For this lab exercise, I viewed several streaming videos using IE8, Mozilla, and Google Chrome. The sites I visited were YouTube, Hulu, Fancast, Anivide, and Joost. For this lab exercise I decided to watch the official Toy Story 3 Movie Trailer. The purpose of this assignment was to compare the quality of the streaming videos using different streaming video sites. It was an interesting assignment and the following are the observations for each site used to watch the movie trailer. The trailer was about two and a half minutes long. Following the observations, an embedded video of the Toy Story Trailer is included with each site.
YouTube
YouTube is a very popular video sharing website in which users can upload, share, and view videos. I watched the Toy Story 3 Movie Trailer on YouTube and found it to be of great quality. It was shown in HD quality which was one of the main strengths of the site. The media player used is Adobe Flash Player. It is used to display a wide variety of user-generated video content, including video clips, TV clips, and music videos, as well as content such as video blogging and other videos. Surprisingly, the trailer I chose did not have advertisements. Most movie trailers and videos have advertisement pop-ups but this one did not. The trailer loaded very quickly and had good resolution. It did not take long to buffer and it did not skip or stop. I personally use YouTube quite often; I use it multiple times a day to listen to music.
Hulu
Hulu offers commercial supported streaming video of TV shows and movies. Hulu provides videos in Adobe Flash video format. While watching the Toy Story 3 movie trailer on Hulu, it was noticeable that the video quality was better than YouTube. Although Hulu is used more often to watch movies and TV shows, for the purpose of this assignment, I watched the Toy Story movie trailer. The video began with an advertisement from Sprint and an advertisement from Rogaine. This video did take longer to load than YouTube, but the resolution was of better quality. It was somewhat of a tradeoff because its' weakness was that it took a few seconds longer to buffer, but its' strength is that it was of better quality and the resolution was more clear than the other sites. It did not skip or stop once and loading the video did not cause any problems. Hulu offers an excellent library of movies and videos, and offers a tremendous amount of television shows. It even offers entire seasons of episodes and many movies as well. Hulu was by far the most organized streaming video website.
Hulu offers commercial supported streaming video of TV shows and movies. Hulu provides videos in Adobe Flash video format. While watching the Toy Story 3 movie trailer on Hulu, it was noticeable that the video quality was better than YouTube. Although Hulu is used more often to watch movies and TV shows, for the purpose of this assignment, I watched the Toy Story movie trailer. The video began with an advertisement from Sprint and an advertisement from Rogaine. This video did take longer to load than YouTube, but the resolution was of better quality. It was somewhat of a tradeoff because its' weakness was that it took a few seconds longer to buffer, but its' strength is that it was of better quality and the resolution was more clear than the other sites. It did not skip or stop once and loading the video did not cause any problems. Hulu offers an excellent library of movies and videos, and offers a tremendous amount of television shows. It even offers entire seasons of episodes and many movies as well. Hulu was by far the most organized streaming video website.
Fancast
Fancast offers full-length network television shows, feature films, trailers and clips, as well as in-depth news and editorial content related to entertainment. Visitors can select visual media from a library of current and archival shows. It also recommends shows viewers would like to see. Fancast features various advertisements and advertises Facebook as well. Fancast offers options to post videos to Facebook, Myspace, and Twitter. The trailer began with an advertisement for the Samsung 3D television. The advertisement remained on the side throughout the duration of the video. The second time I viewed the video, the advertisement was for Outback Steakhouse. Personally, I did not prefer Fancast. I had never used Fancast before, but after using it I would prefer using Hulu or YouTube. The trailer was viewed using Adobe Media Player. The video took a while to load and to buffer and the beginning skipped a few times and completely stopped once. The resolution and color quality was good, but the fact that it skipped showed a great weakness to the video site.
Anivide
I had never used Anivide before, but I can honestly say I wouldn't use it again or recommend it to others for viewing videos. It seemed to be a site used more for anime videos then for television shows and movies. The video library and toolbar seemed disorganized. The Anivide site did not offer videos on their site itself, instead, they are viewed through the YouTube website. When the trailer is clicked, the viewer is relocated to YouTube. Therefore, the trailer had all the same weaknesses and strengths as discussed earlier. It was HD quality and did not skip, stop, or take long to buffer. Although it was good quality and resolution, it was not as good of quality as the trailer on the Hulu site. Because the trailer was not offered on the Anivide site, there was no trailer to embed. However, the YouTube trailer is embedded under the YouTube section of this blog.
Joost
Joost has a similar setup as Fancast, except Joost had less features than Fancast. The Joost site offers television shows, movies, and music videos. However, the Fancast site offered more entertainment options and a better search engine. The Joost search engine was somewhat weak. When I searched for Toy Story, only one video trailer came up. The other sites offered various trailers to choose from and this site does not. The trailer began with an advertisement from State Farm Insurance. The advertisement could also be seen on the side of the video clip. The video only took about three seconds to load. It also offered options to share with Facebook and Twitter, just like Fancast. The video was viewed using Adobe Media Player. The quality of the trailer was excellent! Although the site does not offer as many features as Fancast, the quality was much better than the quality of the Fancast site. It was very clear and did not skip, stop, or take long to load.
Joost has a similar setup as Fancast, except Joost had less features than Fancast. The Joost site offers television shows, movies, and music videos. However, the Fancast site offered more entertainment options and a better search engine. The Joost search engine was somewhat weak. When I searched for Toy Story, only one video trailer came up. The other sites offered various trailers to choose from and this site does not. The trailer began with an advertisement from State Farm Insurance. The advertisement could also be seen on the side of the video clip. The video only took about three seconds to load. It also offered options to share with Facebook and Twitter, just like Fancast. The video was viewed using Adobe Media Player. The quality of the trailer was excellent! Although the site does not offer as many features as Fancast, the quality was much better than the quality of the Fancast site. It was very clear and did not skip, stop, or take long to load.
Alternative Browsers:Internet Explorer 8, Google Chrome
The above video observations of the different sites was used with the Mozilla Firefox browser. I also viewed the same movie trailers using Internet Explorer 8 and Google Chrome. I wanted to compare the video quality using the three different browsers and determine which one was the best browser to use. Viewing the videos on Internet Explorer was a little difference for me because I am not used to Internet Explorer. I have not used that browser in so long. I prefer to use the Mozilla Firefox browser. The videos were of similar quality on all three browsers. There was no noticeable difference in quality or resolution. However, it did seem like the Internet Explorer browser took longer to load the videos. I had never used Google Chrome, but I really liked it and I would definitely continue to use that browser in the future. Mozilla and Google Chrome were at about the same level of aesthetics and efficiency. For viewing videos, I would recommend either Mozilla or Google Chrome. I would not recommend Internet Explorer only because it takes a few seconds longer to download the videos. But if quality and resolution is of concern, the three browsers were quite similar in that area.
Final Summary
Overall, this lab exercise was interesting and fun. Now I am more familiar with different streaming video sites. Before this assignment I was only familiar with YouTube and Hulu, and now I am familiar with three more. I enjoy watching videos and television shows online, so this exercise has been beneficial for me in comparing and contrasting the benefits and weaknesses of different sites. I still love YouTube and will continue to use it. Hulu has always been one of my favorites and I still feel that the videos on Hulu are excellent quality. I would most likely visit Fancast and Joost as well and perhaps introduce the sites to my friends because it is important for viewers to get the best quality videos.
Lab Exercise 7: Streaming Video Players
No comments:
Post a Comment