This is True, and they did a really good job of PR with the help of tubes. But right NOw from everything I can see its a inferior delivery in almost every way that is relevant. Like I said its really good for HD and so forth. Yet its not good for streaming normal vids, in a competitive way. Test it yourself, take a 500 kbps wmv vid convert it to Flash and see what file is bigger or looks better.

give me a link to a good quality movie so I can compress it in flash. Lets see what happens , if you give me a turd though... you'll get a turd.:thumbsup

Well that?s just it, I have what look like good vids till I convert them to flash then they become SHIT. I should not have to have 10,000 kbps vids in order to get a good conversion and realistically where do you really think I will get these Huge vid files in the first place?

Its just Not ready for primetime, sure some big studios can find a use for this but?????.

maybe YOUR movies are shit. Which means shit ...

"not ready for primetime" what the fuck does that mean?:1orglaugh
If I think you mean what I think you mean ... it's obviously been HUMMING in primetime for YEARS :D ... where were you ?

I don't understand. You say it makes file sizes bigger? I'm saying give me a huge movie and I'll give you a small file back with excellent quality.

Thing is ... don't use it then. It's just another way to serve up media? Use the right tool for the right situation I always thought ... just don't say it can't compress an extremely large movie into a small file size keeping crystal clear quality because it can.

Im really not trying to be rude but again.. You do not know what you are doing.

I do think it can “compress an extremely large movie into a small file” Now if it can make them really smaller than other formats well that one is a bit more open to debate.

Yet what it Can NOT do is convert Normal (1000 kbps) videos into anything worth bothering with. If you want to call stander video Crap, well I do understand as you deal with huge HD vids for a living.

Yet for ‘real world’ videos is Not a good option from what I am seeing. In fact its really piss poor as producing quality even worth watching. It needs a another few years it looks like before this is much use (to me anyway) By then sure their will be yet another Bandwagon to jump on (did you hear about ultra-HD yet)

give me one, then we don't have to debate anymore. We'll all know :1orglaugh ...

This is true and I am not pissed, yet I have been trying to do this for 3 days now, and use over 8 converters now. It is just not supported by and conversion programs that would make it useful of vids under 1000,000 kbps, and franky I am not sure if wmv could not make the same files smaller and look better for less disk space. (but that is open for debate)

What seems is not open for debate is that its all but impossible to get even close to the same quality from conversions with out tripling of the files. How am I supposed to use sponsors/viewers content if I can not convert them in the first place?

Like I said I am sure your right, but what good is that to me? It can not be used to convert Normal vids into anything really useful so I will have to look for options that are capable of using the Vast majority of video content we have not only the best 3%

You haven't wasted 3 days, you've spent 3 days finding out how not to do it.

Ya just disappointed is all, I really do like the embedded flash player and that you can add images and make the vids clickable. But fuck man, if I can not convert the content I get into any kind of useful forum with out making the files so big that is negates the players advantages then…………

I am still trying to figure out why in the hell these tubes are using it so much for these small crap vids they get. Surly they are not some 10,000 kbps masterpieces, so from what I can tell they are just creating huge files in order to protect their content basically, or did at first anyway.

Now this point is rather mute as thee Tube Vid Ripper’s will be every place by Xmass this year.

I'm not sure what you're doing but flash vids should be smaller and higher quality .... not the opposite .... tia

because flash vids load right on the page and pretty fast too.

Ya some people say that, and it is true 'sometimes' But this NOT really the truth, if you have ever tried to convert a normally vid into flash, you would find that it becomes Larger and the quality goes to crap.

Only way to make them look good is to make them about 3 times as big as a wmv vid (but still if you ask me does not look as good)

Here is a hint there are different codecs. On2, sorenson spark pro, and others. Not every software out there is going to compress as well as another. Do this.

http://www.sorensonmedia.com/pages/?pageID=2

Download the trial. Use the macromedia flash video preset. Try both codecs on2 and sorenson pro. Or post the video you are encoding and Ill or someone else will download it and tell you what the issue is. :2 cents:

Compressing good looking Flash videos is an "art"... I'm using ffmpeg for my work and I'm still tweaking things to try and get the best looking video out in the smallest sizes... Currently I'm doing 2 pass conversions. Last night I was viewing some of my 320x240 videos at 800x600 and was surprised to see that there was little if any artifacting.. You can't compare a WMV video to a flash video if you compressed the flash from the wmv. You need to compress it from the source for a true comparison.

H.264 will soon be the way to go as it looks like it's the best compressor out there in terms of quality and bit rate. Haven't got too far in my work on that yet though.. but the file sizes will be comparable (or even smaller) than wmv and yet the quality will most likely be better. I've seen some h.264 flash files that are half the size (150k-200k as opposed to 350k) of what's used on youtube and they are far superior

Why Flash? Because of "web 2.0".. because of youtube... because you can be sure that pretty much anyone coming to your site will be able to watch them as opposed to if you use some other embeded video. When doing your videos, keep in mind that youtube is 320x240 at 350k.. Also, there's no reason to have a high frame rate. I'm doing all mine at 15 fps and also dropping the audio down to mono and a low bit rate. It's porn, not music videos so doesn't need all of that... All of this helps to either reduce the file size or improve the quality for the same file size.

Regarding BW usage, once you've got the traffic, you'd get a proper flash streaming server which will reduce the BW considerably since every surfer isn't going to need to download the entire video to watch it..

As an aside.. it should be clear why all the ISPs don't want net neautrality.. They can all see that the BW usage is skyrocketing and they want to bleed it dry.. Their argument that the high BW users are just a small minority is a false one and they know that everyone is going to be a high BW user in short order because of all the streaming video.

damn do you want us to make the site for you too?

word of advice:

flash video uses the comp CPU to process and display every frame on screen. Larger widthxheight=more CPU used. This is true for sorenson, ON2, spark

wmv, avi, mpeg on the other hand, are parsed by the GPU (vid card), that's why they look smooth even when playing while loading and the pixel size does not affect how smooth playback is.

Thax guys I really do appreciate all that, I am going to go back though all this and reread everything. I will try the services you recommended, this really does help me to thax again.

I was not going to give up yet, but this was getting really frustrating

Ya doing that now :thumbsup

EXAMPLE

got a file from highdefriches
size:
wmv 2639
flv 2593

WMV


FLASH

could be some loss of quality but at least I don't see it, 95% of your surfers won't see it either

if you can't watch either of the examples the files are named 1.wmv and 1.flv, download them and see for yourself (I'll remove them in an hour or four)

I used a free converter (search for FreeVideoToFlashConverter.exe and get it from a trusted source) and trust me I'm no pro and 5 days ago I didn't have a clue about these formats and probably still don't

I think the problem is that I do not get vids in 2639kbps I get maybe like 526 if I am lucky. Now if you’re seeing a 'bit' of degradation after converting that really Large file and only knocked off a few MBs. It makes since I would see Totally Crap at the other end with this small shit, if I did the same thing.

But all this is really mute right now, as I do have a much better understand thax to many helpful people on GFY, so I will try things in a few other ways till I get what I want.

hey autodesk cleaner xl

I use it and have never had size or quality issues

Ya I will check that one out too, but with these little 570 kbps vids starter vids I have to work with, its going to be hard to get a converter from what I am seeing. Well one under like 600$ anyway :)

free 30 day trial of autodesk cleaner

http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet...&siteID=123112

2.5M+ for 20 seconds at those small dimensions? yeah.. of course the flash would look good.. now try and get a good looking video at only 1M - 1.5M.. Even then, 320x240 tends to look good on big monitors as you can't pick up the flaws all that easily.

I took a high quality wmv file (therefore the larger size) and converted it to flash to show him that the file will not be bigger and the quality will more or less remain the same

why should I try and "get a good looking video at only 1M" is beyond me, how about you try and get me a good looking jpg file less than 1kb 300*300 pixels???


I'm outta this thread, you can't win no matter what, ok guys don't do flash, embed your wmv, mpeg, and avi files

Flash video because it allows for consistent presentation without external player software
being loaded (or failing to load) into the browser.

-Ben

Just a brief observation/tip as well.

Flash is going MPEG4. When this reaches decent market penetration everyone will be
using MPEG4 and saving a lot of work on multi-format conversions.

Get onto Flash now so that the transition to MPEG4 is easier for you.

-Ben

Bandwidth costs.... If you're only doing some flash videos for some blogs or low traffic sources, then it's not going to matter and you can throw whatever you want into your flash videos... But if you're going for high traffic sites then you need to keep the costs down to maximize your profit.

Why did I say 1M? Comparing apples to apples.. tube type sites are basically a "replacement" for MPGs which list video galleries... So the site should be offering something comparable. For example, here's a BBO gallery.
http://x-bigmouthfuls.bangbros1.com/gal/bmf3876-1/p/

The videos are WMV, 640 x 480, 15 seconds, 512k... So in order to offer surfers the same type of quality, you should be offering the same thing. The file sizes are around 1M.. So now get the source (or high quality versions) and try and make a flash video with the same dimensions etc. at 1M that looks as good... If you don't, then your costs will skyrocket as you "replace" your video galleries with flash videos on your tube sites.

Have a look at this converter http://www.effectmatrix.com/total-video-converter/

It has a free trial so you can try it out. It lets you convert almost any file to any format and also gives you the option of different quality conversions

This is why I only use GL (GRASP). 320x200x4 is hot.

Flash / H.264 / VP6-S player
 

Check out www.MetrixPlayer.com