On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 04:48:50PM -0400, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> As for .mov, yes, this is definitely a compromise. I tried uploading
> the videos to YouTube and Google Video and a few others, but a) most
QT sucks. Youtube (Flash) sucks.
> slides look crappy and/or unreadable. So I had to go with the video
> encoder that I could get for darn little money (Cisco's a big company,
> but my budget is still tiny :-) ). That turned out to be a fun little
> program called iShowU for OS X that does screen scraping + audio
> capture. It outputs Quicktime movies, so that was really my only
> choice.
People usually recommend ffmpegX for OSX. You might give it a whirl to
transcode your mov to something else, let's say H.264 in an AVI
container. (MP4/AVC, DivX, xvid, there are so many names for it)
You can also create flv (flash video) and use one of the free
flv-Players to achieve some kind of Youtube (i.e. playing right in the
browser), just without the 10minutes limitation.
There's also the SMIL format. It allows to reference some images (your
slides), the timing between them and your audio stream. It's like
composing your presentation, though some sophisticated products exist
to capture video, the slides, additional material and notes written by
hand on a digital screen.
But I guess it's too complicated for your purpose.
> Is it a real hardship for people to install the QT player?
It's just because QT sucks. And the data streams are proprietary (very
big concern).
PS: My private list of sophisticated players: mplayer, VLC, xine.
Braindead players: realplayer, QT, Windows Media Player
--
Cluster and Metacomputing Working Group
Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena, Germany
private: http://adi.thur.de
