Re: [videoblogging] MPEG-4 (was: deeplinking considered n/a)

On 30/06/2004, at 4:54 AM, Ryan Shaw wrote:

>> Do you mean mpeg1 or 4? Mpeg1 is too bandwidth inefficient, mpeg4 is
>> not in wide enough use and does not look like it will be for a couple
>> years, if ever. Encoders are costly and users are not switching
>> quickly
>> from WMV and Sorenson. Mpeg4's promise was that it could be the mp3
>> of
>> video, I think WMV is likely to prevent that from happening.
> I think you're dismissing MPEG-4 too quickly. XviD
> (
> is an ISO MPEG-4 compliant video codec that is free and open source. I
> think we're likely to see more open-source MPEG-4 codecs in the future.
> Moreover new media appliances like videophones, tapeless camcorders and
> portable video players are standardizing on MPEG-4, not WMV, as the
> format of choice.
> It make take a while for professional media producers to make the
> switch, but I don't expect videobloggers to necessarily be pros.
> I agree that the consumer is poorly served by the current bewildering
> array of competing formats. But at least an open standard exists and
> seems to be catching on.

licence QuickTime player to get the Pro version (around USD25.00) and
you can export compliant MPEG4 in QuickTime. Dirt cheap, very effective
and for the dollar of significant quality. It also lets you export to
the format that lets you display on mobile devices (which is a subset
of mpeg4, mpp3, i think).

thanks fo rthe XviD link, didn't have that one 🙂

Adrian Miles
……………………………………………………….. ||
interactive networked video ||
research blog ||