Advice on adding video content to a website

horseatingweeds

I plan on using some video from a DVD to add a video sample to a website of a speaker I am marketing. I have not dealt with video content in the past so I was wondering if anyone had any advice on what to use and how to configure it.

I am thinking windows media player; everyone has it. What about Flash, will this work for such a thing?

VidE

Flash 8, using the On2 Codec is great, relatively small files with good quality. However, the encoder is not free unless you have Flash 8, After Effects 7, etc., apps that include the encoder.

Windows Media is pretty good and it's free. google Windows Media ENCODER, (as opposed to Player), download and encode. Unless you use a public place like YouTube, you'll have to host the file yourself, uploading it to a server where others can download it. Which is why you're at Frihost in the first place, right?

Josso

Well, encoding video in flash can sometimes be more trouble that it's worth in my opinion. Your best bet - encoding wise - is to put it in something like ASF or WMV and put a direct link to the file. You'd have to make sure it was a suitible size first though so people could stream it. But to be honest if your not too bothered about the 320x240 resolution just upload it to YouTube and use the embeded HTML code to put it on your site. There's a good example on my site (www.josso.co.uk) at the moment - I've got my new video uploaded to YouTube and embeded on the main page, is that the kind of thing you are looking for?

(Oh yeah and by the way, when your ripping from DVD be careful with formats. I recommend getting some software that can de-interlace video and something that can rip in DivX format).

horseatingweeds

Thanks VidE and Josso. I am thinking that youtub will be fine. However,

Jaan

If you want extreme quality, opt for divx/xvid using the xvid web player (stage6.divx.com). Check it out. For standard just use youtube I guess but watermark, and you'll get heaps of publicity that way too.

Josso

irishmark

I use a variety of formates depending on the website.

WIndows media, Quicktime and flash video.

The problem with Windows Media * Quicktime is that not everyone will use them. Mac users dont all have Windows media player on their Macs and similarly not all PC users have QT installed.

For most Flash is best as most people have flash player on their systems. The problem here is getting a good flv player. If you are a flsh designer this should be no problem and you can design your own otherwise there are various flv players out there available as freeware or for very low prices depending on usage needs - google flv player to get the best.

You will need an flv encoder and i'd recommend Sorensen Squeeze.

GProject

Alaskacameradude

I personally like H.264 as a codec for great quality and small file sizes, but that is for posting on your own site. Of course it depends what tools you have for compressing your video.

However, if you are going to compress for Youtube, it is best to use an intraframe codec instead of interframe codecs. The following is from an article at:
http://www.kenstone.net/fcp_homepage/youtube_compressor_gary.html
He is talking about Mac based encoding, but the principle is the same no matter what you use....DON'T USE INTERFRAME CODECS!!!
Here's what he says.....

"This is because after you encode the file, Youtube squeezes the video again into their flash based output format. Following Youtubes online help is no good as they recommend using and interframe scheme. Therefore, to follow YouTube's online help, I should introduce an iterframe compression scheme during my setup and then upload the file, only to have them squeeze the video through yet another interframe scheme, this time with even lower bandwidth. As a very basic refresher, interframe compression uses keyframes (I frames) placed in the data stream that contain an entire frame's worth of data. The rest of the frames in the stream (between the I frames) derive their pixel information by using algorithms that interpret the preceding and subsequent I frame and then make an educated guess as to where to place each pixel on each in-between frame. Further compression can be introduced by lowering the overall data rate that flows through the stream, thereby reducing the overall picture quality. It's a very efficient system that allows an entire feature film plus bonus material to fit on a DVD (MPEG-2 compression).

However, this is different from intraframe encoding where every frame in the stream is an I frame and any compression that exists occurs within the frames themselves. A good example of this is DV (MiniDV) that, although heavily compressed at a 5:1 ratio, contains a full frame of video for every frame in the data stream.

So, here's my thought process: why would I want to use interframe compression only to have it compressed again with another flavor of interframe encoding? My answer is, I don't, because I can't control the keyframe values of the re-compression. Remember, when you upload to YouTube you are in fact uploading to an encoder. When all these movies are re-encoded, some unknown setting will determine where the encoder places the keyframes in the data stream and the last thing I want is for the YouTube encoder to use as the basis for a new I frame, an interpreted frame from my heavily compressed source movie. This process is not like uploading a movie to your website or .Mac account where the file you encoded becomes accessible to the world immediately. You are uploading to a Flash 5 assembly-line encoding system that will process your movie and then make it available sometime down the line.
My answer to the recompression problem is to use the often-overlooked PhotoJPEG CODEC."

Anyways, this article is worth checking out as it has some good points in it about encoding for YouTube.