sending video

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by susie, Nov 15, 2003.

  1. susie

    susie Guest

    Hey there
    Is there a preferred format to send video in an email? 2-3 mins max
    Cheers
    susie, Nov 15, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. susie

    E. Scrooge Guest

    "susie" <> wrote in message
    news:07vtb.3149$...
    > Hey there
    > Is there a preferred format to send video in an email? 2-3 mins max
    > Cheers


    Very compressed Divx format with no sound or a compressed version of MP3
    sound for videos is one way. The other way is to use Movie Maker (standard
    on XP) and convert your video to an WMA file with several quality options to
    choose from. Using Movie Maker would be easiest. Try to keep the video to
    2 minutes so you don't have to compress it that much that it's barely
    watchable. Aim to keep the file size at about 2MB or 3MB at the very most,
    which will take more than long enough to send and receive.
    Most videos I send by email are between 10 and 20 seconds at around 1MB in
    size (using Divx usually).

    The other option is to send 30 minutes of high quality video on a CD by
    snail mail.

    E. Scrooge
    E. Scrooge, Nov 15, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. susie

    KS Guest

    susie wrote:
    > Hey there
    > Is there a preferred format to send video in an email? 2-3 mins max
    > Cheers


    As already mentioned, Movie Maker which comes free in XP, will do the job
    nicely. 2 mins of video, can get compressed down to quite a reasonable email
    size. It'll create the video as a .wmv file, which Windows media player, and
    quite a few others, can happily play. There are other compression
    standards - Divx, etc - which will also compress it while keeping quality,
    but windows media format would be more popular for the average user. Of
    course, being able to read this message in a newsgroup elevates you beyond
    an average user !

    Reasonable email size would depend on whether the person is on dial up, or
    dsl/cable/whatever.
    KS, Nov 15, 2003
    #3
  4. susie

    Lebowski Guest

    "susie" <> wrote in message
    news:07vtb.3149$...
    > Hey there
    > Is there a preferred format to send video in an email? 2-3 mins max
    > Cheers
    >
    >


    Hey, wasn't this covered in a previous posting (I believe from 4th November,
    titled simply 'video')? And I see, the replies are covering the same kind of
    ground. Use Movie Maker etc.
    Lebowski, Nov 16, 2003
    #4
  5. susie

    John Guest

    On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 15:12:50 +1300, "Lebowski"
    <> wrote:

    >ground. Use Movie Maker etc.


    there is an upgrade for Movie Maker at windowsupdate.microsoft.com
    it increases the number of transisions etc etc...
    John, Nov 16, 2003
    #5
  6. Suddenly, E. Scrooge sprang forth and uttered these pithy words:
    > Very compressed Divx format with no sound or a compressed version of MP3
    > sound for videos is one way. The other way is to use Movie Maker (standard
    > on XP) and convert your video to an WMA file with several quality options to
    > choose from.


    And don't bother ZIPing it afterwards, as Apple insists on doing :)

    --
    aaronl at consultant dot com
    For every expert, there is an equal and
    opposite expert. - Arthur C. Clarke
    Aaron Lawrence, Nov 16, 2003
    #6
  7. susie

    Lost Guest

    susie wrote:

    > Hey there
    > Is there a preferred format to send video in an email? 2-3 mins max
    > Cheers


    It really depends on what the person receiving the video is able to play
    on their computer. For example, you don't want to send someone a MS or
    Apple formatted video file unless you're sure they can play it. Plain
    old Mpeg is probably the most generically playable.
    Lost, Nov 16, 2003
    #7
  8. All repies so far have been incorrect. It is NOT advisable to send large
    files by e-mail.

    These should be placed on a server using some non-proprietary protocol to
    allow the user to download this if they so choose.

    E-mailing binary files results in a size increase of around 34%, making
    e-mailing horribly wasteful. Plus, some people cannot receive large e-mails.

    I'd recommend an MPEG1 file for the video compression since it is playable
    on almost any platform. MPEG2 will deliver better quality, but is not
    supported as standard on recent versions of Windows.

    The Other Guy

    "susie" <> wrote in message
    news:07vtb.3149$...
    > Hey there
    > Is there a preferred format to send video in an email? 2-3 mins max
    > Cheers
    >
    >
    The Other Guy, Nov 16, 2003
    #8
  9. Suddenly, The Other Guy sprang forth and uttered these pithy words:
    > All repies so far have been incorrect. It is NOT advisable to send large
    > files by e-mail.


    But many individual users do not have any practical means to post things
    on a server. (Nor do they have the knowledge).



    --
    aaronl at consultant dot com
    For every expert, there is an equal and
    opposite expert. - Arthur C. Clarke
    Aaron Lawrence, Nov 16, 2003
    #9
  10. susie

    KS Guest

    > All repies so far have been incorrect. It is NOT advisable to send
    > large files by e-mail.
    > These should be placed on a server using some non-proprietary
    > protocol to allow the user to download this if they so choose.
    >
    > E-mailing binary files results in a size increase of around 34%,
    > making e-mailing horribly wasteful. Plus, some people cannot receive
    > large e-mails.
    >
    > I'd recommend an MPEG1 file for the video compression since it is
    > playable on almost any platform. MPEG2 will deliver better quality,
    > but is not supported as standard on recent versions of Windows.


    Hmm, interesting.

    While true, it's an inefficient way of transferring data, the reality is
    that email has evolved from the simple plain text that it used to be.

    In days of old, it simply was plain good old, quick text.

    Now, html newsletters and file transfers are not only the norm, but
    expected.

    Yes it's inefficient, however it's a particularly handy thing to do. Perhaps
    the biggest caveat of emailing any large file is the surprise on the face of
    the unexpected recipient, wondering why downloading their email takes so
    long.

    But if my 68 year old mother can email video message files to her friends in
    Scotland ok, captured off a web cam, then anyone can.
    KS, Nov 16, 2003
    #10
  11. susie

    Mainlander Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > Suddenly, The Other Guy sprang forth and uttered these pithy words:
    > > All repies so far have been incorrect. It is NOT advisable to send large
    > > files by e-mail.

    >
    > But many individual users do not have any practical means to post things
    > on a server. (Nor do they have the knowledge).


    They shouldn't be on the internet then, these are the same users who
    download and install Gator and all the other trash out there, who open
    virus attachhments, who propagate virus hoax messages and submit their
    friends' email addresses to online sites.

    In short - there are far too many people using the net who haven't got a
    clue. Are we responsible for them?
    Mainlander, Nov 17, 2003
    #11
  12. susie

    harry Guest

    "Mainlander" <*@*.*> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <>,
    > says...
    > > Suddenly, The Other Guy sprang forth and uttered these pithy words:
    > > > All repies so far have been incorrect. It is NOT advisable to send

    large
    > > > files by e-mail.

    > >
    > > But many individual users do not have any practical means to post things
    > > on a server. (Nor do they have the knowledge).

    >
    > They shouldn't be on the internet then, these are the same users who
    > download and install Gator and all the other trash out there, who open
    > virus attachhments, who propagate virus hoax messages and submit their
    > friends' email addresses to online sites.
    >
    > In short - there are far too many people using the net who haven't got a
    > clue. Are we responsible for them?


    Well you are more responsible than a non-user, in that you are a
    stake-holder who finances the infrastructure that also benefits from the
    traffic of the clueless.
    Deal with it.
    harry, Nov 18, 2003
    #12
  13. susie

    Lebowski Guest

    "Mainlander" <*@*.*> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <>,
    > says...
    > > Suddenly, The Other Guy sprang forth and uttered these pithy words:
    > > > All repies so far have been incorrect. It is NOT advisable to send

    large
    > > > files by e-mail.

    > >
    > > But many individual users do not have any practical means to post things
    > > on a server. (Nor do they have the knowledge).

    >
    > They shouldn't be on the internet then, these are the same users who
    > download and install Gator and all the other trash out there, who open
    > virus attachhments, who propagate virus hoax messages and submit their
    > friends' email addresses to online sites.
    >
    > In short - there are far too many people using the net who haven't got a
    > clue. Are we responsible for them?


    Magazines such as NetGuide are noble examples of assisting the clueless into
    keeping their machines and surfing activities clean. I know some family
    friends who exemplify the paragraph above, and sometimes they ask for help,
    and that's ok. But I know what you mean - sometimes they still persist in
    sending / proliferating / participating in this junk, no matter how much
    advice one gives. Maybe even Ad Aware / Spybot are beyond the abilities of
    many Average Joes out there? I know some people whom struggle with
    anti-virus programs and the notion of keeping them updated. One lady refused
    to update her system, because she was afraid she might catch a virus while
    it was online, downloading the updates ~ there's a lot of paranoia and
    cluenessness out there, for sure :))
    Lebowski, Nov 18, 2003
    #13
  14. susie

    Mainlander Guest

    In article <n2hub.7901$>,
    says...
    >
    > "Mainlander" <*@*.*> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > In article <>,
    > > says...
    > > > Suddenly, The Other Guy sprang forth and uttered these pithy words:
    > > > > All repies so far have been incorrect. It is NOT advisable to send

    > large
    > > > > files by e-mail.
    > > >
    > > > But many individual users do not have any practical means to post things
    > > > on a server. (Nor do they have the knowledge).

    > >
    > > They shouldn't be on the internet then, these are the same users who
    > > download and install Gator and all the other trash out there, who open
    > > virus attachhments, who propagate virus hoax messages and submit their
    > > friends' email addresses to online sites.
    > >
    > > In short - there are far too many people using the net who haven't got a
    > > clue. Are we responsible for them?

    >
    > Magazines such as NetGuide are noble examples of assisting the clueless into
    > keeping their machines and surfing activities clean. I know some family
    > friends who exemplify the paragraph above, and sometimes they ask for help,
    > and that's ok. But I know what you mean - sometimes they still persist in
    > sending / proliferating / participating in this junk, no matter how much
    > advice one gives. Maybe even Ad Aware / Spybot are beyond the abilities of
    > many Average Joes out there? I know some people whom struggle with
    > anti-virus programs and the notion of keeping them updated. One lady refused
    > to update her system, because she was afraid she might catch a virus while
    > it was online, downloading the updates ~ there's a lot of paranoia and
    > cluenessness out there, for sure :))


    She may have got a virus if for example fileshareing was enabled on the
    TCP/IP protocol. I believe this is the default under Windows. I saw a
    system where a virus got in while they were on the Internet, because
    Nortons kept popping up the blue screen message, it was because this
    particular virus looked for open file shares and hacked itself in that
    way.
    Mainlander, Nov 18, 2003
    #14
  15. Heh. Thats not paranoia and cluelessness. I was with a customer last
    weekend trying to fix up his CAPI drivers and once thats done, of course
    the first thing I want to do is go to windows update, then while waiting
    for windows update to load, BANG, infected with MS Blaster Worm just
    like that...

    The ladys fears were therefore justified. I suggest she upgrade to linux.

    Lebowski wrote:

    > anti-virus programs and the notion of keeping them updated. One lady refused
    > to update her system, because she was afraid she might catch a virus while
    > it was online, downloading the updates ~ there's a lot of paranoia and
    > cluenessness out there, for sure :))
    >
    >
    Kurt Häusler, Nov 18, 2003
    #15
  16. susie

    T.N.O. Guest

    Kurt Häusler wrote:

    > Heh. Thats not paranoia and cluelessness. I was with a customer last
    > weekend trying to fix up his CAPI drivers and once thats done, of course
    > the first thing I want to do is go to windows update, then while waiting
    > for windows update to load, BANG, infected with MS Blaster Worm just
    > like that...


    Which OS? NT/2K/XP?
    T.N.O., Nov 18, 2003
    #16
  17. susie

    Lebowski Guest

    Well, MS Blaster was the first thing which came to mind for me as well, but
    this lady has Win 98!! MSBlaster cannot infect a Win98 machine.

    Linux? No, that would be completely out of the question, but she still uses
    (and loves) her old Acorn - if only it could be transformed into a
    netsurfing machine, she would be right at home. She is 82 years old, very
    nice lady.

    "Kurt Häusler" <> wrote in message
    news:bpd7vf$vmv$02$-online.com...
    > Heh. Thats not paranoia and cluelessness. I was with a customer last
    > weekend trying to fix up his CAPI drivers and once thats done, of course
    > the first thing I want to do is go to windows update, then while waiting
    > for windows update to load, BANG, infected with MS Blaster Worm just
    > like that...
    >
    > The ladys fears were therefore justified. I suggest she upgrade to linux.
    >
    > Lebowski wrote:
    >
    > > anti-virus programs and the notion of keeping them updated. One lady

    refused
    > > to update her system, because she was afraid she might catch a virus

    while
    > > it was online, downloading the updates ~ there's a lot of paranoia and
    > > cluenessness out there, for sure :))
    > >
    > >

    >
    Lebowski, Nov 19, 2003
    #17
  18. T.N.O. wrote:
    > Kurt Häusler wrote:
    >
    >> Heh. Thats not paranoia and cluelessness. I was with a customer last
    >> weekend trying to fix up his CAPI drivers and once thats done, of
    >> course the first thing I want to do is go to windows update, then
    >> while waiting for windows update to load, BANG, infected with MS
    >> Blaster Worm just like that...

    >
    >
    > Which OS? NT/2K/XP?


    XP
    Kurt Häusler, Nov 19, 2003
    #18
  19. susie

    T.N.O. Guest

    Kurt Häusler wrote:
    >>> Heh. Thats not paranoia and cluelessness. I was with a customer last
    >>> weekend trying to fix up his CAPI drivers and once thats done, of
    >>> course the first thing I want to do is go to windows update, then
    >>> while waiting for windows update to load, BANG, infected with MS
    >>> Blaster Worm just like that...


    >> Which OS? NT/2K/XP?


    > XP


    you mean that you didn't use the built in firewall? silly boy.
    T.N.O., Nov 19, 2003
    #19
  20. T.N.O. wrote:
    > Kurt Häusler wrote:
    >
    >>>> Heh. Thats not paranoia and cluelessness. I was with a customer
    >>>> last weekend trying to fix up his CAPI drivers and once thats done,
    >>>> of course the first thing I want to do is go to windows update, then
    >>>> while waiting for windows update to load, BANG, infected with MS
    >>>> Blaster Worm just like that...

    >
    >
    >>> Which OS? NT/2K/XP?

    >
    >
    >> XP

    >
    >
    > you mean that you didn't use the built in firewall? silly boy.


    Heh that was the next step.
    Kurt Häusler, Nov 20, 2003
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. VM

    Sending text messages to cell phones..

    VM, Jun 25, 2004, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    8,075
    Riana
    Jun 26, 2004
  2. =?Utf-8?B?R2lic29ubg==?=

    Sending Messages over wireless network

    =?Utf-8?B?R2lic29ubg==?=, Aug 19, 2004, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    2,968
    =?Utf-8?B?R2lic29ubg==?=
    Aug 19, 2004
  3. JLunis

    sending messages

    JLunis, Mar 30, 2005, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    538
  4. =?Utf-8?B?V2lubmllIHRoZSBQb29o?=

    help please! trouble sending video via infrared from mobile phone

    =?Utf-8?B?V2lubmllIHRoZSBQb29o?=, Jul 27, 2005, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    670
    =?Utf-8?B?V2lubmllIHRoZSBQb29o?=
    Jul 27, 2005
  5. bridgeman

    sending video clips in the wmv format

    bridgeman, Jan 4, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    429
    bridgeman
    Jan 4, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page