Boeing 747 & 777 autoland in crosswind certification video - impressive!

On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 03:59:41 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote in
N6Waf.512897$x96.7438@attbi_s72::

If you look at the source code on the site, (
http://alexisparkinn.com/aviation_videos.htm ) the movies aren't in .mp4
format.

It seems that SOME systems try to read them as such, however. I have no
idea why.

Any recommendations from you web gurus? Is there anything Jav Henderson
can do from the server end to fix this problem?


You could consider posting this question in an appropriate newsgroup
such as:

microsoft.public.windowsxp.video
comp.os.ms-windows.video

Ron Garret wrote:

No, they are mpeg files, but the server says that they are mp4 files.
MPEG and MPEG-4 are not the same thing. See
http://www.flownet.com/ron/video.html for a demonstration.

Yes, number 2 and 4 behave exactly as the MPEG-files at Jay's.

Stefan

"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...
I'm not an expert on codecs, but I've set up a little demo to show that
there is an mpeg format that is distinct from the mp4 format

There is no such thing as an "mpeg" format; without a version number, the
phrase "mpeg" by itself does not describe a video compression format. Your
demo simply illustrates that there are two different "Content-Type" tags.

Now, it may well be that the wrong tag is used, and on a computer where
different media players are configured to play different tags, a problem
would arise when the wrong tag is used. But Windows Media Player is
"intelligent" enough to look past the tag (and file extension) when trying
to play a file. I find it odd that the media player you're using on your
Mac is not.

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:

"intelligent" enough to look past the tag (and file extension) when trying
to play a file. I find it odd that the media player you're using on your
Mac is not.

There are reasons for both approaches. You might argue that if a server
tells you explicitely with format to use, it might have its reasons. I
tend to support the latter apprach, since I hate software that tries to
be smarter than the user.

Stefan

Ron Garret wrote:
In article ,
"Alt Beer" wrote:

Anyone here ever landed in such a strong crosswind?
Found this posted to another group.


This is a great video of 747 and 777 doing auto land certification
crosswind landings, the 3rd and 4th shot are the best. It takes a
minute to download and get through the credits but its worth it.

It is hard to believe that these "digital" touchdowns don't shear
off the main landing gear.

Watch the 777's wings flex during the third clip.

http://www.linhadafrente.net/bin/Pousos.wmv

Any idea what the soundtrack is? I'd love to get a (legal) copy of
that.

rg

Set up your computer to record "what u hear". When the movie starts, record
the sound.

--

Darrell R. Schmidt
B-58 Hustler History: http://members.cox.net/dschmidt1/
-

In article ,
"Peter Duniho" wrote:

"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...
I'm not an expert on codecs, but I've set up a little demo to show that
there is an mpeg format that is distinct from the mp4 format

There is no such thing as an "mpeg" format; without a version number, the
phrase "mpeg" by itself does not describe a video compression format. Your
demo simply illustrates that there are two different "Content-Type" tags.

No, it illustrates that there are two different file formats that go
along with those two different content-type tags.

Now, it may well be that the wrong tag is used, and on a computer where
different media players are configured to play different tags, a problem
would arise when the wrong tag is used. But Windows Media Player is
"intelligent" enough to look past the tag (and file extension) when trying
to play a file. I find it odd that the media player you're using on your
Mac is not.

It's not at all odd. Microsoft has a long history of breaking industry
standards in order to foster incompatibilities that make its competitors
products appear inferior.

rg

In article ,
Ron Garret wrote:

In article ,
"Peter Duniho" wrote:

"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...
I'm not an expert on codecs, but I've set up a little demo to show that
there is an mpeg format that is distinct from the mp4 format

There is no such thing as an "mpeg" format; without a version number, the
phrase "mpeg" by itself does not describe a video compression format. Your
demo simply illustrates that there are two different "Content-Type" tags.

No, it illustrates that there are two different file formats that go
along with those two different content-type tags.

Here's the definitive scoop.

There is such a thing as "an mpeg format." It is not a video
compression format, it is a file format. It is described he

http://www.graphcomp.com/info/specs/ms/editmpeg.htm

Files of this format typically have an extension of .mpg or .mpeg, and
can usually be identified by the sequence header code 000001B3 at the
beginning of the file. (I say usually because a file starting with this
sequence may or may not be a .mpeg file, but a .mpeg file will always
start with 000001B3.)

The 747 extreme landing video file is in this format.

There is a distinct MPEG-4 file format (which is related to but not the
the same thing as the MPEG-4 video compression format) described he

http://www.chiariglione.org/mpeg/sta...peg-4.htm#10.9

Files in this format normally have an extension of .mp4. They do NOT
start with the .mpg sequence header code. In fact, as far as I can tell
there is no way to definitively identify a .mp4 file from its data, but
typically a .mp4 file will contain MPEG-4 encoded video which can be
identified by the header 'moov' (in ascii).

The Alexis Inn site is serving a file in the first format with a
content-type header for the second format. This is definitively a
server-side bug (notwithstanding that some clients are able to recover
from this).

rg

"Stefan" wrote in message
...
There are reasons for both approaches. You might argue that if a server
tells you explicitely with format to use, it might have its reasons. I
tend to support the latter apprach, since I hate software that tries to be
smarter than the user.

I'm not saying the player should ignore what the server says. Simply that
if it fails to play the media using what the server says, the "intelligent"
thing is to figure out what the media type actually is.

How in the world can this be a bad thing? The user doesn't give a crap
whether the server is providing accurate information or not. All they care
about is that their media gets played.

As far as "software that tries to be smarter than the user", I understand
that frustration. But usually, the software IS smarter than the user. Most
users are pretty dumb.

Pete

("Peter Duniho" wrote)
[snip]
As far as "software that tries to be smarter than the user", I understand
that frustration. But usually, the software IS smarter than the user.
Most users are pretty dumb.


http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/see-say2.htm
This is about where I got left in the dust!


Montblack says 'You gonna finish those fries?'

"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...
It's not at all odd. Microsoft has a long history of breaking industry
standards in order to foster incompatibilities that make its competitors
products appear inferior.

Now you're being ridiculous. That statement is just like the idiotic
accusations from the Firefox-worshipers that Microsoft is bad because IE
works with poorly-written HTML, even HTML that doesn't conform to the
standards.

As I mentioned in my reply to Stefan, the end-user doesn't give a crap about
whether standards were conformed to. They care about seeing the web page,
and they care about it being displayed correctly.

It cracks me up, people who go around claiming Microsoft is guilty of some
conspiracy, when what they've actually done is improve the end-user
experience.

They don't do it for the purpose of making their competitors products look
inferior. Their competitors products ARE inferior. It's not Microsoft's
fault that the competitors wind up looking poor in comparison.

Not that the Linux/Firefox/etc apologists will ever accept this truth. But
anyone who isn't blinded by their prejudice does.

Pete