[Mike Smith]

Hi

Not totally clear on your question – don’t know about this fix( I never embed Quicktime – too many users don’t have it).

But https://www.browsershots.org may help you – it will show your page in a big variety of browser / operating system combinations. You may need to make a page specifically to test.

So far as I can see your linked page only has one QT file, in a link (Song of a Bordertown Artist). You’d need to feed browsershots with a URL that has an embedded file directly. The page itself loads a Flash file fine.

For what it’s worth, testing on an old Windows system with IE6 here (if that’s old enough for you!) https://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp the (“song”) link produces a broken QT symbol and no action, though the browser has the QT plug-in, and on many sites can play QT successfully.

Similar results with Firefox 2 on the same platform – plays lots of QT but not this. So I guess your answer is “fix needed”. As to a fix via GoLIve I have no idea – but does this need to be in QT and not Flash …? https://www.statowl.com/plugin_overview.php

Couple of other thoughts you didn’t ask for. Loading is quite slow here, and there’s not much sign of anything happening – worth a preloader, or some kind of hourglass ..?

The three Flash movies all appear to be silent – is that right, or are you using a Flash audio codec not supported on the player installed here?

And you know of course that as of this Sat am the page fails w3c validation on a few minor points …?

https://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.magdafernandez.com%2F

[Mike Smith]

You’re welcome.

Hope it works out.

If there’s time, it’s never a bad idea to run a little test through a proposed new production chain and just have a look.

You could shoot a few (varied) test scenes, pass them through your edit system with a few cuts, dissolves and whatever type of effects you have in mind, and output to whatever your distribution format is. Then perhaps as well as viewing them on your own kit, you might even try to get the eventual customer to let you test them on some of their playback systems … then you’d both see any issues nice and early.

[Mike Smith]

I’d really be thinking about output format. If this is destined for standard definition DVD, which I’d guess it will be for a police training centre, then the case for using interlaced for acquisition and editing is quite strong.

The sample plays fine for movement on both progressive scan and interlaced monitors here. On an interlaced video CRT, though, some of the fine lines around the text boxes (at the size rendered for the web ? around 630×354 ?) break up – they show a little aliasing. It might help to soften or fatten the troublesome lines a little.

“Film look” I think seems to mean more to those brought up on NTSC, where the run-of-the-mill video they watched was all sourced in 29.xx fps but the movies and high-end tv series were all originated on film 24fps and had “pull-down” applied, creating a different (and to my eye strange) feel to the image movement. For those people, sourcing at 24p and applying pulldown is a way to recreate that movement effect – all rather lost in PAL land, where the convention was just to play the 2fps source at 25fps and accept the very slight change of speed (and audio pitch) .

[Mike Smith]

Yes

[Mike Smith]

OF course probably your first concern for a decent corporate is to get a good story, and concentrate on making it interesting for its audience – as always!

But for the technical specifics, it might be good to concentrate on the playback format and work to suit that.

If output is DVD, then it’s going to be standard def , and playable on CRTs (mainly interlaced, a very great many still around) or flat screens(mainly progressive scan in native format).

Mostly, progressive scan footage looks fine on CRTs as long as the camera moves are kept a fair bit slower than they might be shooting interlaced – moves start to exhibit “tearing” at much lower speeds – interlace gives that nice smooth look.

If you’re going out on BluRay then you can deliver progressive scan and very likely no one will be looking at it on an interlaced screen.

Interlaced footage can look bad on a progressive scan screen, particularly in slow motion sequences or sequences with fast moving objects with sharp edges – interlaced edges can get the jagged-edged look, as if anti-aliasing hadn’t been invented. So if you know your stuff will only go on computer monitors or flat screens and you don’t mind the slower camera moves (slower floating / scrolling titles, whatever) then progressive could be a good choice.

[Mike Smith]

Love it George. Doesn’t feel quite like a real query, somehow, does it …

[Mike Smith]

The shatter effect could help you. You can turn off all the forces etc, and just add a little 3d depth and rotation with it. If needed you can put an image file / texture / whatever into the edge with depth, by importing a suitable file into the comp, making it invisible but selecting it as the edge in shatter.

[Mike Smith]

This page does not contain valid html

See https://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.community-mindedtv.org%2F

Fixing the indicated errors might be a start.

[Mike Smith]

Sometimes people try to make their cgi look more like real video … !

[Mike Smith]

For me, Walter is spot on here.