Digital Video for Web Sites

There are 4 major brands of video available for use on the Internet:

- Quicktime MOV
- Windows Media WMV
- Adobe FLV
- Real RM

The problem:
For years putting audio and video into a web page has been a difficult task. The underlying problems are two-fold:

1. By default, audio and video support is not defined in the HTML language. Audio and video support was not foreseen as something that needed to be supported in the HTML language. Hence, there is no "default" HTML code to include audio and video. Whereas with images (such as jpg or gif images) there is "default" code that allows HTML authors to easily include an image in an HTML page. The HTML language was developed a long time ago.

2. No single company owns the HTML language, The HTML language is "open source" and maintained by the W3C. Companies that develop audio and video file formats are all in competition to be "the" audio or video "standard." There are many different kinds of audio and video file types: MP3, OGG, WAV, AIF, MOV, RM, WMV, AVI, MPEG, FLV, SWF and so on. And there are many different corporations that have developed these file formats: Apple, Microsoft, Sorenson, Real, Adobe (Macromedia) and so on.

Browsers (e.g. Internet Explorer, Netscape and FireFox) exist to render HTML code for human readability, since HTML specifications do not require audio and video support, and because there is no single open source video file format, it would be nearly impossible to institute an audio or video "standard" without serious legal issues.

Quicktime MOV and Windows Video WMV file formats were developed to play within a proprietary player and run as "stand-alone" programs, with focus on creating a video format that could support super-high DVD quality video. The MOV and WMV formats and players were then re-purposed so that the proprietary video format could be played within a web page / on a web site . Real RM and Adobe Flash FLV formats were designed specifically for web sites / including video within a web page.

The result is that "plugins" were developed to extend a browser's functionality. Each of the four companies / video formats mentioned have their own browser plugin, which enable web developers to incorporate each video format into a web page. Each company has developed their plugin so that the plugin only supports the video formats that their player can play.

The Adobe Flash plugin is shipped with all major browsers. Other companies require end users to first download, then install the plugin separately. Occasionally, special browser distributions will include one additional plugin, but it is extremely rare that a browser will ship with Quicktime, Real and Windows Plugins as part of the standard installation. only the Adobe Flash plugin is included in all major browsers as a "standard issue."

One might wonder why Microsoft hasn't ruled the "video market," since a decent majority of people use Microsoft Windows. The reason is that Microsoft was "late to the game" when it comes to video, plus there are some legal issues that prevent Microsoft from "forcing" everyone to use the Window Video format and plugin.

Another thing to consider is that Internet Explorer is not the only browser in town. Netscape, Opera, and the soon-to-be-browser-king FireFox occupy 60% of the browser share. Be waned of browser usage statistics... some browsers "spoof" -- or pretend to be Internet Explorer in order to avoid technical issues with "server to browser" communication, such as how JavaScript is interpreted, and how the Windows Operating system handles requests. The bottom line is that browser usage statistics are tainted.

If a gallup poll were taken on which browser people used most, I believe a lot of folks would be surprised as to how many people DON'T use Internet Explorer. As it stands, the way statistics are tallied now-a-days is through web site traffic logs -- which are robotic in nature and don't take into consideration "spoofing."

But I regress.

The breakdown:

"The breakdown" is a guesstimate and based on experience (8+ years of fumbling around with multimedia on the internet)... so take these numbers with a grain of salt!).

Quicktime plugin - 50%
Only about 50% of people have Quicktime installed in their browser.

Real Player plugin - 50%
50% of people have Real Player installed in their browser.

Windows Media plugin - 65-75%
Most folks have a Windows-based PC, therefore most people have Windows Media.... but it's still at about 60-70% giving consideration for non-Internet Explorer browsers that don't have the Windows Media Plugin pre-installed -- and for Mac users.

Flash Player plugin - 98%
Everyone has the ability to play Flash video -- all major browsers have Flash pre-installed. See Adobe's "Market Penetration" chart.

The bottom line:
Adobe FLV video is the easiest and most flexible way for webmasters to put video on a web site.

Technically, I think the Windows media video format is the best (best quality and lowest file size)... but it is difficult to include on a web page and usually requires some kind of special server side stuff + additional support files, such as a "proxy" asx file to direct to the actual video file.

Overall, Quicktime is the most flexible because it supports a wide range of codecs. (e.g. MOV, MPEG, MPEG-4, AVI, H.264, Motion JPEG, Sorenson, Cinepak, DV, Component video). Plus, most video authoring programs such as Adobe Premier, Final Cut, etc, include exporting to a quicktime format "by default." Hence, you are more likely to find Quicktime video's out there on the internet because it's kind of "the standard" for video nerds. Actually, one of the reasons why Quicktime is so well regarded is because of the Sorenson's codec. Sorenson is a company similar to DivX who develops video codecs used to compress and decompress video -- and Sorenson's codec offers "the best"? compression to quality levels. As a side note: Apple negotiated with Sorenson to have the Sorenson codec exclusively (some form of legalese) -- which is interesting because Adobe FLV video is based on another Sorenson codec, exclusively developed for Adobe (Macromedia) -- which kind of puts Adobe and Apple at odds -- or Sorenson could just be the devil.

The pros and cons of each format:

Adobe Flash  - FLV

Flash was designed specifically for web sites / including video within a web page, whereas the other players were designed as "stand-alone" programs -- then re-purposed so that video could be played within a web page / on a web site.

 

Pros:
- Great quality / file size ratio
- Can integrate nicely into a web page.
- No need to ask website users to do anything, the video just plays.
- About as seamless as possible for web page delivery
- Preferred by most web designers.

Cons:
- Not very portable. In other words, having an FLV or SWF file hanging around on your local PC is pretty useless unless you use a third-party FLV player, such as the Wimpy Stand Alone FLV player.

More info:
http://www.wimpyplayer.com/support/flv_about.html

Windows Media - WMV

Probably the best way to present "true" streaming video, high-volume and pay-per-view scenarios. The quality / bandwidth of properly set up server side software is pretty incredible.

Pros:
- Great quality / file size ratio
- Most folks use Windows, therefore downloading additional software is not usually needed.
- Preferred by most "programmer" type people who despise Apple.

Cons
- Requires Quicktime to be installed on end-users system, which can disrupt / overtake a users existing audio and video settings.
- Nearly impossible to embed in a web page.
- Conversion tools were designed by dorks.
- Sometimes the video codec used within the WMV is not available, at which time, windows does the upgrade thing.
- Not everyone can play WMV, especially Apple and Linux people. There are tools and plugins for these folks, but these tools suck.
- The WMV / ASX file format is confusing and not very flexible from an "average joe" point of view.
- Not very portable.
- May require additional files to support playback (such as an ASX file)
- Designed to work specifically with Windows Media Server - which can be costly.

Quicktime - MOV

Probably the best way to offer video if you just want to link directly to a file.

Pros:
- Great quality / file size ratio
- Straight forward and clean.
- Preferred by most "video" people.
- Very portable
- Most video tools can export to a Quicktime MOV file format.
- Solid playback / performance.

Cons:
- Windows users must download and install the Quicktime program. However, Quicktime is pretty prevalent, most people already have quicktime installed and don't even know it.

Real - RM

Real Networks is, perhaps, the "grand-daddy" of internet video. Unfortunately, they didn't capitalize on their early successes by establishing solid, lasting business relationships, nor did they "open" the RM video format so that people could develop for it.

Pros:
- Great quality / file size ratio

Cons:
- Requires Real Player to be installed on end-users system, which can disrupt / overtake a users existing audio and video settings.
- Cumbersome
- Not portable
- Difficult to incorporate into a web page.
- Designed to work specifically with Real Networks Media Server - which can be costly.

Including Video in an email.

Regardless of the video format you choose, including video in an email is a tricky en devour because an email client is kind of like its own unique web browser -- so it's difficult to get a grip on how each video plugin will behave within each email client. So no matter which video format you use, all will have the same problematic issues of whether each end-users email client (outlook, thunderbird, etc.) has the capacity to render the video within the client. That being said, the FLV format will probably be easiest to integrate via email.

See Also:

Streaming Media's Success Story

Adobe's "Market Penetration" chart

About FLV video

The Rise of Flash Video