FAB.
Locked
12345
12345
 
|
You all might be right with the exception of "Rick"(didn't like his analogy
of not making a UFO movie or mini series-sorry Rick).But Mark your knowledgable and have connections--and you've met the Andersons--why can't you pitch a show pilot idea or maybe they even have one in mind??Thunderbirds sucked--unfortunately i like Bill Paxton,but on this subject I will agree that should of NEVER been made! If one of us wrote a movie idea--who would we send it to and or should it be pitched to Sci-Fi who aires these types of shows?I'm willing to bet someone will write something that is definitely on the money--especially a true fan who as myself would think of in our mind being one of the characters on UFO--I bet we could write something!!Look at William Shatner--he has written Star Trek books that were best sellers on the fiction list,Leonard Nemoy also did the same thing.We lost three prime actors(Ed,Michael and George).I look at it like this-if we have time to compare and critique the show from the errors all the way up to the things that we certainly loved about the show--we can put something together that will sell!!!And a UFO mini movie or series will be made---I'm not talking about a movie for theaters--for Sci-Fi channel and!!Hell look at Spike T.V. running the old Star Trek series!!I'm right on this--and I hope you all know this and would want this done just as bad as I do!!!I would love to see this doone and happen!!As far as Space 1999--it was good when I was a kid,but it lacked substance to me as an adult!UFO I can watch over and over and over and still have passion and place myself as a character--thats when you know you have a great show with me--it works with the imagination!!!!! Again-sorry Rick for putting you out there my friend--you would probably be the one with the best story line for the show too--I believe that in my heart!!! Take care my friends!~!!Thanks for taking the time to read this also!!! >From: Jeffrey Nelson <[hidden email]> >Reply-To: [hidden email] >To: [hidden email] >Subject: Re: [SHADO] Question of priorities?? >Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 16:28:18 -0700 (PDT) > >Point taken!!! Look at the debacle that the new Thunderbirds movie turned >out to be. Whoever has the rights to UFO or Space:1999 (the Andersons?) >may be a bit gunshy after that. > > Jeff > >Ithiaca Dreamweaver <[hidden email]> wrote: > It could be a matter of licensing between the Anderson's and the >BBC that >may be holding it up. Maybe a nudge of push in that direction may help. >Maybe that the Anderson's (or their estate) have no deisre to see a remake >being done on this show (or Space:1999). > >On 6/26/07, Anthony Smith <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > I have a question;How come Sci-Fi can come out with these stupid shows > > that > > really mean nothing and not do a re-make of a brilliant show such as > > UFO?Someone has gotta have a pilot that they can throw at that network >to > > atleast have a run as a mini-movie,just like how Galctica did.What is >goin > > > > on with people--passing up such a great show that was way ahead of it's > > time > > that we all loved!! > > I'm ready for it--are you??Any feed-back on this??And what can we do to > > help > > make this happen?I know there is a demand for UFO. > > Always a very loyal fan, > > Anthony > > > > >From: Marc Martin <[hidden email] <marc%40ufoseries.com>> > > >Reply-To: [hidden email] <SHADO%40yahoogroups.com> > > >To: [hidden email] <SHADO%40yahoogroups.com> > > >Subject: [SHADO] video format suggestions? > > >Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 07:31:37 -0700 > > > > > >Hi all, > > > > > >I think I'm going to update *all* of the movie clips > > >on my UFO movie clips page, with higher resolution > > >and frame rates (and also larger file sizes) than > > >before. So I want to check and see if people have > > >a strong preference for file format. Previously > > >I have mostly used .MOV files (Quicktime), for > > >the reason that the video starts playing before > > >the download ends. But perhaps people would > > >rather have two choices of formats, or perhaps > > >another format is better than .MOV? No matter > > >what I shall be using some form of MPEG-4 encoding, > > >but I can put those into an .AVI file, .WMV file, > > >and .MP4 file, and each format is playable/not > > >playable by different players. > > > > > >If you think this subject is too off-topic, or > > >don't want your post to go to the group, please > > >email me privately at [hidden email] <marc%40ufoseries.com> > > > > > >Thanks! > > > > > >Marc > > > > __________________________________________________________ > > Hotmail to go? Get your Hotmail, news, sports and much more! > > http://mobile.msn.com > > > > > > > >-- >The fears, prejudices and limitations that we impose on ourselves must >someday pass, because they are not as real as hope, tolerance and >possibility. - Gene Roddenberry, Creator of "Star Trek" > >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > _________________________________________________________________ Need a break? Find your escape route with Live Search Maps. http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?ss=Restaurants~Hotels~Amusement%20Park&cp=33.832922~-117.915659&style=r&lvl=13&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=1118863&encType=1&FORM=MGAC01 |
Administrator
|
In reply to this post by richard curzon
richard curzon wrote:
> I am too busy driving or trying to avoid lamp posts and other > obsticles when I go to work. Yes, we wouldn't want Teresa to get into an accident while watching UFO on her iPod... :-) Actually though, a lot of these new portable video devices do indeed use MP4, and a lot of them use the new improved version of MP4 called H.264. However, to play H.264 on a computer requires a fairly recent computer and a fairly recent player. Quicktime 7 will work, but Quicktime 6 will not. Here is an H.264 version of the UFO opening theme: http://ufoseries.com/movieClips/test.mp4 Actually, from a file size/quality standpoint, this is better than the regular MP4. However, have we reached a point where people have new enough and fast enough computers to play it? (no problems here) Marc |
|
|
Marc Martin wrote:
> However, to play H.264 on a computer requires a fairly > recent computer and a fairly recent player. Quicktime > 7 will work, but Quicktime 6 will not. > > Actually, from a file size/quality standpoint, this > is better than the regular MP4. However, have we > reached a point where people have new enough and > fast enough computers to play it? (no problems here) Just for the record, I have a watch that can play "MP4's". It was not a good investment, but at least I have 2GB of storage on my wrist when I want to impress girls with my low-rez clips of Monty Python episodes. By the way, I'm still single for some unexplained reason. Ultimately the best choice might be Flash. I'm not sure if Swish can do what you need. Seems to me that there's no good, basic viewer that doesn't lock the user into some sort of software solution/upgrade cycle. And if people opt to install software in order to view your files that decision might screw-up their ability to view the other files on their own computer by re-setting defaults. That's probably not a good thing. Paul |
|
|
you can get a wmv file that is just as good as a mp4, and most, if not all windows based computers can play wmv files without any additional downloads.
Bruce ----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Bowers To: [hidden email] Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2007 12:14 AM Subject: Re: [SHADO] video format suggestions? Marc Martin wrote: > However, to play H.264 on a computer requires a fairly > recent computer and a fairly recent player. Quicktime > 7 will work, but Quicktime 6 will not. > > Actually, from a file size/quality standpoint, this > is better than the regular MP4. However, have we > reached a point where people have new enough and > fast enough computers to play it? (no problems here) Just for the record, I have a watch that can play "MP4's". It was not a good investment, but at least I have 2GB of storage on my wrist when I want to impress girls with my low-rez clips of Monty Python episodes. By the way, I'm still single for some unexplained reason. Ultimately the best choice might be Flash. I'm not sure if Swish can do what you need. Seems to me that there's no good, basic viewer that doesn't lock the user into some sort of software solution/upgrade cycle. And if people opt to install software in order to view your files that decision might screw-up their ability to view the other files on their own computer by re-setting defaults. That's probably not a good thing. Paul [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] |
|
|
In reply to this post by Marc Martin
Thanks for caring... Actually I commute by train!
:-) ----- Original Message ----- > I am too busy driving or trying to avoid lamp posts and other > obsticles when I go to work. Yes, we wouldn't want Teresa to get into an accident while watching UFO on her iPod... :-) |
|
|
In reply to this post by SHADO
I don't think anything should be remade, and I love UFO but prefer Space 1999. Rick --- Jeffrey Nelson <[hidden email]> wrote: > As much as I like UFO, there are probably other > shows that wil get remade first, such as Space:1999 > (yuk!), due to a wider original fanbase. Look how > popular Red Dwarf was, and they couldn't even raise > funding to make a Red Dwarf movie. A show as > relatively unknown as UFO has very little chance of > being remade, IMO. > > Jeff > > Anthony Smith <[hidden email]> wrote: > I have a question;How come Sci-Fi can come > out with these stupid shows that > really mean nothing and not do a re-make of a > brilliant show such as > UFO?Someone has gotta have a pilot that they can > throw at that network to > atleast have a run as a mini-movie,just like how > Galctica did.What is goin > on with people--passing up such a great show that > was way ahead of it's time > that we all loved!! > I'm ready for it--are you??Any feed-back on > this??And what can we do to help > make this happen?I know there is a demand for UFO. > Always a very loyal fan, > Anthony > > >From: Marc Martin <[hidden email]> > >Reply-To: [hidden email] > >To: [hidden email] > >Subject: [SHADO] video format suggestions? > >Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 07:31:37 -0700 > > > >Hi all, > > > >I think I'm going to update *all* of the movie > clips > >on my UFO movie clips page, with higher resolution > >and frame rates (and also larger file sizes) than > >before. So I want to check and see if people have > >a strong preference for file format. Previously > >I have mostly used .MOV files (Quicktime), for > >the reason that the video starts playing before > >the download ends. But perhaps people would > >rather have two choices of formats, or perhaps > >another format is better than .MOV? No matter > >what I shall be using some form of MPEG-4 encoding, > >but I can put those into an .AVI file, .WMV file, > >and .MP4 file, and each format is playable/not > >playable by different players. > > > >If you think this subject is too off-topic, or > >don't want your post to go to the group, please > >email me privately at [hidden email] > > > >Thanks! > > > >Marc > > > Hotmail to go? Get your Hotmail, news, sports and > much more! > http://mobile.msn.com > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been > removed] > > ___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Answers - Got a question? Someone out there knows the answer. Try it now. http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/ |
|
|
In reply to this post by Marc Martin
> > Here is an H.264 version of the UFO opening theme: > > http://ufoseries.com/movieClips/test.mp4 > > Actually, from a file size/quality standpoint, this > is better than the regular MP4. Yes, it looks good! > However, have we reached a point where people have new > enough and fast enough computers to play it? (no > problems here) > Works fine on this fairly recent, but otherwise rather ordinary desktop machine using the Mplayer plugin in Firefox under OpenSuSE 10.2 (Linux). I'll try my 7-year old laptop later! I think it will work OK actually, the frame size is fairly small after all, so the bitrate can't be that high. |
|
|
In reply to this post by SHADO
For those taking this very seriously:
Stay away from Spike TV. If you pull in the wrong demographic, they'll boot the show. Case in point: Blade, the Series. It started to draw a large female audience. Spike TV didn't know how to market the show, then they canceled it. George ____________________________________________________________________________________ Don't pick lemons. See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos. http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html |
|
Administrator
|
In reply to this post by James Gibbon
> I think it will work OK actually, the frame size is
> fairly small after all, so the bitrate can't be that high. Yes, when people are claiming that H.264 requires a fast computer, I wonder if they are talking about high-bitrate material like HDTV? For me, I want to keep the bitrate and file size as low as I can get away with (without it looking as bad as a typical YouTube video!) As for the WMV suggestion, yes, that would appear to be the obvious choice, although I'd like to keep the possibility for people to start viewing the clip before the download is complete, and I don't think WMV allows that. At least with MOV and MP4, you can start watching almost immediately via the Quicktime plugin (and this will be an issue when I start posting some longer material). As for Flash, I don't know much about that, but I want the video to be in a standalone file that can be downloaded and played pack on ones computer, and I also want the quality to be good. Most of the Flash I see on the web is embedded into web pages (not obvious how to download) and the quality is poor. Marc |
|
|
In reply to this post by Marc Martin
This test opened automatically in quicktime player on my computer and played flawlessly. It downloaded very fast and the quality is ok. As long as I am concerned, look no further : )All the best, Branko To: [hidden email]: [hidden email]: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 07:18:51 -0700Subject: Re: [SHADO] video format suggestions? > I think it will work OK actually, the frame size is> fairly small after all, so the bitrate can't be that high.Yes, when people are claiming that H.264 requires a fastcomputer, I wonder if they are talking about high-bitratematerial like HDTV? For me, I want to keep the bitrateand file size as low as I can get away with (without itlooking as bad as a typical YouTube video!)As for the WMV suggestion, yes, that would appear to bethe obvious choice, although I'd like to keep thepossibility for people to start viewing the clipbefore the download is complete, and I don't thinkWMV allows that. At least with MOV and MP4, youcan start watching almost immediately via theQuicktime plugin (and this will be an issue whenI start posting some longer material).As for Flash, I don't know much about that, but Iwant the video to be in a standalone file thatcan be downloaded and played pack on ones computer,and I also want the quality to be good. Most ofthe Flash I see on the web is embedded into webpages (not obvious how to download) and the qualityis poor.Marc _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] |
|
|
In reply to this post by Marc Martin
WMV does allow viewing while still downloading. And depending on what you are using for a mp4, that you may have to wait to be completely downloaded.
One thing when sharing video online, you really dont want to have people download additional software to view it. Bruce -----Original Message----- >From: Marc Martin <[hidden email]> >Sent: Jun 27, 2007 10:18 AM >To: [hidden email] >Subject: Re: [SHADO] video format suggestions? > > > I think it will work OK actually, the frame size is > > fairly small after all, so the bitrate can't be that high. > >Yes, when people are claiming that H.264 requires a fast >computer, I wonder if they are talking about high-bitrate >material like HDTV? For me, I want to keep the bitrate >and file size as low as I can get away with (without it >looking as bad as a typical YouTube video!) > >As for the WMV suggestion, yes, that would appear to be >the obvious choice, although I'd like to keep the >possibility for people to start viewing the clip >before the download is complete, and I don't think >WMV allows that. At least with MOV and MP4, you >can start watching almost immediately via the >Quicktime plugin (and this will be an issue when >I start posting some longer material). > >As for Flash, I don't know much about that, but I >want the video to be in a standalone file that >can be downloaded and played pack on ones computer, >and I also want the quality to be good. Most of >the Flash I see on the web is embedded into web >pages (not obvious how to download) and the quality >is poor. > >Marc > |
|
|
In reply to this post by Marc Martin
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
|
|
Administrator
|
In reply to this post by Bruce Sherman
> WMV does allow viewing while still downloading.
Ahhh, I didn't realize that! I've used Windows Media Encoder at work, because, like you say, most people at work are not going to download a codec or a player (the computers are even setup to prevent that). So I'll give that a try as well... certainly that would be appealing to the lowest common denominator, and I'm sure that people with Macs and those running Linux can also play WMV files (although in this case, they will certainly have to use nonstandard software) > One thing when sharing video online, you really dont want to have people > download additional software to view it. My UFO website has used Quicktime for years, and for some reason I've never gotten any complaints about that (unless I've forgotten). I guess people either find a way to play these .MOV files, or they don't bother... (?) Marc |
|
Administrator
|
In reply to this post by Marc Martin
Hi all,
Okay, for the UFO opening sequence, I've added a Windows Media version of the clip: http://ufoseries.com/movieClips So now there are two versions there -- the Quicktime 7 version and the Windows Media 9 version. Just for comparison purposes, I've made them both about the same file size. I'd say the Windows Media version looks a bit more colorful and a bit more fuzzy than the Quicktime version. Now, if someone CANNOT view the Windows Media version, please let me know... after all, I'm trying this format because it is supposed to be more compatible for your average Windows user. And if it is, then we'll use that format for the rest of the videos... Marc |
|
|
quality looks good :)
Bruce ----- Original Message ----- From: Marc Martin To: [hidden email] Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2007 11:43 PM Subject: Re: [SHADO] video format suggestions? Hi all, Okay, for the UFO opening sequence, I've added a Windows Media version of the clip: http://ufoseries.com/movieClips So now there are two versions there -- the Quicktime 7 version and the Windows Media 9 version. Just for comparison purposes, I've made them both about the same file size. I'd say the Windows Media version looks a bit more colorful and a bit more fuzzy than the Quicktime version. Now, if someone CANNOT view the Windows Media version, please let me know... after all, I'm trying this format because it is supposed to be more compatible for your average Windows user. And if it is, then we'll use that format for the rest of the videos... Marc [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] |
|
|
In reply to this post by Marc Martin
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 20:43:52 -0700
Marc Martin <[hidden email]> wrote: > Hi all, > > Okay, for the UFO opening sequence, I've added a Windows Media > version of the clip: > > http://ufoseries.com/movieClips > > So now there are two versions there -- the Quicktime 7 version > and the Windows Media 9 version. > They both work fine for me (OpenSuSE 10.2 and Firefox with the Mplayer plugin, which is fairly standard - the Windows codecs come as part of the Mplayer package, at least in SuSE). They both look great although I think the Quicktime 7 version edges it. I would have thought that MPEG was better from a general compatibility point of view, even so. James |
|
|
In reply to this post by Marc Martin
mpeg files usually are larger by 10 to 1 then wmv in my experience, with the approximate same quality and you need to download the whole file before it starts playing.
Bruce -----Original Message----- >From: James Gibbon <[hidden email]> >Sent: Jun 28, 2007 10:36 AM >To: [hidden email] >Subject: Re: [SHADO] video format suggestions? > >On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 20:43:52 -0700 >Marc Martin <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> Okay, for the UFO opening sequence, I've added a Windows Media >> version of the clip: >> >> http://ufoseries.com/movieClips >> >> So now there are two versions there -- the Quicktime 7 version >> and the Windows Media 9 version. >> > >They both work fine for me (OpenSuSE 10.2 and Firefox with the Mplayer >plugin, which is fairly standard - the Windows codecs come as part of >the Mplayer package, at least in SuSE). They both look great although I >think the Quicktime 7 version edges it. > >I would have thought that MPEG was better from a general compatibility >point of view, even so. > >James |
|
Administrator
|
In reply to this post by James Gibbon
> They both look great although I think the Quicktime 7 version edges it.
Yes, I think so too, but that is because this "H.264" is a newer codec than the "Windows Media 9 Main Profile" (generally, newer seems to be better). > I would have thought that MPEG was better from a general compatibility > point of view, even so. Certainly in theory, MPEG would seem to be a more compatible choice, but one has to consider that over 90% of the visitors to my UFO website are using Windows PCs, and Windows PCs only play MPEG-1 out of the box. They don't play MPEG-2, MPEG-4, or H.264 without downloading additional software. Windows PCs do play Windows Media files however, and this particular codec I'm using has been around for awhile, so even people without the latest versions of Windows Media Player should be able to play it. And although the Quicktime version looks a little better, neither version looks nearly as good as the source material... :-) Marc |
|
|
In reply to this post by Marc Martin
--- In [hidden email], Marc Martin <marc@...> wrote:
> > Hi all, > > Okay, for the UFO opening sequence, I've added a Windows Media > version of the clip: > > http://ufoseries.com/movieClips > > So now there are two versions there -- the Quicktime 7 version > and the Windows Media 9 version. > > Just for comparison purposes, I've made them both about the > same file size. I'd say the Windows Media version looks > a bit more colorful and a bit more fuzzy than the Quicktime > version. > > Now, if someone CANNOT view the Windows Media version, please > let me know... after all, I'm trying this format because > it is supposed to be more compatible for your average > Windows user. And if it is, then we'll use that format > for the rest of the videos... If the maximum compatibility is the aim, then Windows Media is surely not the answer. What about non-Windows users? Although I CAN view the WMV of the opening sequence, I'm glad I managed to grab the older Quicktime version of the opening last week, because the sound quality on the WMV is pretty awful in comparison and I cannot see or hear the Quicktime 7 version as I have Windows 98SE. Would is be possible to have a Quicktime 6 mp4 of the opening? :-) I have just bought both PAL DVD box sets (inspired by YouTube clip, childhood memories and ufoseries.com) and it would be nice to view the beginning at the 'real' speed, presumably at a bit better quality than opening.mov. Also could you consider upgrading some of the sound files to Ogg Vorbis? 48kbps Ogg files would sound far better than 64kbps mp3s. |
|
Administrator
|
> If the maximum compatibility is the aim, then Windows Media is surely
> not the answer. What about non-Windows users? Non-Windows users can play Windows Media files, but they need to download extra software to do this. This is the same situation as it was with Quicktime, except now it's the non-Windows users which must install the software instead of the non-Mac users. Since over 90% of the visitors to my UFO website are Windows users, this seems like a good idea. > Although I CAN view the WMV of the opening sequence, I'm glad I > managed to grab the older Quicktime version of the opening last week, > because the sound quality on the WMV is pretty awful in comparison and > I cannot see or hear the Quicktime 7 version as I have Windows 98SE. The sound quality is merely a function of the bitrate. The one from last week had a bitrate of 64kbps, whereas the ones from this week have a lower bitrate of 48kbps. I didn't think the sound was so bad on the new ones, but you may be pickier than I am... :-) > Would is be possible to have a Quicktime 6 mp4 of the opening? :-) The one from last week (the 6 MB file) *was* a Quicktime 6 MP4. :-) > I have just bought both PAL DVD box sets (inspired by YouTube clip, > childhood memories and ufoseries.com) and it would be nice to view the > beginning at the 'real' speed, presumably at a bit better quality than > opening.mov. "Better quality" as in less compression artifacts, or larger dimensions? > Also could you consider upgrading some of the sound files to Ogg > Vorbis? 48kbps Ogg files would sound far better than 64kbps mp3s. Well, again, that comes down to compatibility -- everyone can play an MP3 file, no matter what computer they have. Nobody can play an Ogg file without downloading software first. So I think the file format for sound files is going to stay MP3 for the forseeable future. Also, depending on which sound files you are interested in, Ogg may not provide much benefit, as in some cases the original source material doesn't sound that great. Marc |
«
Return to SHADO
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |