Webmaster-Talk.com > Website Design and Graphics Talk > Graphics Forum > wmv vs. asf for video?

Reply
wmv vs. asf for video?
Old 06-02-2008, 10:55 PM wmv vs. asf for video?
Capt Quirk's Avatar
Extreme Talker

Posts: 202
Location: Flordidian
Talkupation: Capt Quirk will become famous soon enough
What is the difference between the two? Is asf easier to use?

I'm trying to encode HDV video down to decent looking 320x240 videos for progressive download. The battle is still on to find that balance of small size/high quality, and looking for different options for embedding them.
__________________
http://GuitarGarage.tv , up and limping along.
Capt Quirk is offline
Reply With Quote
View Public Profile
 
When You Register, These Ads Go Away!
Old 06-04-2008, 01:26 AM Re: wmv vs. asf for video?
VirtuosiMedia's Avatar
Usability > SEO

Latest Blog Post:
Tutorial: How to Create RSS Feeds
Posts: 772
Talkupation: VirtuosiMedia has much to be proud ofVirtuosiMedia has much to be proud ofVirtuosiMedia has much to be proud ofVirtuosiMedia has much to be proud ofVirtuosiMedia has much to be proud ofVirtuosiMedia has much to be proud ofVirtuosiMedia has much to be proud ofVirtuosiMedia has much to be proud of
I'm pretty sure that youTube uses .flv, which seems to have the most support across platforms.
VirtuosiMedia is offline
Reply With Quote
View Public Profile Visit VirtuosiMedia's homepage!
 
Reply     « Reply to wmv vs. asf for video?
 
Previous Thread | Next Thread Webmaster-Talk.com > Website Design and Graphics Talk > Graphics Forum > wmv vs. asf for video?

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Webmaster Resources Marketplace:
Software Development Company | Webhosting.UK.com | Text Link Brokers 


   
RSS Feed  Feeds: RSS   JS   XML
RSS Feed  Feeds for this forum: RSS   JS   XML

 


Page generated in 0.10513 seconds with 12 queries