Flash or Quicktime?

[Jeff Reynolds]

Sorry, beg to differ, we consistently come up with much better and  
smaller qt h264 files than wmv9. this may be because our compression  
guy has a lot of tricks that he can do to make qt stuff really shine.  
hes been at this for like 20 years and has lots of secret sauces that  
work great with qt, but not with wmv. to his credit he does bang on  
wmv a lot to try and get it looking at good as possible, but just  
never does a well as qt. if you just port from a program to qt and wmv  
you might get comparable stuff, but there are lots of compression  
tricks that can make things smaller and prettier (sorry the  
compression guy wont let his sekrets out, its his biz, if he told me  
he would have to kill me). I know a few that help, but he really does  
better than i do when he gets at it!

jeff

On Feb 16, 2008, at 1:00 PM, use-revolution-request at lists.runrev.com  
wrote:

>> except making a nicely compressed and good quality wmv file is
>> pretty much an oxymoron
>
> To be fair, WMV9, On2VP6, and H264 are all comparable for quality,
> data rate, and CPU requirements.