why wmv rubbish compared to RM

[Mad_mardy]

i've just been using canopus procoder and microshafts media encoder
and why is it that the resulting wmv files are larger (file size) and poorer quality than encoding with real media using basically the same settings sometimes lower settings in real media

[harlequin]

1. any two codecs , even at same settings , will produce different results.
2. wmv is good at some things , and i prefer it to realmedia.

what are you encoding ?
what do you want to use it for ?

[Mad_mardy]

Its just a small video trailer and its for the web
i had them running side by side last night and the real one sounded better
(there were sample rate problems with the wmv) and looked better.
the file size of the rm is lower and so is the bitrate than the wmv but the picture quality is better.
I would normally prefere to use wmv as it is more native to windoes than real.
Does anyone know of a good video streaming host?

[harlequin]

Its just a small video trailer and its for the web
i had them running side by side last night and the real one sounded better
(there were sample rate problems with the wmv) and looked better.
the file size of the rm is lower and so is the bitrate than the wmv but the picture quality is better.
I would normally prefere to use wmv as it is more native to windoes than real.
Does anyone know of a good video streaming host?

i know many people won't install realplayer , so it might be an idea to link to real-alternative (http://www.codecguide.com/download_real.htm) on your streaming page should you decide to use real.

i'll see if the stuff i set up for streaming is still available on my server at work , and i'll pass you info to test the footage.
done in a couple of different formats.

[Mad_mardy]

yeah i have actually provided both real and wmv

[cyberwest]

In my testing for Computer Video magazine RIP, Real Media is better than WMV. Whereas the latter is an unknown proprietary development of MPEG-4, Real uses Wavelet compression, which scales really well and can look a lot better at lower data rates. It can be processor-intensive, though.

[bcrabtree]

James,

Thanks for the comment.

One of the things I've been meaning to mention to you is that when I visited BBC R&D the other week, I was told that there had been some significant changes with WMV, and that, in effect, what was closed before is now open.

I've been meaning to look into this, but it's just one of the many things I've not got round to yet.

Bob C

[AlbertNoble]

Any one tried 'Clipstream,' a playerless video?
Plays on all PCs and doesn't need wmp etc etc.
Free trial with logo watermark but can be removed with
a key one buys, but not sure how much!

www.clipstream.com

I use .wmp at present with good results...(the less the detail
on the video the better the encoded results), but Clipstream
can be embedded on a web site page for a better presentation.
Albert.
www.retinascope.co.uk