Dick Balaska wrote:

> "Greg M. Johnson" wrote:
>
> >
> > I would recommend that in the future we make the 320 x 240 a
> > requirement.  The reason being that the default Microsoft media player
> > is incapable of seeing three entries in this round that violate this
> > suggestion.
> >
> > I did download HyperMeg Player v0.1. It is a freeware package that
> > played these videos nicely. I got it from ZDNet at:
>
> So... even though you were able to get a free player that played
> the videos "nicely", you still think there should be some limit
> to accommodate M$?

I'm the first to jump on the opposite side of M$ in a fight over a standard. M$
often adds "functionality" of dubious value to a product which creates great
inconveniences for everyone not using the M$ system.  M$-Java and M$ Front End
are but two examples.  If M$ had its way, I'm sure there would be an MPEG-M$
standard whose only benefit is that one gets to see the M$ logo each time before
the video starts.

Peter writes:
> I only have a black-and-white TV set at home (really). Does this
> mean they should ban color TV? And yes, as far as *I* am
> concerned, I am the majority :)

In any controversy, the advocate of the bleeding edge software is wrong. The
question is, which is the 'bleeding edge', the viewer incapable of meeting the
'modern' standard or the animation that requires people to go out and get a new
viewer?

Given John's restatement of the MPEG requirements, I suppose there is a little
more weight to the idea that the video player incapable of unusual frame sizes
is the bleeding edge.

Here are more links to vide players:

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/en/download/default.asp

http://computingcentral.msn.com/Topics/Multimedia/DBDetails.asp?DownloadID=47412

http://www.zdnet.com/downloads/stories/info/0,,0008T0,.html


> > ... have been demonstrated to work with these other video formats.
>
> These are not "other video formats".  These are fully 100% MPEG-1 compliant.
>
> dik

Post a reply to this message