What is the future of video on the web?

[Hell Puppy]

Ok, so I talked to several people about this over the weekend. And it's a bit of a follow up from Cybernet too. I'm hearing mxied results, and trying to sort out who is full of shit and what the numbers really say. I'm pretty sure I'm gonna have to test this all myself over the next 6 months to find out for certain.

Here are the contenders...or at least the options I can think of:



DRM -- problem here is surfers hate it,and it's expensive to implement all around. It works very well for VOD, flat rate membership sites, not so much. I've talked to no one recently using this on a traditional paysite.
Quicktime -- Works great for mac users, but seems to always be problematic for PC users. Again, I know no one using this as their ONLY option unless it's a true amateur trying to run her own site and doesn't know how to produce anything else.
MPEG -- Good universal standard, but for most surfers their software will insist upon downloading the entire thing before movie starts. I see this implemented alot but almost always alongside other formats.
WMV -- Probably the most common I see. You can stream it or not, and you can go from low speed sizes up to full HD, just depends on how much bandwidth you want to use.
Flash -- Not as easily downloaded, so has some DRM type benefits and it starts and plays instantly, streams and let's you skip forward or back regardless of how much is downloaded. Quality is typically much less than all of the above.

With all that said, to me the choice comes down to do you give your users a couple of versions of WMV's (and maybe mpeg as an alternate) and push the quality and ability to download?

Or do you reap the benefits of flash. It can save a ton of bandwidth. It's instant gratification for the surfer. And it's not as easily ripped off, so you dont have near the level of problems of your videos getting out on the forums, etc.

The driving factor is the surfers. I know when I am surfing myself, I like flash for trailers and previews, but if I'm actually going to watch a video, I want the quality of downloading it. I dont really care how long it takes. Flash for the movie would annoy me due to quality I think.

I say that, but then I watch TV via Hulu a lot.

I had one site owner swear to me that they converted their site to pure flash and took away the ability to download movies at all and saw memberships go up 33% over the next couple of months. Now, I'm a data and numbers guy, and there's not enough of either there for me to really draw a conclusion. I dont know what else might have driven sales up during that time. I also dont know if maybe there was a huge following of thise site on the video trading forums and newsgroups which essentially made the fans in those areas lose their "fix" and popped some sales.

My own approach for new sites has been flash in tour and previews, but wmv and mpeg downloads for the full clips in members area.

What are everyone else's thoughts?

[gonzo]

AEBN Adds Flash to Theaters 09.18.08
AEBN is excited to announce a new innovation: the addition of a Flash video player to its network of theaters. Not only will the new Flash player reduce compatibility issues for current customers, it will also enable access for users of Apple computers, who make up an estimated 8.5% of the internet-enabled market. The Flash file format is supported across a number of different web-capable devices, another way in which its addition broadens the potential customer base for AEBN products and services.

The new Flash player can be resized and scaled dynamically within someone's browser with no significant loss in quality, and full-length movies are being transcoded in the new Flash format in multiple bitrates to ensure that customers who choose it have the best possible experience.

[MRock]

I'm all over the board on this one ... I have one members site that I only post videos in the downloadable mpg format. Another site I only post in higher end wmv format and another site with the videos locked down with a media server. Hoped to see some response difference from customers, but can not. I have heard other webmasters talk about the h.264 format being served in a locked stream and having good results in quality and secure delivery. I really would like to look/see for myself.

With the advance of tube sites, it would seem to me that the natural response for content producers would be to lock down their content more than before ... but "the surfer hates drm", so I await the alternative

[gonzo]

"the surfer hates drm", so I await the alternative
I hear this all the time with all of AEBN under a DRM system.
You can see how I dont buy it.

[softball]

Its true that surfers hate drm. We have a video site that was drm'ed until the Playa/Jason Tucker fiasco, which was the end of it. Business did pick up. I think Flash is not the way to go for a site that you offer monthly memberships to, but is certainly the way to go for VOD. I am currently encoding all my videos in Flash as well as WMV. Just wrestling with file sizes at the moment.

[DannyCox]

We poll our members quite a bit, and no one really likes Flash videos. The vast majority prefer high quality WMV videos which work just fine on a Mac with the free Flip4Mac plug-in.

We do our videos in 2 versions of WMV (one being very high quality), MP4 for Quicktime, MP4 for PSP/Zune Players, an iPod version, a version for iPhone/iTouch, and a cellphone 3GP version. I also did one section with Flash video, but I just can't get really good quality without a high filesize, which to me, defeats the purpose. The members love the choices they get, and it does keep them around. I have a program on one of the Macs here that batches and converts everything for me.

Some webmasters still believe that people can't download and save Flash versions. I don't know why they believe that as there is all sorts of free tools to grab Flash, and convert it to anything you like. There are also tools that defeat most of the DRM gimmicks out there.

We started shooting High Definition a while back, and I release those videos in a WMV format at 960X540 and they are crystal clear.

[Hell Puppy]

Some webmasters still believe that people can't download and save Flash versions. I don't know why they believe that as there is all sorts of free tools to grab Flash, and convert it to anything you like. There are also tools that defeat most of the DRM gimmicks out there.

Yeah, pretty much any utility that grabs from youtube will also grab your flash member files. But most users are lazy and unsavvy. If they cant simply right click save as, they aren't gonna bother.

Doesn't stop it, but it slows it down. Same user who is savvy enough to rip your flash is likely also savvy enough to troll torrents and newsgroups for their porn fix instead of paying for it.

The result is that in theory you deny easy downloads and propogation which encorages sales and renewals so they can continue to get their spank on.

[Dravyk]

Notice how (thank gawd!) no one even thinks of Real Media as a contender any more!

I think Flash is great for DRM, but hate that one often can't make it larger. When you can, it's not bad.

WMV with DivX for the 16:9 aspect ratio is my personal fav.

[Hell Puppy]

I dont think there's a right or wrong answer here.

DRM is the domain of VOD, and that's a unique business model.

For the rest of us, it is understanding your user base for one thing, and surfing on your own to stay in the head of the surfer and abreast of trends.

Danny Cox has the ultimate solution so far...offer everything and survey the users. If you have the resoures to pull it off, that approach is hard to beat.

The balance is along the axis of compatibility, instant gratification and quality. Nothing gives us all 3 at the same time yet. Until it does, I think we continue to have these debates.

[Hell Puppy]

Notice how (thank gawd!) no one even thinks of Real Media as a contender any more!.

Anything that requires users to download something they dont already have is immediately in trouble. And in the case of RealMedia, it offers nothing to justify the effort.

Not sure what RealMedia brings to the table these days, flash is eating it's lunch.

[RawAlex]

One of the business models that isn't getting hit hard in porn yet is the "direct download to TV" model, that Blockbuster or Netflix or whoever has been playing with in the mainstream. Not as many people I guess are looking to put the porn on the big screen, but rather prefer (or are forced to) enjoy it in the den or where ever they happen to have their computer.

RealMedia is a pretty solid joke at this point, their install tries to put so much stuff on your system that most people seem to consider it borderline spyware, and the compression / encoding for those files just isn't all that good. I hate to say it, but Windows Media Player since about 9 has pretty much been as good as anyone needs.

Flash movies are also very nice, especially the better quality ones (not the youtube style super crap encoding). Some of the mainstream movie trailers in flash are darn impressive, super quality.

[softball]

Flash movies are also very nice, especially the better quality ones (not the youtube style super crap encoding). Some of the mainstream movie trailers in flash are darn impressive, super qualityI have been wrestling with that very thing for two days now. Its making me crazy, but i think there is light at the end of the tunnel. It seems to be a trade off with screen size, bit rate, and audio quality. All to make sure it can work really fast and still look great. With WMV, the encoding learning curve is easier because it is easy to right click and see what others have done before you. With flash, you can't do that, so there is a lot of trial and error involved. Mostly error....lol

[DannyCox]

Flash video can be a real pain in the ass to tweak in. I just found that when I get it set up to give me the quality I want, the filesize is as big (or bigger) than a comparable WMV file. I am no expert in Flash, by a long shot, and I am most probably doing something wrong. My conversion program will also do FLV files along with the rest.

Alex made mention of download for TV, and that is becoming more popular with things like Apple TV and the XBOX360 console. I did a test with the XBOX360 with a downloaded video that was a WMV format at 960X540 and played it on my 54" plasma TV. The quality was amazing! I haven't tried the Apple TV as of yet as I don't have one, and don't know anyone who has one.

[gonzo]

The quality was amazing! I haven't tried the Apple TV as of yet as I don't have one, and don't know anyone who has one.
I do and it is awesome. I didnt even bother with cable in the Charlotte condo. Torrents tossed to my apple tv and on the plasma.

Sweet.

[RawAlex]

Remember that most big screen TVs are actually fairly low resolution things, 960 x 540 would be actually good enough resolution for all those 720 plasmas out there.

[DannyCox]

I have the Panasonic Viera 1080p Plasma, and the 960X540 off the Xbox looks great. I haven't tried it with either true 720 or 1080 as of yet, mainly because the file sizes are so large!

[Hell Puppy]

Yup, i think slinging it to the TV is a definite future trend.

We're headed for a showdown with cable companies though. Comcrap is putting a cap on bandwidth in October. I forget what the cap is, something like 500 gig per month.

That sounds like a lot, til you start downloading feature length movies in high def.

[Toby]

It's 250 gig. If I were a Comcrap customer I'd moving to another provider.

[Dravyk]

I did a test with the XBOX360 with a downloaded video that was a WMV format at 960X540 and played it on my 54" plasma TV. The quality was amazing! I haven't tried the Apple TV as of yet as I don't have one, and don't know anyone who has one. You answered the one question I've been wondering about, Danny. :)

[DannyCox]

It's my eleven year old son's Xbox, so I had to download it from the site while he was at school, chck it, then delete the evidence!!

Took me longer to figute out that Xbox Live stuff than anything on the computer! Should have got him to do it for me ;)

[RawAlex]

One other "key item" in the deal in my mind is devices like the Xobx attached to the TV are also attached to the net. More and more people are going wireless (Bell Smpatico upgraded me automatically to a wireless setup when I moved, even though I alsready had two other wireless units). So even if you don't want to run wires, it is easy as pie to connect those devices to the web and off you go.

Anyone want to take a stab at writing "pornbox360"?

[Jim_Gunn]

I do a lot of video encoding for myself and my customers that I film for, so here's how it breaks down for me. For my old standard definition content that I offer for sale as downloadable clips I encode into multiple formats including WMVs, MPEG-1, mp4's (Ipod) and also Divx codec AVIs at 640 x 480 and 320 x 240.

For my customers that I film new custom high definition content for I mostly encode high definition video into WMV at 1280 x 720 and also a smaller version at 480 x 270, Quicktime at the same sizes plus a Flash version with the ON2 VP6 codec as well as Real for one customer who still wants it believe it or not.

[Hell Puppy]

I do a lot of video encoding for myself and my customers that I film for, so here's how it breaks down for me. For my old standard definition content that I offer for sale as downloadable clips I encode into multiple formats including WMVs, MPEG-1, mp4's (Ipod) and also Divx codec AVIs at 640 x 480 and 320 x 240.

For my customers that I film new custom high definition content for I mostly encode high definition video into WMV at 1280 x 720 and also a smaller version at 480 x 270, Quicktime at the same sizes plus a Flash version with the ON2 VP6 codec as well as Real for one customer who still wants it believe it or not.

The Award Winning Jim Gunn!

1280? HUGE! How big is the typical 20 or so minute clip in terms of file size at that resolution?

[DannyCox]

I did some WMV videos at 1280X720 along with 960X540 and 720X400 to gauge what people would download. Most grabbed the 960X540 with very few actually doing the 1280 wide version. When we asked members why they chose what they did, the common answer was that most users are using browsers set at 1024 pixels wide and that the 1280 was just too big.

That will change in the future as it did with the screen width progression of 640 to 800 to 1024. But people tend to keep screen resolution the same as how it was when they got their PCs. I am considering doing 1280X720 versions, just so they are their for the future. But for the present, I'll make sure I keep up the 960X540 version.

[Hell Puppy]

I did some WMV videos at 1280X720 along with 960X540 and 720X400 to gauge what people would download. Most grabbed the 960X540 with very few actually doing the 1280 wide version. When we asked members why they chose what they did, the common answer was that most users are using browsers set at 1024 pixels wide and that the 1280 was just too big.

That will change in the future as it did with the screen width progression of 640 to 800 to 1024. But people tend to keep screen resolution the same as how it was when they got their PCs. I am considering doing 1280X720 versions, just so they are their for the future. But for the present, I'll make sure I keep up the 960X540 version.

More and more surfers using widescreen monitors, prices have blown thru that $300 (US) barrier which is where most consumer electronics start seeing widespread adoption.

However, I wouldn't have figured the screen to be the determining factor. I was thinking it might be download time.

For a feature movie or tv show, sure, download it overnight if you have to and watch it next day. But for porn, the download time is often "dick in hand" time. A hard dick is not patient.

This where I see a real advantage to flash potentially. I just finished watching this week's Sarah Connor Chronicles via flash in high def. On my 24" LCD, it looked gorgeous, there was no lag, no artifacts, no jerkiness. Hell, it looks 10 times better than analog cable.

[Dravyk]

I just finished watching this week's Sarah Connor Chronicles via flash in high def. On my 24" LCD, it looked gorgeous, there was no lag, no artifacts, no jerkiness. Hell, it looks 10 times better than analog cable. I'm betting Hulu. (?)

[Hell Puppy]

I'm betting Hulu. (?)

You would be correct sir.

[RawAlex]

therefore, if we do it, why would be expect our clients to be any different?

[Jim_Gunn]

The Award Winning Jim Gunn!

1280? HUGE! How big is the typical 20 or so minute clip in terms of file size at that resolution?

1280 x 720 WMV at a 3500 Kbps video bitrate is easily over 1 Gb for a 30 minute scene. That's why I also encode to 480 x 270 at 1500 Kbps video bitrate. That file size is a lot smaller and still looks pretty good on most screens!

[DannyCox]

I'm currently redoing the front end of Carol's site. I've been working on Flash teaser videos and will be doing 480X270 at 1000 Kbps. I'm getting very good quality at a good file size. I'm only using Flash in the free side and will be staying with my good old standards for the members area (for now, as things are always subject to change).

[miz_wright]

therefore, if we do it, why would be expect our clients to be any different?


I was kinda wondering that too - if we rip torrents on mainstream movies, why should we expect our customers not to rip the tawdry and base things we peddle?

[MikeSouth]

most here are talking about the present not the future. Id say the near future is avchd (H.264)

I use a method that plays on any xbox or ps3 as well as a PC at 1280x720 and looks amazing at about 1Gb/30 mins of video

[softball]

I now keep all my edited AVI files on terabite hot swappable hard drives. One lives in my computer for easy reference and the others live in a bank vault by the original tapes. That way I always have the best and when the need arises, I can encode for whatever comes along. My old videos are just on tapes which is a pain, but they are safe. the only way to really improve the quality, would be a new video camera with 1920 X 1080 resolution.