you. This point, and the loss of the copyright of your video material, not to mention the unprofessional look (in my opinion) for anything commercial means encoding and setting up your own website is really the only way to go for anyone who cares about getting the best quality. Costs are very modest, but it does require more "techie know-how" perhaps than some have or wish to spend hours obtaining. YouTube's (et al) success was partly because they made video uploading and sharing so simple.

That said, Vimeo, Exposure Room and YouTube have their place in getting to a wider audience in a way that you could not with your own domain.

Good point about the copyright - I would never host anything other than throw-away test videos on Vimeo, YouTube, et al. Also, nothing says "I'm cheap" like having freebie video hosting on your site.

Good point about the copyright - I would never host anything other than throw-away test videos on Vimeo, YouTube, et al. Also, nothing says "I'm cheap" like having freebie video hosting on your site.
Say what you wish.. but the people making wayy more money than me, booking high dollar brides every other weekend are using vimeo.

Also, nothing says "I'm cheap" like having freebie video hosting on your site.

Whoa Nellybell! I strongly disagree. It becomes a value proposition whether one chooses to build one's own Web site for video versus using something that's already there. For us little guys time is very valuable. I cannot afford spending time building Web sites when I could be out shooting and making money.

If you actually have "people" then you can delegate. If you don't, you work late into the night.

Ok, so when I read my post a few hours later, it sounded way worse than I wanted it to, so I apologize.

Most of my work is corporate, so using free shortcuts on my site wouldn't look so good. Regardless, it is a clear violation of Vimeo's terms of service to use it for commercial use. On top of it, you're basically giving away your rights to Vimeo when you post it.

Most of my work is corporate, so using free shortcuts on my site wouldn't look so good. Regardless, it is a clear violation of Vimeo's terms of service to use it for commercial use. On top of it, you're basically giving away your rights to Vimeo when you post it.

There's my problem(s) with Vimeo. It is a very good service but not usable by anyone doing corporate work . . . which is why, being one of the little guys, I work into the early hours maintaining my own website. Kinda comes with the territory for building a successful business.

At the risk of upsetting people, not having your own website and relying solely on free hosted video does look cheap in my opinion - but I will re-state that I am working exclusively in the corporate world so my clients possibly have a different set of values when it comes to judging a potential supplier.

Finally, Chris's observation about giving your rights away when you post to free hosting sites like Vimeo or YouTube is the real showstopper - I do not own the copyright on most of my work . . . my client does.

Vimeo. Nothing else comes close.

I'll second that