Re: [videoblogging] conventions vs. standards

>But somtimes I feel we arent getting anywhere.

Jay, I think we've made a lot of progress this week, and *you* have contributed. Be patient…

>Maybe we should start with some kind on documentation on what works best
>with what machines.
>Like Lucas says that MPEG4 is a good standard to adopt.
>so im in, but it is correct?

Yes, MPEG-4 is a good standard to adopt. We'll still need to experiment with "which" MPEG-4 and the details of mime-types, embed tags, codec options within the container, etc.

>i also dont know what MIMES are.
>can PC's create MPEG4's?

Yes, PC's (Win and Linux) can create many different flavors of MPEG-4. QuickTime for Windows will produce very compatible mp4s, but not at the highest quality. One nice thing about the current MPEG-4 Video Codec is that, by sticking to a specific "profile", it is possible for a vendor to increase the quality of compression and still be compatible with the standard and existing players. I (like Shannon) have used 3ivx (watching the settings so as not to break compatibility) to make .mp4's that look better than the ones QT produces but are still playable in the QT player. I haven't tried 3ivx on Windows.

— Sean

M. Sean Gilligan : 831-466-9788 x11
Catalla Systems, Inc.