WMV or MPEG, does it matter?
 

I'm wondering if any of you notice a difference in sales based on whether or not you use wmv or mpeg on your movie galleries.

Also, any difference in sales based on what format tour trailers are offered in?

I'm wondering if using mpegs is worth the significant increase in bandwidth usage.

In today's internet with a lot of high speed users, and cheap bandwidth? No.

However, you still get a lot of AOL type people who prefer WMV because they do not have to keep current on their codec's or d/l'g other players. So for the experienced, to the retards, WMV is a good option.

However, despite many popular beliefs. People will accept divx, xvid, or other encoding if you explain it upfront on your site, and provide some detail on how to update their shit. It doesn't scare people off IF you have good product, or what they are looking for.

In the end it comes down to your material first.

:2 cents:

as far as performance i think wmv is the clear winner

I agree

I am using cleaner xl and getting 60 minute videos down to 200mb or so at full screen quality

I would prefer mpeg. The format is more supported across multiple platforms, as well as the fact that you can download 10% of it, and play 10% of it without any problems.

Oh, and wmv is proprietary, which no one likes (or no one SHOULD like, anyway)

as a surfer, I prefer .avi... then .wmv...

AVI is only a file container, the actual codec used could could be divx, DV, raw (no codec), etc.

When you say AVI do you mean divx?

From a surfer point of view I perfer mpg.

It doesn't fucking matter!

I believe I was talking about the issue on a whole, not just mpg/wmv. Also the reasoning behind it.

You may want to do some research on your assumptions asshat.

Learn to read pin dick.

I answered his question here..

and then went on to explain why some people pick WMV versus other options. You obviously can't read. So I guess comprehension's out of the question.

:disgust

Correct. You missed the points at the top, as I just explained. I answered his question, and went on to explain why people say that.

We've established you are an idiot.

Good day.

Ok this is getting funny...

Lol, ok, I'm gonna stay out of this cock fight...

wmv is about half the size at the same visual quality - and how many porn surfers use mac/linux/bsd?

wmv is supported on every windows machine - and that's about 95% of the surfer traffic. :2 cents:

Hate to agree with Ma, but I do. .wmv is the most common video file right now, soon to be replaced entirely by flash video as everyones bandwidth increases.

C'mon guys I'm not looking for all the techno geek reasons you use the format you use.
I'm wondering if anyone has tried both and seen a difference in sales either way. I just want the most signups period, none of the other stuff matters to me.

.txt files will bring in more sales.

If its hot Len it doesnt matter.

yes avi is better.. then wmv

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh !!

then take the same clip, encode it in mpeg and wmv at the same bitrate, put it in the same gallery and send the same traffic

otherwise it's not comparable anyways

i don't think that the surfer looks for the worst looking clips on purpose - and the better the preview quality the more likely he signs up. but what do i know :upsidedow

and there's a lot truth in what Tony says

and i'll mark that day red in my calendar cause Sticky agreed with me :1orglaugh

(it's all fun anyways - you know that, right?)

my thoughts are very logical.... so to play any mpeg4 format you don't any special soft. to watch wmv - you need player... but you can watch it while downloading... so I think that mpeg4 is better!

For movie promo galleries you should use the same format that the siite your selling uses.

It would be dumb to use mpegs when they will be buying wmvs

wmv works just fine, been using that format since 2001!

I don't think either will make a differrence in sales.

The average surfer doesn't even know there is a differrence, they just want the shit to play.


PS: I avoid quicktime, RM and Divx like the plague.

WMV is more widely supported than any other. I def. say WMV

I prefer mpeg, espescially since I use Macs and can play them right in the browser, fast forward, rewind and everything without too much of a problem. :2 cents:

mpeg gets me more signups than wmvs.. actually only tried wmvs seeing that you and some others do on all your galleries but not with as much success as I'd like but am sure if your clips are good it could still do pretty well. For example, I used to use realplayer clips on hun years ago with almost (few less sales) as much success as I did with mpegs. Few less signups but also less bandwith so balanced out to be almost the net income.

Now if I list wmv galleries on top spots of my mgps overall click to the galleries go down versus if I use mpeg galleries on top. So I always list mpegs on top. With tours I think maybe a better idea to use wmv however cos people coming to tours maynot be in as much hurry as they maybe when they are at galleries :2 cents:

Oh man those were the good old days.
Single rate ram files for hun galleries. (I remember using real's free editor proggie, and typing in commands into a dos prompt to tell it what part of the video to render and at what bitrate)
The bandwidth savings were huge compared to mpeg, especially considering I was paying like $2+ per gig at the time.
Signups were insane because hardly anybody was giving away movies on galleries back then, and free hosted galleries didn't exist yet, so every TGP and their brother listed the gallery for free, I never even submitted them.

Well the sites I'm selling offer all formats. Different size wmv's, mpegs, and ipod versions.

Back in the day they only offered wmv so that's what I always used on galleries, for the reason you just described.
Now that they offer everything I'm wondering if it's worth tripling the bandwidth bill to offer mpeg.
Since my hosting expenses are significant, and with 95th percentile billing testing for a few days means I'm basically paying for triple the bandwidth for the entire month....I'm doing some research first.

WMV is easier to use for people who just use the computer and aren' too crazy in gettting updts all the time.

wmv is the ticket for now

Cap your bw. You can look at your stats and see the max you do and cap it close to that. Or get a separate account with capped bandwith (capped is always much cheaper than 95th) to make test runs.. you'll have to be running the galleries in either format for a while to see what really makes a difference. Btw, as far as I remember you run 30-60+ secs clips but when you use mpegs may wanna keep it around 20 secs otherwise files may get too big ie. longer d/l time for impatient jerkers and compress as much as you can without making it look too bad. Then again stats you posted in the past could be hard to beat even for yourself no matter which format you run them in hehe so you may wanna just stick to what's already working for you unless you just want to test for your own satisfaction :2 cents:

What are most movies on the bigger MPGS encoded in??

:winkwink: :winkwink:

True dat. Use CleanerXL if at all possible. That program is awesome when dealing with video.

:thumbsup

yes, for cross platform sales this is true.

but wmv "looks better" than mpg on the screen if both are equal file size.

Animated GIFs

CleanerXL is the most amazing compression program

Can't do that man, if you cap the bandwidth then the site will be unreachable for everyone and you won't make any sales.

Also, we're not doing nearly the sales we used to do. Margins are getting tighter every month it seems, so I'm looking to change things up wherever I can to improve them.

They're all mpeg. However, I think that's a function of the MGP's requiring mpegs (or movie clips over X megabytes in size) than it is a function of what sells better.

I notice programs like nastydollars and bangbros use mpegs on their FHG's, but use WMV's for their tour trailers.
So it makes me wonder do the galleries convert better with the mpegs, or do they do that because it's what the MGP owners who list the galleries want?

Personally I never understood the whole "we won't list you if your movies are under 2MB in size" thing.
If I can encode video better than the average bear and save myself bandwidth why should I be penalized for that?
I can understand requiring something like 60 seconds of total playtime and a minimum screen size of 320x240 or something....but forcing someone to encode movies badly just to meet a size requirement is silly.

:2 cents:

Sorry to hear that man, but are you talking as a sponsor or an affiliate?

is that for real? what idiots....

As an affiliate. I'm not a sponsor (yet :winkwink: )

we sell about 400 clips a month with MPEG, WMV,and Real Player. About 65% of the customers buy the clips in WMV. The other 35% is split pretty even with the other two

Didn't quite get that. If your highest use ever is suppose 100mbps and you cap at 100 mbps how's that cap going to make your site unreachable? It could only make it unreachable if your average use is for instance 65 mbps and you capped it at 10 mbps. I cap my bandwith about 30 mbps over my normal use cos that's still cheaper than what i'd pay for what i actually use at 95th percentile :)

mpeg good, wmv poop.

Ok I understand your point now.
But the only reason capped bandwidth is cheaper per meg than 95th percentile is because the host knows you can really only use about 70% of your capped number on a consistent basis. Anything more than that and you'll need a bigger line. So if 100mbps capped is 30% cheaper than buying 100mbps at 95th percentile, then it's really the same.

Personally I never want the line capped because you never know when you're going to get hit with more than the normal amount of traffic, and you want your sites to be up and fast so you can cash in when that happens.

Thank you for that clear and concise analysis.
It was very well thought out and supported with irrefutable evidence. My work here is done. :1orglaugh