F-22s arrive at Langely

"Skywise" wrote in message
...
Stubby wrote in news:7Zudnb5HqJJ-
:

The file is a PowerPoint (.pps) presentation.

You've just reduced your potential audience to a slim number.

rant
What is it with the urge for people to convert pictures and video to
formats other than what they were taken in? What's wrong with JPG?

JPG is a "lossy" format. Each time the file is re-saved, it re-compresses
and information is lost.

or AVI?

AVI is relatively UNcompressed and can take up a lot of space. IIRC, AVIs
take up about 13Gb per hour.

or MOV?

Proprietary.

Nope. That's not good enough. It's got to be converted to PDF, or PPS, or
flash, or shockwave, or one of the dozens of other formats that are the fad
of the
week that by the time people manage to find a player to view them, is no
longer in vogue. If file size is an issue, these formats are already
compressible - just re-encode them with increased compression for web use.

You may find it interesting that AVID (arguably the most widely used
professional video editing platform) encodes material into Quicktime files.

FWIW...

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ
Freelance Editor

"Jay Beckman" wrote in message
news
rant
What is it with the urge for people to convert pictures and video to
formats other than what they were taken in? What's wrong with JPG?

JPG is a "lossy" format. Each time the file is re-saved, it re-compresses
and information is lost.

Except that it's likely that the original images were already JPEGs, which
someone stuffed into a .ppt file. They could've just provided the original
files instead.

Or converted it to a more uniformly supported video file, if they really
wanted to have control over soundtrack and image transitions.

For that matter, even something like Flash would be better than PowerPoint,
and allows exactly the same benefits (such as they are). I'm with
Skywise...PowerPoint is a downright silly format to distribute online media
content.

or AVI?

AVI is relatively UNcompressed and can take up a lot of space. IIRC, AVIs
take up about 13Gb per hour.

You misunderstand AVI. AVI is just a container. An AVI that uses 12GB (not
13GB) per hour is in the NTSC-DV format. That is, the raw (mostly) digital
stream that comes off a digital video camera.

AVI can also contain MPEG4, WMV, DivX, etc. all of which compress very
nicely and don't come close to 12GB/hour.

or MOV?

Proprietary.

And PowerPoint isn't?

You may find it interesting that AVID (arguably the most widely used
professional video editing platform) encodes material into Quicktime
files.

I'm sure some of their tools use Quicktime for certain things. What that
has to do with this discussion, I don't see.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Jay Beckman" wrote in message
news
rant
What is it with the urge for people to convert pictures and video to
formats other than what they were taken in? What's wrong with JPG?

JPG is a "lossy" format. Each time the file is re-saved, it
re-compresses and information is lost.

Except that it's likely that the original images were already JPEGs, which
someone stuffed into a .ppt file. They could've just provided the
original files instead.

Or converted it to a more uniformly supported video file, if they really
wanted to have control over soundtrack and image transitions.

For that matter, even something like Flash would be better than
PowerPoint, and allows exactly the same benefits (such as they are). I'm
with Skywise...PowerPoint is a downright silly format to distribute online
media content.

Agreed.


or AVI?

AVI is relatively UNcompressed and can take up a lot of space. IIRC,
AVIs take up about 13Gb per hour.

You misunderstand AVI. AVI is just a container. An AVI that uses 12GB
(not 13GB) per hour is in the NTSC-DV format. That is, the raw (mostly)
digital stream that comes off a digital video camera.

AVI can also contain MPEG4, WMV, DivX, etc. all of which compress very
nicely and don't come close to 12GB/hour.


Ok, noted. I've only worked with video that has been transferred straight
off tape. I've not ever heard of AVI as a "wrapper" for other formats.

or MOV?

Proprietary.

And PowerPoint isn't?

No, you're right, it is as well.

You may find it interesting that AVID (arguably the most widely used
professional video editing platform) encodes material into Quicktime
files.

I'm sure some of their tools use Quicktime for certain things. What that
has to do with this discussion, I don't see.

It's the one file format that didn't get mentioned...and I'm pretty sure
most people don't equate Quicktime with pro-level work.

I just tossed that out as an "oh by the way."

Jay B

"Jay Beckman" wrote in message
...
Ok, noted. I've only worked with video that has been transferred straight
off tape. I've not ever heard of AVI as a "wrapper" for other formats.

Well, for what it's worth, that's *all* AVI is. There is no inherent AVI
video codec (nor does an AVI file strictly speaking even have to have video
data in it). AVI is just a standard way of describing what video codec *is*
being used.

I'm sure some of their tools use Quicktime for certain things. What that
has to do with this discussion, I don't see.

It's the one file format that didn't get mentioned...and I'm pretty sure
most people don't equate Quicktime with pro-level work.

I just tossed that out as an "oh by the way."

I see...well, it's true that Quicktime would be a reasonably good option
(and it's one quite commonly used to distribute video in the Internet, as it
happens...maybe that's why no one mentioned it...it just goes without
saying, along with the other common video formats).

Pete

For that matter, even something like Flash would be better than PowerPoint

feh.

Flash does not allow the user to control the experience, is a security
hazard on the web, and becasue it cannot be disabled, is primarily used
by advertisers to give us a "more exciting web experience". I have
ripped flash out of my system by the throat.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote in message
. ..
Flash does not allow the user to control the experience, is a security
hazard on the web, and becasue it cannot be disabled, is primarily used by
advertisers to give us a "more exciting web experience". I have ripped
flash out of my system by the throat.

Good for you. The world certainly can use more idealists. I have found
the headaches involved in not using Flash greater than the headaches in
using it. Unfortunately, far too many of the web sites that I want to use
insist on using Flash. It drives me up the wall, but my only other option
is to just not use those web sites and unfortunately, it is more
inconvenient to use alternatives than to have Flash installed.

I agree that we'd all be better off without Flash, but the fact remains that
at least it's a defacto standard on the web. It provides more functionality
than the free PowerPoint viewer, and is more widely present. In that
respect, compared to using PowerPoint, it is a superior solution.

Most people would recognize that as damning with faint praise.

Pete

I have found
the headaches involved in not using Flash greater than the headaches in
using it.

Here are two methods:

1: Use a separate, flash enabled browser, for the sites that MUST have
flash. Use your regular browser for the rest, with flash yanked out by
the viscera. (animations and sounds disabled too). Much calmer and
safer web experience.

2: Figure out how to disable Flash for your favorite browser. For IE,
(depending on the version), rename ALL instances of the file
"swflash.osx" or "flash8b.osx" or "flash.osx" (or maybe a few others).
You can do so by adding your initials to the extension, i.e.
flash.osx.jfh or something. Instead of the flash animation, you'll get
a "get flash" button, which you can ignore. Put a text file called
(say) flash8b.jfh.txt in the same directory, so that you remember what
you did and why. Then when you want to see a flash-dependent site,
rename ONE of the ...flash... files back to its original name. Don't
forget to kill it again when you're done!

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote in message
t...
Here are two methods: [yes, I know]

Neither of those methods allow me to avoid having Flash installed, which is
IMHO the biggest problem.

Sure, disabling it conditionally locks down some potential for harm. But if
it's on my computer, it can theoretically be run, with or without a browser.
I'd just as soon people write web sites that worked without Flash. We've
got a perfectly viable markup language, and a style-sheet specification that
has come a long way in making web browsing efficient and easy to design for.
People should be using that, not some third-party media tool.

Pete

But if it's on my computer, it can theoretically
be run, with or without a browser.

True, but not a significant problem, IMHO. You can have a folder full
of viruses too, but unless they are =run=, there's no harm.

The problem isn't that [flash is] on the computer, but that it =runs=
when you hit a web site that wants it. Renaming the files or using a
different (flash-disabled) browser addresses that problem.

People should be using [html], not some third-party media tool.

Agreed, for the most part.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.