|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
September 28th, 2008, 01:58 AM
|
#1 |
|
Inner Circle
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 2,237
|
Flash Video
A client has asked me to supply a project in Flash video format (flv).
What tools are you using to convert video from Vegas into Flash? I'm guessing that you'll be rendering avi out of Vegas but if anyone has any better ideas I'd be happy to hear. I don't own Adobe Flash so I don't have that encoder. I already have Squeeze - is that good for Flash? My first few tests didn't seem that great when comparing filesize/quality with a similar sized wmv rendered file. Thanks for any suggestions. On a separate but similar note, the video clips on my website are all wmv. I chose it because it seemed like the most ubiquitous format. Some of my non-Windows clients have had trouble seeing the clips (and will absolutely not install a Microsoft product like WMP!). Would I be better off converting all the clips to Flash? I like the idea of being able to use a customisable player that will match my site design better and I want the widest possible number of visitors to see the clips without problems. Any thoughts? Thanks again. Ian . . . |
|
|
|
September 28th, 2008, 02:07 AM
|
#2 |
|
Inner Circle
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,290
|
Flash has the highest market penetration.
I use SUPER to convert to Flash. |
|
|
|
|
September 28th, 2008, 02:52 AM
|
#3 |
|
Inner Circle
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 2,237
|
|
|
|
|
|
September 28th, 2008, 06:19 AM
|
#4 |
|
Inner Circle
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 8,425
|
Regarding coverting, I use Flash CS3 for converting. Since I use Vegas to edit, and since Vegas doesn't render .flv, I render project out to uncompressed .avi then re-render to .flv using Flash. While there are tons of programs to convert to .flv, Sorenson is the tool of choice for many pros, though I am not recommending it over anything else.
Ian, I have studied the .wmv vs. .flv question, and I prefer .wmv for quality. Color reproduction with .wmv is superior, though this is disputed by some. (For those who love to argue, I am not starting a debate on this point as I said it is disputed by some.) Render out one of each with similar settings though, and you can see for yourself. What Brian says is obviously true, that flash has a higher market penetration. However, when is the last time you heard of a PC or mac that couldn't play a .wmv file? I see on your website that you are using a .wmv player. The videos look great, and I wouldn't change a thing, IMO. Regarding coverting, I use Flash CS3 for converting. Since I use Vegas to edit, and since Vegas doesn't render .flv, I render project out to uncompressed .avi then re-render to .flv using Flash. The uncompressed avi file is huge, but the quality difference is worth it, IMO. |
|
|
|
|
September 28th, 2008, 07:00 AM
|
#5 |
|
Inner Circle
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 2,237
|
Thanks Jeff.
I have had a few clients (three, maybe four) who haven't been able to view the wmv's, but that's all. The one thing that is pushing me to the Flash route (for my site) is the ability to use a wide variety of Flash players that can be customised to fit better with my site style. I wish I could have that much control (easily) over Windows Media Player's appearance. Ian . . . |
|
|
|
|
September 28th, 2008, 07:07 AM
|
#6 |
|
Inner Circle
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 8,425
|
From what you say, Ian, you would be better off with Flash. I just hate that Vegas doesn't do it. Rendering out to uncompressed .avi creates about 4GB files for just a few minutes, then it has to be re-rendered, what a pain. In addition, it means an additional program installed on my machine, which I dislike.
I am actually surprised that you've even had three or four clients who couldn't view wmv. I admit that would be unacceptable to me. For the control you are looking for, Flash is the way to go, no doubt about it. |
|
|
|
|
September 28th, 2008, 09:20 AM
|
#7 |
|
Inner Circle
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 2,237
|
Hmm, should really say "couldn't or wouldn't" . . . Mac-lovers who wouldn't install a Microsoft product!!
|
|
|
|
|
September 28th, 2008, 05:16 PM
|
#8 |
|
Inner Circle
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 8,425
|
As a PC user there are days when I feel the same way.
|
|
|
|
|
September 28th, 2008, 07:56 PM
|
#9 | |
|
Inner Circle
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,290
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
September 29th, 2008, 12:39 AM
|
#10 |
|
Inner Circle
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 2,237
|
For completeness, one other problem that some of my clients have experienced is that they can see the Windows Media video but not hear it, or the other way around. This appears to occur when they are using older versions of WMP. "Upgrade", you scream. Well yes, except these people are often working in large corporations with a locked desktop - (which I guess is going to be an issue regardless of format).
I've been looking into what you can and can't do with the parameters of the WM UI in a browser (without programming). You can, among other things, set the controls to be invisible; select from a couple of control layouts (lots of buttons or just a few, basically); and run in Windowless mode (which seems to cause problems in some situations so is best avoided). What you can't seem to easily do is, for example, only display the mute or volume button, or overlay a logo, or show a transparent control panel over the video that appears on hovering etc - all the things that I want to do! :-( It's a shame because I really do think wmv is a great format. |
|
|
|
|
September 29th, 2008, 12:44 AM
|
#11 |
|
Inner Circle
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 8,425
|
it is a shame, because I strongly prefer the look of video in .wmv...in flash colors are muted and motion is not as smooth. Of course the higher quality the original footage, the better, but that is a reason I like wmv, my footage is shot with low-end equipment (VX and PD series cams). I would feel less averse to flv if Vegas rendered it.
|
|
|
|
|
September 29th, 2008, 11:30 PM
|
#12 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Placentia, Calif
Posts: 549
|
__________________
Hugh Mobley www.petplanetvideos.com http://exposureroom.com/members/hmobley.aspx/ |
|
|
|
|
September 30th, 2008, 12:08 AM
|
#13 |
|
Inner Circle
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 2,237
|
Looks interesting, Hugh, thanks (once you get over the english and that cartoon bear!).
|
|
|
|
|
September 30th, 2008, 01:01 PM
|
#14 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Placentia, Calif
Posts: 549
|
Not only that but what are all those abreviations in the drop down boxes, i have made an educated guess and been lucky, tried one other and it went nowhere. and there is no real support, the forums don't get anwered much, but it is using the most advance codecs, i.e h.264 even x.264, there is another program i found but only good for Mac, it looks very interesting,
DV Kitchen at DVcreators.net you can test the bitrate for best performance before rendering,
__________________
Hugh Mobley www.petplanetvideos.com http://exposureroom.com/members/hmobley.aspx/ |
|
|
|
|
September 30th, 2008, 01:15 PM
|
#15 |
|
Inner Circle
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 2,237
|
Odd coincidence, Hugh - I have just sat at my desk to spend an evening messing around with the Winnydows app. Not sure how far I'm going to get though as I had root canal surgery this afternoon and the anaesthetic is wearing off! Could be time for a few shots of something else . . .
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
||||||
|
|
