Looking for the best web presentation possible
As the importance of video becomes increasingly apparent, learning to use this tool will be helpful in the successful marketing of median to upper-end properties.
I have been searching for a way to present video that would be better than the methods we often see in current use.
Apple Quicktime (mov) is a very good format, but its market penetration is not as high as other options like Windows Media Player or Flash.
Windows Media Player (wmv) is a good format… and it is widely used. Windows media can make a very clean video file when using very high bit rates… but the result is a very large file, which we would like to avoid.
Flash is the most widely accepted format right now. The trouble with Flash (in my experience) is that you get a boost in contrast that makes some of the subtle differences in shades difficult, if not impossible, to discern.
So what format should you use?
I have been busy learning some new (new to me, at least) video software over the last few weeks… and I’m almost into overload. While video production is a complicated issue – good web delivery of video doesn’t have to be.
Services like YouTube and WellcomeMat are great for a low-cost approach to hosting your video project… and they both use Flash.
But what if you want to kick the quality up a notch?
Well, then you might want to consider getting your own web hosting account that will give you the kind of space you need to host your videos.
Bringing a new player to the game
A recent entry on the scene is DivX… and it has some great features. The quality is very good; file sizes are small; and many DVD players can play this format.
As a test, I went to stage6.divx.com and downloaded Roger Waters performance of “The Wall” in Berlin. The video streams nicely on broadband, and the quality is very good – even in full screen mode.
I then brought this 699MB file into the TMPGEnc DVD Author to create a DVD of the performance. TMPGEnc created a 4 Gig set of files and authored the DVD for me… and I must say that it’s very impressive. Much better than VHS… and almost as good as a production DVD.
The point is that DivX can deliver a DVD quality performance on your computer… and that is very important in regards to marketing real estate. And DivX works very well on CD, too. Just think – the Roger Waters performance is nearly two hours long… yet it will fit nicely on a CD!
There is one small drawback with DivX, however. The user must download a small codec plugin to be able to view the video. The codec is small and loads quickly. If the user trusts you – there’s no problem. If not – well, you know the drill.
Over the next few months I will document my experiences with these technologies and bring them to you exclusively – right here on the Bloodhound Blog.
Franz @ Blue Collar Agents says:
You’re right about Flash being the most widely accepted format right now. I don’t think a boost in contrast is inherent in the format – my bet is that you could fix this with different encoder settings and/or a better Flash video encoder.
Rather than the Macromedia encoder, try using an encoder such as On2 or Sorenson Squeeze. You can see the results of different encoders side-by-side at the Flash Video FAQ site. Note, sites such as YouTube have very poor quality video not because of Flash per se but due to the extent they shrink their files (to save on bandwidth and storage costs).
DivX is great, but as you alluded to, many casual users won’t bother downloading the plugin. Whereas, most users (85-90%) already have a new-enough version of Flash to play Flash video without any download at all.
June 24, 2007 — 8:57 am
Orange County, NY Real Estate says:
I’ve always been an avid fan of Quicktime because it’s so easy to create and manipulate on a Mac. I was a little surprised to see that Flash had taken over as the primary video format of the web but that will be our reality until broadband speeds become fast enough that downloading a 100 mb file takes only a second. Out of the group you’ve selected I would still encourage people to use Flash because it’s a great format for now and I don’t think video quality is all that important to web users otherwise the fish eye virtual tours that STREEEEEEETCCCHH everything out wouldn’t have become so popular. 🙂 I don’t know much of flash when it comes to video encoding but doesn’t it offer a higher quality video option albeit with a larger file size?
June 24, 2007 — 9:28 am
Doug Quance says:
>Franz – thanks for the link… I’ll take a closer look later when I get back to my computer. I would like to encode Flash better, and that just might be the ticket!
>OC NY – You can encode Flash at a higher bitrate (perhaps as high as Windows Media, for all I know) but using the encoders that I have, I have not been able to get it as good as I would like for the file size. I am, however, using Flash as my primary video vehicle.
June 24, 2007 — 9:54 am
Jason Leister says:
I second the vote for On2. They do great stuff.
Use FlixPro from On2. Start with .avi … then use 2-pass VBR encoding via FlixPro.
You’ll get good results and end up with great Flash Video
June 24, 2007 — 11:45 am
Doug Quance says:
>Jason – Thanks for the heads up! I’ll look into On2.
June 24, 2007 — 4:23 pm
Christian Sterner says:
Great coverage on this post! Flash becoming the video default is really no surprise because flash was a must have even before video ever hit. I agree with your assessment of DivX, but the download is a huge buzz kill for this format (not just a “small drawback”), and they offer nowhere near the amount of flexibility for developers. With market penetration being the X-factor with formats, I believe Flash stays as the clear leader. The quality stands to do nothing but improve.
Thanks for diving in so deeply: very solid assessment.
June 25, 2007 — 12:00 pm
Doug Quance says:
>Christian – Thanks for the kudos… I’m just calling it as I see it. 🙂
I will present some of WellcomeMat’s other great features in an upcoming post (like chapter points… very, very cool!)
These are amazing times in which we live…
June 25, 2007 — 12:21 pm
Christian Sterner says:
Wow man…we’d love to hear more of your thoughts regarding The Mat (thanks for the compliments). These are amazing times, and video making it into mainstream of real estate is a situation where everyone wins. Our team truly believes this to be true.
June 25, 2007 — 12:29 pm
Fred Light says:
Although I realize it gets unwieldy sometimes, I still am not 100% sold on Flash. It’s good, but not great. When you’re trying to show/ sell a property worth hundreds of thousands of dollars (or millions!), I think quality is imperative. So, I’ve been doing all 3 on agent websites – first choice is the far superior QuickTime. If they don’t have that, second choice is the lesser quality Windows Media Video… and third choice if they don’t have either is the most compatible, yet slightly fuzzy…. Flash.
It’s extra work, but that way I’ve covered all the bases, and hopefully most people will see the property in the best possible light.
June 26, 2007 — 7:02 am
Doug Quance says:
>Fred: Good idea with the multiple formats.
I checked out some of your video tours and found them to be very nicely done… very professional.
Thanks for your input!
June 26, 2007 — 5:52 pm