why use grotty realvideo?!
videoartist | 19.11.2002 11:58
want to know if there is a reason for using an expensive, poor quality codec for distributing video when it limits the usefulness
Realvideo is pants, it's quite clear. Whether you go for modem friendly or big chunky files the quality is horribly blocky, often illegible and generally not even worth the bother.
It seems foolish to me that we continue to use it when it's stopping us get our message accross. I for one would find good quality video extremely useful for the video art i perform in mainstream nightclubs, but quite apart from that i'm in possession of a projector meaning its perfectly easy for me to put on free activist video nights, whether in community centres, festivals or free parties.. but what's the point when people won't be able to see what's on the screen?
I *really* think that we should move accross to DiVX - it's no longer an illegal, hacked codec having been rebuilt from scratch, it's opensource, fantastic, crispy dvd-like quality yet in tiny filesizes. If you're worried about some users being unable to watch it as they don't know where to find the codec (?!) then surely even Windows Media player would be better - sure it's bowing down to an 'orrible monopolist corporation but at least we'd be able to see whats going on?
IT would also help projects like the European Newsreal - no more being sent scratchy vcds or vhs, people could just pop on the site and download the full, near dv quality video themselves if they have the capabilities, spreading the word futher, and of course u can hang on to the vhs/vcds for those without the bandwith.
make sense?
It seems foolish to me that we continue to use it when it's stopping us get our message accross. I for one would find good quality video extremely useful for the video art i perform in mainstream nightclubs, but quite apart from that i'm in possession of a projector meaning its perfectly easy for me to put on free activist video nights, whether in community centres, festivals or free parties.. but what's the point when people won't be able to see what's on the screen?
I *really* think that we should move accross to DiVX - it's no longer an illegal, hacked codec having been rebuilt from scratch, it's opensource, fantastic, crispy dvd-like quality yet in tiny filesizes. If you're worried about some users being unable to watch it as they don't know where to find the codec (?!) then surely even Windows Media player would be better - sure it's bowing down to an 'orrible monopolist corporation but at least we'd be able to see whats going on?
IT would also help projects like the European Newsreal - no more being sent scratchy vcds or vhs, people could just pop on the site and download the full, near dv quality video themselves if they have the capabilities, spreading the word futher, and of course u can hang on to the vhs/vcds for those without the bandwith.
make sense?
videoartist
Comments
Hide the following 3 comments
True... but why are you posting this here?
19.11.2002 13:50
lc
XviD + Vorbis
19.11.2002 17:21
I'm really glad you're saying this. I absolutely hate RealMedia - it's evil stuff.
The way to go is XviD, which is (I guess) the open-source codec you're talking about. Quality is much superior, it's still under heavy development, and it's absolutely legal (
I tried to publish a 3min video about the anti-war actions on 31.October. It was XviD with vorbis sound, in an Ogg media file, 16MB. I also attached the codecs necessary to watch it. Unfortunately I never managed to upload the video files, they were simply missing. I mailed the indymedia team twice, but they never replied.
pir
yep real media sucks
19.11.2002 18:19
see a twiki documentation i did on
please register as a user on that twiki if you're interested in documenting and advising indy uploaders on this - we need all the help we can get!
btw i answered pir, see
reposting:
----
hi pir,
sorry to only now get back to you.
to (1): the failed html is due that you haven't selected html format but
left it at the default 'plain text' setting. this is a pop-up option you
get at the red box titled 'Text uploads' where you paste any text for
the article. At the bottom there is an option saying 'If you enter HTML
code, select "html format"... i have corrected this for all three uploads.
to (2): the video file uploads haven't been recognised. only the zip
file has ever arrived... shit. i guess you have selected the 'multiple
file upload' option and selected the zip file first... sorry, another bug
found out...
i wouldn't bother with the realmedia file as all indymedias have lost
their realmedia stream capacity as our media server went dodgy.
windows media streaming works though, encode as streamable .wmv, upload
it to the uk site and notify the the video group at
end if you want to mail, it's an anti-spam trick to fool the robots)
still i've seen you uploaded the ogg file at angelfire anyway so i'm not
sure what more to do. let me know if I can.
ta, andi
>Hi,
>
>I just tried to upload a video I made (in two formats, together with a
>WinZip file to view the video). I tried to upload first with Internet
>Explorer 5, then Netscape 7, both of which didn't work. Then I tried
>the Linux browser Konqueror, which seemed to work.
>
>Unfortunately there are two problems:
>
>(1) html wasn't recognised as such, so there are a lot of weird html
>tags and links, making the text very difficult to read ;
>
>(2) there are now three 'stories', each has the Winzip file attached,
>but none with the video files....
>
>Is it possible to rectify these ???
>
>here's the link:
>
>
>regards,
>
>pir
andi
e-mail:
andi@syndicate.org.uk