Poll: What is the Preferred Format for Aviation Video Download

[John T]

I share a number of flying videos on my web site in both Windows Media and
Real Video formats. Frankly, I'm tiring of spending the time to render both
high- and low-bandwidth versions of each video in two formats (making four
files for each video), so I'm considering using a single format for all
videos - which brings me to my question:

Given a choice to download the following formats, which would you choose and
why?

MPEG-4
WMV (v9)
Real (v10)

Some issues for consideration include:
Size. MPEG-1/2 files are simply too large compared to Real and WMV. While
storage isn't an issue, bandwidth is (and I run my own server that does not
sit on a backbone).

Quality. WMV and Real offer decent quality at a bitrate of ~250kbps. Of
course, lower bitrates of ~53kbps (to support modem users) drastically cut
down the quality in any format, but WMV and Real offer at least enough
information to pick out a runway while on final. :) MPEG-4 offers similar
quality for only a slightly larger file (for instance, a sample 1 minute
video is about 1.99MB in WMV and 2.02MB in MPEG-4 for similar bitrates).

Playback. Windows Media Player (WMP) is free and widespread on the most
popular PC operating system. Real Player is free and is bundled with many
name brand computers. There is a fairly wide range of players compatible
with MPEG-4, though, including proprietary players (like Real and QuickTime
[also free]) and "third-party" players.

Compatibility. WMV and Real are proprietary formats, but they are relatively
"open" and encoders are freely available for both formats. They also have
the backing of some of the largest players (business-wise) in the computer
industry. MPEG-4 is a standard published by international standards bodies,
but licensing issues have kept encoders out of the mainstream for several
years. However, that appears to be less of an issue now with a fairly wide
availability (not necessarily distribution) of encoders and players. While
most users are likely running some flavor of Windows, there is a large
number of non-Microsoft users (both in OS and software in general). MPEG-4
would appear to be the cross-platform format of choice, but not unless there
is a large enough market penetration of players.

Thanks for your input!

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/TknoFlyer
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com
____________________

[Ash Wyllie]

John T opined

>I share a number of flying videos on my web site in both Windows Media and
>Real Video formats. Frankly, I'm tiring of spending the time to render both
>high- and low-bandwidth versions of each video in two formats (making four
>files for each video), so I'm considering using a single format for all
>videos - which brings me to my question:

>Given a choice to download the following formats, which would you choose and
>why?

>MPEG-4
>WMV (v9)
>Real (v10)

Something open source, not everyone runs windows.


-ash
Cthulhu in 2005!
Why wait for nature?

[Morgans]

"John T" > wrote in message
m...
>I share a number of flying videos on my web site in both Windows Media and
>Real Video formats. Frankly, I'm tiring of spending the time to render
>both high- and low-bandwidth versions of each video in two formats (making
>four files for each video), so I'm considering using a single format for
>all videos - which brings me to my question:
\
ANYTHING except real player. Yes, I yell, because, IMHO, real player is the
biggest parasite, system dominating piece of crap ever invented. Between
flash and real, I can't figure which I hate more.

I am always certain to kick real player out of every crack and nitch I can
find it in, whenever I reformat, or someone needs my help fixing a mess on
their system.
--
Jim in NC

[Peter Duniho]

"John T" > wrote in message
m...
> [...]
> MPEG-4
> WMV (v9)
> Real (v10)

Anything but Real. Their player is riddled with bugs, and is practically
spyware too. At least, that's how it was from the time it first came out
until six months or so ago when I finally gave up hope and stopped using it
altogether. Sure, you can use RealAlternative for playing Real files, but
compatibility will always lag behind the current Real format, and in any
case if you're encoding in Real, you're supporting a lame software company
even if users who don't want to don't have to use their player.

Quicktime isn't any less proprietary than WMV, but IMHO it's at least as
equal an option as WMV.

The latest MPEG-4 variation that everyone's raving about is H.264. I don't
think Windows Media Player supports it yet, but I think the Quicktime player
does.

"MPEG-4" by itself doesn't really narrow it down. Most of the current video
formats are based on MPEG-4 somehow. This includes QT, WMV, DivX, and of
course H.264. It would be hard to go wrong with almost any of the popular
MPEG-4-based formats. They all have comparable quality at comparable
bitrates, for most people's purposes.

Bottom line as far as I'm concerned: nearly any format is viable and
reasonable, except Real. I wish Real would just disappear.

Pete

[Dave]

WMV Please! Real is always a prob, tries to take over all kinds of
stuff... :(

Dave



On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 16:54:34 -0500, "John T" > wrote:

>I share a number of flying videos on my web site in both Windows Media and
>Real Video formats. Frankly, I'm tiring of spending the time to render both
>high- and low-bandwidth versions of each video in two formats (making four
>files for each video), so I'm considering using a single format for all
>videos - which brings me to my question:
>
>Given a choice to download the following formats, which would you choose and
>why?
>
>MPEG-4
>WMV (v9)
>Real (v10)
>
>Some issues for consideration include:
>Size. MPEG-1/2 files are simply too large compared to Real and WMV. While
>storage isn't an issue, bandwidth is (and I run my own server that does not
>sit on a backbone).
>
>Quality. WMV and Real offer decent quality at a bitrate of ~250kbps. Of
>course, lower bitrates of ~53kbps (to support modem users) drastically cut
>down the quality in any format, but WMV and Real offer at least enough
>information to pick out a runway while on final. :) MPEG-4 offers similar
>quality for only a slightly larger file (for instance, a sample 1 minute
>video is about 1.99MB in WMV and 2.02MB in MPEG-4 for similar bitrates).
>
>Playback. Windows Media Player (WMP) is free and widespread on the most
>popular PC operating system. Real Player is free and is bundled with many
>name brand computers. There is a fairly wide range of players compatible
>with MPEG-4, though, including proprietary players (like Real and QuickTime
>[also free]) and "third-party" players.
>
>Compatibility. WMV and Real are proprietary formats, but they are relatively
>"open" and encoders are freely available for both formats. They also have
>the backing of some of the largest players (business-wise) in the computer
>industry. MPEG-4 is a standard published by international standards bodies,
>but licensing issues have kept encoders out of the mainstream for several
>years. However, that appears to be less of an issue now with a fairly wide
>availability (not necessarily distribution) of encoders and players. While
>most users are likely running some flavor of Windows, there is a large
>number of non-Microsoft users (both in OS and software in general). MPEG-4
>would appear to be the cross-platform format of choice, but not unless there
>is a large enough market penetration of players.
>
>Thanks for your input!

[Newps]

Morgans wrote:

>
> \
> ANYTHING except real player. Yes, I yell, because, IMHO, real player is
> the biggest parasite, system dominating piece of crap ever invented.

Well that and the fact the owner of the company is single handedly
keeping Air America afloat.

[Flyingmonk]

Ditto on Real Player.

The Monk

[George Patterson]

John T wrote:

> Given a choice to download the following formats, which would you choose and
> why?

I would choose WMV simply because it playes reliably with my software. Some
MPEG-4 files don't, and I don't want Real-Player on my system.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

[Garner Miller]

In article >, John T
> wrote:

> Given a choice to download the following formats, which would you choose and
> why?
>
> MPEG-4
> WMV (v9)
> Real (v10)

An MPEG variant, by all means. The other two are closed, proprietary
formats, and that's just never a good idea when you're trying to appeal
to a wide audience like the web. And as other pointed out, Real is
just *awful* software.

--
Garner R. Miller
ATP/CFII/MEI
Clifton Park, NY =USA=
http://www.garnermiller.com/

[john smith]

Mpeg-4.
Codecs for WMP, QT and Pocasts.
(Look for the G6 iPod to have a landscape screen the length of the
player.)

[John Huthmaker]

I havent read the responses from other people but would like to put my 2
cents in anyways. I think that a majority of the population is on "high
speed" now. I would go for high bandwidth with the least intrusion
necessary. By intrusion I mean having to install software. Therfore I
would say .mov and .ra is way out of question. Just go with the standard
high resolution .mpg. If bandwidth is the key factor, go with .wmv. Im
sure the Macintosh guys will have another say, but remember that 90% of the
world uses Microsoft.

--
John Huthmaker
PPL-SEL P-28-161

http://www.cogentnetworking.com
"John T" > wrote in message
m...
>I share a number of flying videos on my web site in both Windows Media and
>Real Video formats. Frankly, I'm tiring of spending the time to render
>both high- and low-bandwidth versions of each video in two formats (making
>four files for each video), so I'm considering using a single format for
>all videos - which brings me to my question:
>
> Given a choice to download the following formats, which would you choose
> and why?
>
> MPEG-4
> WMV (v9)
> Real (v10)
>
> Some issues for consideration include:
> Size. MPEG-1/2 files are simply too large compared to Real and WMV. While
> storage isn't an issue, bandwidth is (and I run my own server that does
> not sit on a backbone).
>
> Quality. WMV and Real offer decent quality at a bitrate of ~250kbps. Of
> course, lower bitrates of ~53kbps (to support modem users) drastically cut
> down the quality in any format, but WMV and Real offer at least enough
> information to pick out a runway while on final. :) MPEG-4 offers
> similar quality for only a slightly larger file (for instance, a sample 1
> minute video is about 1.99MB in WMV and 2.02MB in MPEG-4 for similar
> bitrates).
>
> Playback. Windows Media Player (WMP) is free and widespread on the most
> popular PC operating system. Real Player is free and is bundled with many
> name brand computers. There is a fairly wide range of players compatible
> with MPEG-4, though, including proprietary players (like Real and
> QuickTime [also free]) and "third-party" players.
>
> Compatibility. WMV and Real are proprietary formats, but they are
> relatively "open" and encoders are freely available for both formats.
> They also have the backing of some of the largest players (business-wise)
> in the computer industry. MPEG-4 is a standard published by international
> standards bodies, but licensing issues have kept encoders out of the
> mainstream for several years. However, that appears to be less of an
> issue now with a fairly wide availability (not necessarily distribution)
> of encoders and players. While most users are likely running some flavor
> of Windows, there is a large number of non-Microsoft users (both in OS and
> software in general). MPEG-4 would appear to be the cross-platform format
> of choice, but not unless there is a large enough market penetration of
> players.
>
> Thanks for your input!
>
> --
> John T
> http://sage1solutions.com/TknoFlyer
> Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com
> ____________________
>
>

[John Ousterhout]

Dave wrote:
> WMV Please! Real is always a prob, tries to take over all kinds of
> stuff... :(

I too, dislike Real Player.

I've been using Real Alternative, a free version of Windows Media Player
Classic modified to to play Real files. It works for me.
http://www.free-codecs.com/download/Real_Alternative.htm

A Quicktime Alternative is also available.
http://www.free-codecs.com/download/QuickTime_Alternative.htm

For videos I vote for for MPG first, WMV second, and Real never.

- John Ousterhout -

[Blanche]

John Huthmaker > wrote:
>I havent read the responses from other people but would like to put my 2
>cents in anyways. I think that a majority of the population is on "high
>speed" now. I would go for high bandwidth with the least intrusion
>necessary. By intrusion I mean having to install software. Therfore I
>would say .mov and .ra is way out of question. Just go with the standard
>high resolution .mpg. If bandwidth is the key factor, go with .wmv. Im
>sure the Macintosh guys will have another say, but remember that 90% of the
>world uses Microsoft.

And this is a good thing how?

I'm another one that is not a Microsoft user. Anyone got WMV for
Unix/Linux? If so, then I'll concede the point.

[Grumman-581]

"Blanche" > wrote in message
...
> I'm another one that is not a Microsoft user. Anyone got WMV for
> Unix/Linux? If so, then I'll concede the point.

What about:
http://www.mplayerhq.com/

[Jay Honeck]

> I too, dislike Real Player.

Actually, after years of berating (and hating) RealPlayer for being a system
hog, I've found their newest version to be pretty nice. It doesn't seem to
shanghai your operating system as much anymore, and it also opens more
quickly.

And almost anything is better than Quicktime, although their newest version
is better, too.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Peter Duniho]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:kFKCf.760301$xm3.302750@attbi_s21...
> Actually, after years of berating (and hating) RealPlayer for being a
> system hog, I've found their newest version to be pretty nice. It doesn't
> seem to shanghai your operating system as much anymore, and it also opens
> more quickly.

It probably opens more quickly because it's booted as soon as you log in.
In other words, it uses up system resources even when you don't need it,
just so it can look faster if and when you do need it.

> And almost anything is better than Quicktime, although their newest
> version is better, too.

I doubt you'd find many to agree to that statement. I had to go through
some hoops to stop Quicktime from starting up every time I logged on to my
PC (as I would with Real as well). But I still find it worse than Real.
It's definitely a step up from them, at least in my opinion.

Pete

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-01-26, John T > wrote:
> Given a choice to download the following formats, which would you choose and
> why?
>
> MPEG-4

Because it plays on ALL platforms on ALL cpu architectures, and the
video is still likely to be viewable in 25 years time. Closed,
proprietary formats (such as WMV and Real) are simply unacceptable.
(Imagine if TV only worked with one brand of television - that's what
you're getting with WMV or Real).

While we are at it, I did a short experimental video of attaching my
bullet camera to the pilot's step of our glider tow plane yesterday.

http://www.alioth.net/Video/Auster_rear_view.mp4

As always, the (free and open source) VideoLAN Client
(http://www.videolan.org) plays this beautifully, as does QuickTime.

I really can't recommend VideoLAN client more highly - it's simply the
best video player I've used, and plays pretty much any format you throw
at it, and is available for the Mac, Windows, Linux, *BSD, PocketPC etc.

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-01-27, John Huthmaker > wrote:
> high resolution .mpg. If bandwidth is the key factor, go with .wmv. Im
> sure the Macintosh guys will have another say, but remember that 90% of the
> world uses Microsoft.

MPEG-4 is just as good for bandwidth, and is not restricted to Microsoft
software, and will play on any modern OS and any modern CPU. WMV is a
bit like having a TV that would only work with one TV company's signal.
Closed standards should be avoided for video/web/audio.

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

[John T]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message

>>
>> MPEG-4
>
> Because it plays on ALL platforms on ALL cpu architectures...
>
> I really can't recommend VideoLAN client more highly - it's simply the
> best video player I've used, and plays pretty much any format you
> throw at it, and is available for the Mac, Windows, Linux, *BSD,
> PocketPC etc.

Thanks for your vote.

Just playing the devil's advocate for a moment... :)

Couldn't your last comment be an argument for WMV or Real, as well? After
all VLC can play those formats and it's available for just about any OS.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/TknoFlyer
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com
____________________

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-01-30, John T > wrote:
> Couldn't your last comment be an argument for WMV or Real, as well? After
> all VLC can play those formats and it's available for just about any OS.

No - VLC can only play WMV on x86 platforms (i.e. PCs). It can't play
WMV on a PowerPC Macintosh or Linux on non-x86 systems, including amd64.

It plays WMV >=9 on a Linux system by using the Microsoft codec (which
is available only for x86 processors).

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

[Jay Honeck]

> While we are at it, I did a short experimental video of attaching my
> bullet camera to the pilot's step of our glider tow plane yesterday.
>
> http://www.alioth.net/Video/Auster_rear_view.mp4

Cool video! (And, man, you STILL have to clean up that runway.... ;-)

Do you have a micro-TV in the cockpit, so you can watch the plane under tow?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-01-31, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> Do you have a micro-TV in the cockpit, so you can watch the plane under tow?

No, we just have a rear view mirror from a car (the Auster has a back
window). The camera is just connected to a standalone recorder in this
instance (the entire installation is temporary). I need a narrower angle
bullet camera though, the glider is a bit small on that one.

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net