How do I encode .WMV files so they work on both Macs and PCs? at DVinfo.net

David Lach · October 23rd, 2005, 07:16 PM

I recently encoded a few demo videos that I have put on my Web Site for promotional purposes. I'm on a PC and everything works fine on my computer. However, I was told by a client I work with who's on a Mac that he cannot see the video files. According to him, nothing happens when he clicks the links (they are not dead, I checked). He also says that normally, he's able to view WMV files just fine on his Mac. What did I do wrong? Why can he not see it? The video files were encoded from DV (AVI) to WMV via Adobe Premiere Pro 1.5 (Adobe Media Encoder).

If anyone cares, here's a -> link <- to one of the actual video files. Let me know if you can see it (if you're on a Mac).

Thanks for your help,

David

Nick Jushchyshyn · October 23rd, 2005, 07:24 PM

So long as you encode to Windows Media 9 .... AND the Mac user has Windows Media Player for Mac installed, your videos should be good to go.

Best bet, though, is to have both a Quicktime (MPEG4 or Sorenson) copy of your demo (in addition to the WMV) if you want to make it as easy as possible for Mac users to view your demo.

Good luck.

Dave Perry · October 23rd, 2005, 07:42 PM

David,

I've found that there are fewer compatibility issues when using QuickTime as your standard delivery method. This goes for PCs and Macs. I downloaded your video and it's extremely large for the quality level being displayed. It's 14 megs and I usually get 1 minute clips down to 3-5 megs and much better quality in QT.

I liked the band though. They sound very tight.

Go to either of the web sites in my sig to see some QT examples that none of my PC clients or my employer's PC clients have had trouble viewing.

David Lach · October 23rd, 2005, 10:28 PM

Will do Dave thanks. As far as quality is concerned, if you're talking about the washed up look, near white clipping, this is the look I was going for. I know the band personally and they gave me complete visual freedom, might be a bit too out there, but I like it. This is actually a look I got out of the Magic Bullet Editor plugin. I don't see any visual quality problems on my computer outside of that (if that's a problem), without any noticeable compression artifacts in WMP, unless watching full screen of course. It obviously looks much better in DV, but that's a given (biggest size for streaming is set at 768kbps with 29.97fps and 640 x 380 screen size, is this what you're getting?).

Weird, I thought, from all I've read around here, that QT was actually creating bigger files for similar visual quality. Did I understand it the other way around? I'm not going to start encoding with the new QT7 encoder. Wouldn't be practical as nobody has it yet (nor do I). If I can get as good or better quality out of QT6, I'm all for it, but so far my tests were unconclusive and a bit disapointing. Any pointers as to the settings you find are best to use? Will QT work equally well with the native widescreen aspect ratio? Most people are on PCs so it is important, if going the QT route, that I don't end up solving some compatibility issues on the Mac side to create others on the PC side. That's my #1 concern.

The video was indeed encoded with WM9.

I thought about offering both WMV and QT links, but I guess somewhere down the road I got lazy, thinking (maybe more hoping) there was an ideal one format fits all out there.

I appreciate the help guys.

Dan Euritt · October 23rd, 2005, 11:31 PM

there is no way that you'll get better quality with qt6 codecs, over wmv9.

relatively speaking, there are very few macs on the 'net, but if you have to cater to that crowd, put your footage up in both wmv and a qt6 codec.

Dave Perry · October 24th, 2005, 05:57 AM

David,

The quality issue I was speaking of is pixelation. The blown out whites are fine. I don't know what the issue was but the file I downloaded was 14.4 megs.

QT 7 is not an issue, it's H.264 that's the issue. QT 7 will encode any of the codecs used before H.264, all the way back to QT 3 capatibility.

We have found that for most situations, our PC using clients have a much smoother experience proofing spots or rough cuts when we post them as QT files. Occasionally we have someone who insists on wmv. The QT installation base for PC users is much larger now than it used to be.

Glenn Chan · October 24th, 2005, 06:08 AM

I am in the camp that you should shotgun the audience, so if one doesn't work they can pick another. So do both Quicktime and Windows Media. Windows Media sometimes doesn't work when the codec doesn't download automatically.

As far as quality goes, for Quicktime you need to pay for the better professional version of the Sorenson3 codec to get better quality. Then it'll be on par with Windows Media (or a little inferior).

Quicktime has better scrubbing (you can easily jump back a few frames), which makes it better for proofing (in my opinion).

David Lach · October 24th, 2005, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Perry

David,

The quality issue I was speaking of is pixelation. The blown out whites are fine. I don't know what the issue was but the file I downloaded was 14.4 megs.

I don't know why honestly. I have no pixelation whatsoever on my end when watching with WMP at the original size. I'm not sure what it is. Video player issue maybe? Are you on a Mac?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Perry

QT 7 is not an issue, it's H.264 that's the issue. QT 7 will encode any of the codecs used before H.264, all the way back to QT 3 capatibility.

That's what I was talking about. Sorry I didn't remember the actual codec name and was too lazy to look it up :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Perry

We have found that for most situations, our PC using clients have a much smoother experience proofing spots or rough cuts when we post them as QT files. Occasionally we have someone who insists on wmv. The QT installation base for PC users is much larger now than it used to be.

So far I'm leaning towards giving the choice of both wmv and QT. I'm not sure if it's worth it, but it seems there'll never be a consensus on that issue. I do like the visual quality I get out of wmv, at least how it comes out on my PC, but I'll play with QT a bit more to see if I can get satisfactory results out of it. Weirdly enough pixelation problems have always come with QT for me. My 2 main criterias to choose a format are 1) image quality and 2) compatibility. I don't want to compromise one for the other.

Dave Perry · October 25th, 2005, 10:34 PM

Just a sidenote here about my experience qwith QT. I started using it while still using PCs. It was my first real experience with an Apple product. I bought a QT Pro key to use with QT 4 on the PC and really liked what I experienced as far as playback and encoding options. I just wanted a way to get the videos out of my digital still camera and do some basic editing and transcoding. This was also before I started really getting into video.

My loyalty to QT started on the PC, before my loyalty to the Mac. About 6 mos later I bought my first Mac and have been a Mac guy ever since.

October 23rd, 2005, 07:24 PM	#2
Nick Jushchyshyn Major Player Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Philadelphia, PA, USA Posts: 548	So long as you encode to Windows Media 9 .... AND the Mac user has Windows Media Player for Mac installed, your videos should be good to go. Best bet, though, is to have both a Quicktime (MPEG4 or Sorenson) copy of your demo (in addition to the WMV) if you want to make it as easy as possible for Mac users to view your demo. Good luck. __________________ Nick Jushchyshyn Matchmoving, Compositing, TD imdb

October 23rd, 2005, 07:42 PM	#3
Dave Perry Major Player Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Roanoke, VA Posts: 796	David, I've found that there are fewer compatibility issues when using QuickTime as your standard delivery method. This goes for PCs and Macs. I downloaded your video and it's extremely large for the quality level being displayed. It's 14 megs and I usually get 1 minute clips down to 3-5 megs and much better quality in QT. I liked the band though. They sound very tight. Go to either of the web sites in my sig to see some QT examples that none of my PC clients or my employer's PC clients have had trouble viewing. __________________ Dave Perry Cinematographer LLC Director of Photography • Editor • Digital Film Production • 540.915.2752 • daveperry.net

October 24th, 2005, 05:57 AM	#6
Dave Perry Major Player Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Roanoke, VA Posts: 796	David, The quality issue I was speaking of is pixelation. The blown out whites are fine. I don't know what the issue was but the file I downloaded was 14.4 megs. QT 7 is not an issue, it's H.264 that's the issue. QT 7 will encode any of the codecs used before H.264, all the way back to QT 3 capatibility. We have found that for most situations, our PC using clients have a much smoother experience proofing spots or rough cuts when we post them as QT files. Occasionally we have someone who insists on wmv. The QT installation base for PC users is much larger now than it used to be. __________________ Dave Perry Cinematographer LLC Director of Photography • Editor • Digital Film Production • 540.915.2752 • daveperry.net

October 25th, 2005, 10:34 PM	#9
Dave Perry Major Player Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Roanoke, VA Posts: 796	Just a sidenote here about my experience qwith QT. I started using it while still using PCs. It was my first real experience with an Apple product. I bought a QT Pro key to use with QT 4 on the PC and really liked what I experienced as far as playback and encoding options. I just wanted a way to get the videos out of my digital still camera and do some basic editing and transcoding. This was also before I started really getting into video. My loyalty to QT started on the PC, before my loyalty to the Mac. About 6 mos later I bought my first Mac and have been a Mac guy ever since. __________________ Dave Perry Cinematographer LLC Director of Photography • Editor • Digital Film Production • 540.915.2752 • daveperry.net

October 23rd, 2005, 07:16 PM	#1
David Lach Major Player Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Montreal, QC, Canada Posts: 570	How do I encode .WMV files so they work on both Macs and PCs? I recently encoded a few demo videos that I have put on my Web Site for promotional purposes. I'm on a PC and everything works fine on my computer. However, I was told by a client I work with who's on a Mac that he cannot see the video files. According to him, nothing happens when he clicks the links (they are not dead, I checked). He also says that normally, he's able to view WMV files just fine on his Mac. What did I do wrong? Why can he not see it? The video files were encoded from DV (AVI) to WMV via Adobe Premiere Pro 1.5 (Adobe Media Encoder). If anyone cares, here's a -> link <- to one of the actual video files. Let me know if you can see it (if you're on a Mac). Thanks for your help, David

October 23rd, 2005, 10:28 PM	#4
David Lach Major Player Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Montreal, QC, Canada Posts: 570	Will do Dave thanks. As far as quality is concerned, if you're talking about the washed up look, near white clipping, this is the look I was going for. I know the band personally and they gave me complete visual freedom, might be a bit too out there, but I like it. This is actually a look I got out of the Magic Bullet Editor plugin. I don't see any visual quality problems on my computer outside of that (if that's a problem), without any noticeable compression artifacts in WMP, unless watching full screen of course. It obviously looks much better in DV, but that's a given (biggest size for streaming is set at 768kbps with 29.97fps and 640 x 380 screen size, is this what you're getting?). Weird, I thought, from all I've read around here, that QT was actually creating bigger files for similar visual quality. Did I understand it the other way around? I'm not going to start encoding with the new QT7 encoder. Wouldn't be practical as nobody has it yet (nor do I). If I can get as good or better quality out of QT6, I'm all for it, but so far my tests were unconclusive and a bit disapointing. Any pointers as to the settings you find are best to use? Will QT work equally well with the native widescreen aspect ratio? Most people are on PCs so it is important, if going the QT route, that I don't end up solving some compatibility issues on the Mac side to create others on the PC side. That's my #1 concern. The video was indeed encoded with WM9. I thought about offering both WMV and QT links, but I guess somewhere down the road I got lazy, thinking (maybe more hoping) there was an ideal one format fits all out there. I appreciate the help guys.

October 23rd, 2005, 11:31 PM	#5
Dan Euritt Trustee Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Carlsbad CA Posts: 1,132	there is no way that you'll get better quality with qt6 codecs, over wmv9. relatively speaking, there are very few macs on the 'net, but if you have to cater to that crowd, put your footage up in both wmv and a qt6 codec.

October 24th, 2005, 06:08 AM	#7
Glenn Chan Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 4,750	I am in the camp that you should shotgun the audience, so if one doesn't work they can pick another. So do both Quicktime and Windows Media. Windows Media sometimes doesn't work when the codec doesn't download automatically. As far as quality goes, for Quicktime you need to pay for the better professional version of the Sorenson3 codec to get better quality. Then it'll be on par with Windows Media (or a little inferior). Quicktime has better scrubbing (you can easily jump back a few frames), which makes it better for proofing (in my opinion).