My main disappointment is that considering they are re-encoding all the clips, they could have take the opportunity to use a higher quality format such as H.264. Sure, it doesn't make the files as small as they are now, but lets face it, we're all on broadband connections nowadays.
It looks like they've updated the website (3rd April).
:-(
A former member
there after alot MORE
""Despite the fact TVARK has over 8,700 tapes in our library, we are still after more - Can you help TV Ark with any of your old recordings? perhaps you may have some old VHS lying around or in your the loft or basement?""
I hope that bloke for the tv lounge website was able to give TV ark the STV stuff he had! * the website is off line at the momet!
My main disappointment is that considering they are re-encoding all the clips, they could have take the opportunity to use a higher quality format such as H.264. Sure, it doesn't make the files as small as they are now, but lets face it, we're all on broadband connections nowadays.
Do you not remember the comparison of files I posted up on this Orry, though it was a long time back now admittedly? Basically, On the sort of bitrates the clips use, it seemed to show there is no discernable difference between RM and H.264 (though WMV10 falls quite a bit short). You'd need to be up to the sort of rates and sizes not practical for a website for it to make a difference, as Real only falls down with oversmoothing on bigger frame, high bitrate stuff. On website rates, the only real benefit that can come from H.264 use is that its a little more widely playable, but I suppose the side issue that arises from that is that it's also much easier for folks to convert into other formats to chuck on ebay DVD, other websites etc.
Besides, if Youtube has taught us one thing, it's that folks aren't too bothered about video quality anyway.
My main disappointment is that considering they are re-encoding all the clips, they could have take the opportunity to use a higher quality format such as H.264. Sure, it doesn't make the files as small as they are now, but lets face it, we're all on broadband connections nowadays.
We are NOT re-encoding the all the clips first. The priority as I see it is to get back the existing clips then worry about upgrading them, although others might be killing two birds with one stone.
There's a good side and bad to using a higher quality format. It would hopefully encourage people to download directly from TV Ark, at the same time it would encourage the YouTubers to pilfer more of our stuff.
kkyuubi posted:
Or, you could have done them in Flash like on Youtube...
YouTube is a thorn in our side and the last thing we're going to do is switch to Flash format as this would take away the draw we have over them (RealMedia ie. better quality clips).
I think Flash is better as it
can
play high quality clips. YouTube just automatically lowers the quality when you upload them. If it is flash then a lot of 'young'n's' wont be able to download them and copy them to another website (websnatching). With your current download system you are basically asking them to download and snatch them! But don't listen to me as I dont know about these things !
@ TV-Ark South West. Could I ask that whenever you update the site and put the date it was updated on the front page, could you also say which page has been updated? It would stop us having to trawl through pages to see if our favourite parts have been updated.
But hey! You're busy! Don't let me weigh you down!
