Most Compatible Format for Websites

[ofpeb]

Hi,

First time here. What would be my best bet when posting videos on websites made in IWeb so that when the sites published the majority of surfers can watch the video. I've noticed in the past when posting quicktime videos to my sites many viewers can't view without downloading quicktime. i know you could say just let them download quicktime, but I want to make it as turnkey as possible for the majority of surfers. When exporting video from FCP would Windows Media or FLC be more compatible for most surfers than quicktime, or is there something else I should do?

It's for a movie trailer, thus I need good quality while at the same time a small enough file so viewers don't have to wait forever for it to buffer. It's 3 minutes and about 762 MB as a quicktime movie.

Thanks for your help!
joe

[Baldrick]

Upload to Youtube or Vimeo and include it on your site.

Or if you don't want to use third party use flv or mp4(h264 video, aac audio) video with a flash player like flowplayer.

[sum_guy]

I would recommend FLV files, Freemake is a video converter (available on this site) that makes FLV's from almost any source, it even provides the html code and player to put up on your server. People who visit the site can play the videos without hunting down a player or a codec.

[ricardouk]

I've noticed in the past when posting quicktime videos to my sites many viewers can't view without downloading quicktime.

quicktime and itunes....

export to mp4 (m4v in iweb) and use jw player or flowplayer, use 900k as video bitrate and 96k as audio bitrate to keep it under the 1mb for slower connections.

[ofpeb]

Guess I'll use flowplayer cause freemake doesn't work with mac osx it appears. Thanks for your help!

[TreeTops]

No..Use Baldrick's first method. It will save you tons of bandwidth. And it is easier to code. You just embed the code they give you and away you go. I used to do the method you want to do, but soon learned that it was much easier and less time consuming to do it by embedding Vimeo or Youtube code of your video.

[ofpeb]

Thank you for your input. You are right relative to functionality. The reason I was thinking something different from youtube or vimeo is because I'm showing a movie trailer and perhaps I'm wrong but it seems using youtube or vimeo would appear second rate as I rarely see movie websites showing trailers via you tube. So, I originally thought something other than you tube would look more qualitative, thus professional. I just wonder what movie website typically use?

Thanks,
joe

[sum_guy]

Most major production companys use there own web domains, typically with the name of the movie as the URL. However, I see newer films are being put up on Facebook with links to the trailer, Warhorse from Dreamworks, Steven Speilbergs new movie is an example.

http://www.facebook.com/WarHorseMovie

[ofpeb]

Yes, I already have the website in place with the name of the movie, and putting the trailer in the most qualitative player is what I was asking about. I know you tube and vimeo do a good job, but thought it might look second rate in that I don't think I've every seen a movie website using either of those as their player.

Thanks,
joe

[Cornucopia]

I think your idea of "2nd rate" is more like most industry versions of "3rd rate" or "4th rate".

The Hollywood big boys have their own multi-bitrate encodings on their own websites with their own distributed (cloud-based), multicasting, streaming servers on a high-speed web backbone. That's "1st rate" and you aren't going to get that unless you pay the kind of money they are paying.

Your next choice has to do with branding. Is your own individual, independent branding so important to you that you are willing to encode multi-bitrate, get streaming-specific servers, and put up with bandwidth (and subsequently, simultaneous user quantity) limitations, because it's unlikely that you'll be able to acquire bandwidth like H'wood or Youtube or Vimeo can pull down.
If you are willing to put up with Youtube/Vimeo "commercialism" leaking into your branding, you avoid alot of those technical and financial difficulties...

Scott

[ofpeb]

So then it appears you're saying relative to quality (encoding, servers, bandwidth) and free players, you tube and vimeo are by far my best bet. In other words there's not another free player out there that will give me the same overall quality as you tube and vimeo. Cause that's basically what I was asking in that if there is another free player that would provide the same or better quality I'd prefer it so that it doesn't look like - "oh, this is some guy who made a home movie and is puttin' it on a website." I've spent two years of my life making this movie so far and have done so on practically nothing in terms of money.

It's not an issue of branding for me as it's not about my production company, but about getting prospective audience members excited about the movie, thus wanting to see it. There's many variables involved in making this happen and one of them is that when they go to the movie website they are having an experience that they would have at a movie website that paramount, warner brothers etc. would supply. There's an element of illusion in the movie business across the board and to the one who doesn't have the funds that the big boys have, but wants to produce a product as qualitative as hlwd, that illusion can stretch into the playing of your trailer on your website. It's definitely an issue of taking the little that you have and making the most of it. Making a better movie than hlwd makes with 1/1,000,000th less than they have. It's part of the challenge of the entire endeavor.

Thank you so much for your help! If you think of something better than vimeo or you tube that's free or almost free please let me know.

Thanks again!
joe

[handyguy]

If you have a file on your website viewers could use VLC. It has a view Network Stream option & you just input a URL.