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

alan 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.