mpeg4 asf vs. avi .. why is AVI less accessable and requires CODEC ???

I have this cheap mpeg4 recorder that produces ASF. I find mpeg4 ASF
files to be very accessable and mobile. I'm looking to upgrade, but
many mpeg4 video recording cameras produce AVI files... That format is
not so accessable, requiring a codec be installed for windows media
9.0. What's up with that? Will i have no choice but to convert my
videos to make them most accessable over the internet? What format is
recommended for accessablitly and speed?

The camera I'm looking at is the Samsung A55w because of it's mpeg4 vga
30fps capability and 5x optical zoom. The camera I've been using for
video is an AIPTEK which can do VGA at about 11 FPS. Mainly, I'm
looking to merge photo and video, and don';t really mind the AIPTEK
less than perfect video quality. Other cameras I've looked at include
CASIO exlim 7

Can anybody recommend a prefered format and possibly a camera. I only
need it to do VGA at 15fps in MPEG4 format in a codec that can be read
by the default Windows Media Player .. I suspect ASF and WMV file
types.

Thanks in advance for any help or information!

 

jason wrote ...

Don't look now, but your ASF files require a codec to read/write
also (as do all RIFF files like WAV, AVI, etc.) You complaint
seems to be that you didn't get the codec you needed installed
automagically.

You will likely find that AVI files give you far wider usefulness
than ASF files. But you may have to do a bit of work to sort out
the codec(s).

 

Everything requires a codec to play. Windows simply comes pre-installed
with a few of the specific windows ones.

First, get a program like Gspot, which will tell you what codec those
Avi files are in (Standard one sentence tutorial: Avi is not a format,
its just a file extension and the file can be encoded in several
different formats.)

Find out the codec, then get an install it.

Wanna convert that to mpg4? www.videohelp.com is a good place to go for
detailed tutorials.

 

No expert here... looking for help and guidence so i can make the best
choice.

That windows comes pre-installed with specific codecs is a HUGE factor
in determining what format to use. I would think.

RIGHT NOW, If you wanted to put video on the internet, and needed it to
be EASILY and QUICKLY viewable to a wide international audience of
users what format would you use?

Thanks for any additional help and information.

 

jason wrote ...

My preference would be WMV.
My reasons include...
* High quality/filesize ratio.
* Free viewer.
* Free encoder.
* Viewers available for many platoforms.
* Most computers are running an MS OS and have viewer already installed.
* Not a cancer-like adware viewer like Real (avoid at any cost!)
* Not an annoying nagware like Quicktime. (only use if you must)

 

jason wrote ...

Note that the choice of file formats (and codecs) you make for
capture, local storage, production (editing, etc.) are likely to be
very different than an appropriate choice for internet distribution.

Likely the widest-used high quality non-broadcast capture, storage
and editing file format used by folks here is AVI using the built-in
Microsoft DV codec. This combination is frequently called
"DV-AVI".

Which file format and codec you use is dependent on several things
including your source (camcorder, VCR, etc.), connection method
(Firewire, USB, etc.), your capture software, editing software, etc.

For internet distribution, my choice is WMV (Windows Media Video)
for reasons I outlined in my other response.

 

Is the MPEG4-AVI format used by the Samsung A55W the same as DV-AVI ?..
wondering because vanilla windows media player can't view it without a
codec. If not, I wonder if any cameras are recording in somthing
vanilla Windows media player will play? MPEG seems desirable because I
think it get 3-4 times more compression.

If WMV is ideal for internet distribution, is it a big deal to convert
those MPEG4 AVI files to WMV? and would gret compression be lost? If
possible, what sw would you recommend.

I'm thinking there must be some reason camera manufactures are not
writing out to .ASF file type like the digital cams are, perhaps some
issue with more than 11FPS VGA.

Many thanks for the great info!

 

Well, I happen to be partial to the Flash Video format. Quality is good,
and nearly every browser will play flash content, so you don't have to
worry codecs or operating systems. Quicktime movies are usually not a
problem, anyone who dosen't have the quicktime player can get it easily
enough. Wmv files, should play in any windows machine.

 

Your camera is recording highly compressed video into a memory card I
believe. Conversion to other format will likely sacrifice quality.

A google search pops up a whole ton of people hawking converters.
Nothing popped up on Videohelp.com. I suppose because coversion out of
Asf format is not a hot topic. Everyones all Divx and Xvid for their
Btorrent downloads these days.

 

thanks.

I'm looking to go from AVI (mpeg4) to WMV or ASF.

 

jason wrote ...

No. MPEG is virtally *always* compressed significantly
more than DV. There are likely NO still cameras which
produce DV video. If they did, they would be called video
cameras which also take still pictures. There are many
examples of those kinds of cameras out there.

Not surprising. The "video" produced by most still cameras
tends to be rather proprietary to the particular make (and
even model) of the camera. There doesn't appear to be much
standardization there.

IMHO, any kind of "video" out of a still camera is a novelty
and a bonus. It doesn't hold up well to any kind of post-
production (editing, converting. etc.)

I would be surprised if you discovered any. The people who
design those still cameras just threw in the "video" function as
an afterthought and weren't worried about compatibility with
anything else.

Absolutely. That is why they use it. Otherwise you could get
no useful recording time on any of the storage devices in
typical still cameras. Unfortunately, they use proprietary
codecs that make it difficult to exchange the files with others.

I'm sure it is possible. Maybe directly, more likely through
one (or more?) intermediate files/codecs? www.videohelp.com
would be the place to look/inquire about conversion from
one particular codec to another.

If it were me I would be very grateful if *anything* useful
came out the other end. But who knows, you might just
get lucky. (This is why people don't use still cameras to
shoot "video") But we have no idea what your application
or expectations are, so maybe this is OK for you?

The only tool for creating WMV is (free) Windows Media
Encoder. You should first download and try WME to see
if it will recognize the codec that your camera's file uses.

If not, you may have to convert your camera MPEG file
to DV-AVI or something and then use WME to create
the WMV file.

I see it like the old story about the trained bear. It is
not the issue of the bear's limited vocabulary, but the
amazing feat the the bear is speaking at all. That is how
I see video files produced by still cameras. They are
pure gravy and I have extremely low expectations from
them.

 

"RS" wrote ...

Yes, IMHO, Flash is a very good candidate as likely even more people
have Flash player installed than have WMP. However the process
for creating the files is either expensive or very "fiddly" and difficult
for novice users. If it was as easy/cheap as making WMV, it would
be better than Windows Media formats.