Which is more popular, wmv or mp4?

Question

Level 1

40 points

Which is more popular, wmv or mp4?

I've edited a series of 10 to 15 minute instructional videos that are to be available for download on the internet. It seems like the most common format I see for downloadable video files is wmv. But I have no idea why.

It seems that mp4 is much more compatible since it will play on Mac or PC. Is there any reason that it might be better to use wmv?

In case it makes a difference, these videos are to be available worldwide.

iMac (27-inch, Late 2013), OS X Mavericks (10.9.1), i7 3.5 GHz, 32MB RAM, 4GB NVIDIA

Posted on Nov 11, 2014 9:27 PM

Reply

Answer 1

Nov 11, 2014 9:43 PM in response to JDLee

wmv is proprietary, an Microsoft-only 'format'.

YouTube uses mp4

Vimeo uses mp4

any device made the last 15y can play back mp4 …

the instructional videos on microsoft.com are mp4 …!!! 😉 , at a last using MacOS, iOS, Android...

no, there's no need, nor advantage using ol' wmv...

Reply

Answer 2

Nov 11, 2014 9:47 PM in response to JDLee

You should use .mp4!

.wmv files are a proprietary MS Windows format that are not natively compatible with anything but Windows PCs. Mac users would need to install additional software to view this format of video.

.mp4 files are compatible with nearly any modern web browser and operating system.

Arguably, .mp4 may be the most broadly compatible modern video format on the web.

Lastly, choosing appropriate audio/video codecs and container formats is a complex decision that can only be answered if you fully understand the needs of your viewing audience and the technology you will use to deliver the files. You should do a lot of research prior to deciding on any particular format. In addition, remember to always maintain your original lossless format so that you can encode additional formats as necessary in the future (popular video codecs are in a constant state of flux).

Reply

Answer 3

Nov 11, 2014 9:49 PM in response to Karsten Schlüter

Well said. Hard to argue with those examples!

Reply

Answer 4

JDLee Author

Level 1

40 points

Nov 11, 2014 10:07 PM in response to Karsten Schlüter

Thanks Karsten & Tim. You have confirmed what I thought. There is really no reason to use wmv, at least not with what I'm doing.

This is one of those situations where anyone in the world might want to download these videos. So I'm really only looking for maximum compatibility, just so long as I'm not sacrificing substantial quality. And I don't think I'm sacrificing quality with mp4.

The only real considerations are file size and compatibility.

And I will keep the originals. I wouldn't get rid of them any more than I would throw away photo negatives.

Reply

Answer 5

Nov 11, 2014 11:43 PM in response to JDLee

JDLee wrote:

… And I don't think I'm sacrificing quality with mp4....

'quality' is usually a trigger, making me leaving any discussion 😉

(= 'quality' of source has a much higher impact than final delivery... )

anyhow...:

mp4 is just a wrapper, a media-container, doesn't tell anything about quality.

use h.264, find your settings needed, res, fps and esp. bit-rate - done

being a a bit adventurous guy, you can try x.264 as codec, and dig thru hundreds of recommendations how to twiddle with its -zillions of options, to squeeze out best quality/size ratio ....

wmv comes handy for DRM ... 😉

Thanks for the 'greeny' 😀

Reply

Answer 6

JDLee Author

Level 1

40 points

Nov 12, 2014 12:02 AM in response to Karsten Schlüter

Hi Karsten:

I can never wrap my mind around the whole wrapper (media container) thing.

I don't know exactly how I'm doing things now. I output ("Share") my master file from FCPX with the codec set to Apple ProRes 422. When I share the Master File, I do see H.264 as an option in the drop-down menu in the Settings window, but I haven't ever chosen it, I guess because I thought it would greatly diminish the quality of the video (using H.264 does definitely decrease the file size). My thinking is that I want the master file to be as high-quality as possible for compressor.

I then take the resulting .mov file and use Compressor to output an mp4 file. Doing it this way, is the resulting mp4 file an H.264 file? Or is it ProRes 422 (because that is what I had chosen as the video codec when I shared/exported the master file)?

If it is ProRes 422, would switching to H.264 offer any benefits? What would the benefits be?

I'm not terribly concerned with "quality." I was at first, but then I realized I was splitting hairs. My main concern is that I not do something that noticeably (very noticeably) diminishes the quality of the video. And I guess because choosing H.264 when sharing the Master File reduces the resulting file size so drastically, I figured it must be a huge drop in quality. But maybe I'm wrong about that and I'd sure appreciate your input/advice.

Reply

Answer 7

Nov 12, 2014 1:22 AM in response to JDLee

JDLee wrote:
.... my master file from FCPX with the codec set to Apple ProRes 422. .. I thought it would greatly diminish the quality of the video (using H.264 does definitely decrease the file size). ... Doing it this way, is the resulting mp4 file an H.264 file? Or is it ProRes 422... If it is ProRes 422, would switching to H.264 offer any benefits? What would the benefits be?

yippieh, welcome to the marvelous world of compression ... 😝

try to make things short (impossible...):

exporting a Master File is always proRes - that's FCPX' internal intermediate codec, in use, when you apply ANY 'effect' (=transition, color correction, retiming) to your material, even when you decide to use 'original' media only.

As you noticed. such an intermediate creates huge files. Master Larry Jordan tells you more:

http://www.larryjordan.biz/fcpx-when-to-optimize-media/

next ..

you could pack proRes into a .mp4! 'cause it is just a container.-

BUT! a proRes.mp4 is of NO USE in the Windows world, nor on Macs (iPhones/Androids) without the pro-codecs-pack! proRes is only installed with FCPX, Logix, Motion.

oops! 👿

to make mp4 universal, it has to contain <sigh> a universal codec = tadahh, here comes h.264

h.264 is meant, designed, concepted for playback - therfor small, an interframe codec (wiki yourself, please, if interested ....) - but lossy, in terms of quality (German proverb: you can condens a cow into a burger, but you're not able to reconstruct the whole cow out if it).

So, for distribution, use h.264.mp4

For long term storage, with the option to re-use the material, use proRes.mov

(have I mentioned; mov is just a container....? 😉 )

Your workflow needs just a lil' adjustment:

You own Compressor? Create a mp4.preset and add it to your FCPX Share settings - no need to export a Master, then launching Compressor, then... You could even create a 'bundle', and FCPX will create both versions with one click only!

.....

did I mention h.265?

forthcoming 'super-codec' for UHD distribution... ?

tl;dr

you do nothing wrong, when using FCPX as 'out of the box' - done.

Reply

Answer 8

Russ H

Level 7

22,432 points

Nov 12, 2014 4:12 AM in response to JDLee

Very informative thread and worth saving for future reference.

And for those who don't have the stand=alone version of Compressor, just a minor addendum: you can also get an H.264 MP4 directly out of FCP X by selecting Computer in the Format field in Master File>Settings.

Russ

Reply

Answer 9

JDLee Author

Level 1

40 points

Nov 12, 2014 5:23 AM in response to Karsten Schlüter

Hi Karsten:

Thanks for the further information.

Just so I understand, are you saying that doing things the way I currently am (exporting a master file with the setting "Video codec: ProRes 422" and then creating an mp4 from that in Compressor), I am getting an mp4 file that is ProRes 422? And that therefor that mp4 file will not be playable on PCs? (I'd test this myself, but I don't have a PC.)

In other words, are you saying that when I share/export my master file from FCPX, I need to choose "Video codec: H.264" instead of my current choice of "Video codec: Apple ProRes 422"?

And that raises this question:

You say:

exporting a Master File is always proRes - that's FCPX' internal intermediate codec, in use, when you apply ANY 'effect' (=transition, color correction, retiming) to your material, even when you decide to use 'original' media only.

But you can choose "Video codec: H.264" in the Master File Settings window when you are sharing. So I don't follow what you mean when you say it is always ProRes. Why do you say always?

tl;dr

you do nothing wrong, when using FCPX as 'out of the box' - done.

I don't follow this last comment about doing nothing wrong when using FCPX "out of the box". What do you mean by that?

Reply

Answer 10

Nov 12, 2014 5:56 AM in response to JDLee

JDLee wrote:
.. are you saying that when I share/export my master file from FCPX, I need to choose "Video codec: H.264" instead of my current choice of "Video codec: Apple ProRes 422"?

No, I said:

a MasterFile should be ProRes (big file, 100% quality)

A distribution file should be h.264 (small file, 99.5% quality)

(you understand my distinction btw. 'Master' vs. 'Distribution'? ...)

JDLee wrote:

So I don't follow what you mean when you say it is always ProRes. Why do you say always?

You do have the OPTION to create a 'Master File' in h.264. Which is a lossy codec. Which contradicts MY humble understanding of a 'Master', which should be max. quality, 'size' doesn't matter, compatibility either. Apple shares this distinction, that's why out-of-the-box the codec is set out-of-the-box to proRes. And that's why h.264 is only avail as an OPTION...

Keep in mind: proRes (in a mp4 or mov or ogg or mkv or...) is of NO USE outside Apple-ecosphere; on Windows you'd have to buy proRes. As you have to buy wmv for MacOS. And proRes does NOT work on iOS, Android, Linux, beOS .....

JDLee wrote:
.... I don't follow this last comment about doing nothing wrong when using FCPX "out of the box". What do you mean by that?

I meant:

perhaps, I gave TOO MUCH info - what I obviously did 😉

info-overrflow..,.. I confused you, sorry for that.

out-of-the-box = no 'manual' settings, FCPX exports a Master as proRes. Good!

out-of-the-box = no 'manual' settings, FCPX exports all 'delivery destinations', e.g. AppleTV, as h.264. Good!

if you created yourself a h.264.mp4 setting in Compressor - Good!

When you start tweaking settings, you HAVE to know, what you do. Or want. Or clients need. 😉

Or let the boys'n girls in Cupertino decide....

(Greetings to Randy's team!)

.. wrote too much again.......................

note2myself: stay away from 'quality'-debates.......... 😝

Reply

Answer 11

JDLee Author

Level 1

40 points

Nov 12, 2014 6:07 AM in response to Karsten Schlüter

Hi Karsten:

Okay, I understand what you're saying now. I read that Larry Jordan article you linked to (very informative, as is always the case with his articles).

Yes, I agree that a master file should always be as high-quality as possible, and that therefor it wouldn't make sense to set the master file to H.264. I understand what you are saying about master vs. distribution. Master is what I store away, distribution is what goes out on the web, for instance.

I checked the mp4 files that I am currently creating in Compressor using a master file that is ProRes 422. FCPX says they are H.264, so I guess that when you use the mp4 settings in Compressor, Compressor is transcoding the file to H.264 in the process, right?

I also guess that you would have to go out of your way to create an mp4 file that is ProRes 422 (and that you wouldn't want to do that, anyway, due to compatibility issues)? I guess that compatibility is why Compressor's mp4 settings default to H.264 transcoding?

I really appreciate your advice here. I'm no longer allowing myself to get bogged down in issues of minor quality. Issues of major quality differences are important to me (like if you were to export your master file while you have FCPX set to proxy media, you get a lousy result). I just want to make sure I'm not stumbling my way into massive quality losses or compatibility issues (I need to get a PC so I can test these things).

Reply

Answer 12

Nov 12, 2014 6:38 AM in response to JDLee

JDLee wrote:
... I guess that compatibility is why Compressor's mp4 settings default to H.264 transcoding?

Yes, I guess so too.-

JDLee wrote:
... I just want to make sure I'm not stumbling my way into massive quality losses or compatibility issues..

Right.

As mentioned before:

'Quality' starts on recording; if you're working within the cams 'sweet spot' of settings, in its best Dynamic Range, avoiding artifical gain, using highest compression bit-rates, keeping photographical things as 'natural motion blur' in mind, etc etc etc ... then, a less-than-optimum export doesn't hurt ...

Aside, 90% of audience doesn't notice the diff. btw. 'acceptable' and 'excellent'... 👿

(personal note: I hope, you can live with my humor... I know, 'Krauts + humor' is a weird perception.. never meant anything as a personal offence!!...)

Enjoy movie making (and movie compression)!!

Reply

Answer 13

JDLee Author

Level 1

40 points

Nov 12, 2014 7:19 AM in response to Karsten Schlüter

No offense taken!

I use very basic cameras (Canon Vixia HF10). I do use the highest bit rates, but I don't think I have those other settings.

The one thing I've noticed that makes the greatest difference is the lighting. If that's not right, the camera, editing and compression can't do much.

What you've said here is great. You've answered many of the basic questions I've had for a while now.

Reply