Slashdot Mirror

I was asking myself the same thing recently. Here's what I found:
http://www.startrekmovie.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7257
http://startrekwiki.wetpaint.com/thread/1776380/best+viewing+order
http://vidthekid.info/misc/trek.html

lucky Australian fans are scheduled to see the movie first, as it opens a day before the American release.

And if it wasn't opening a day before in Australia... they wouldn't get to see it first?? (before the U.S.)

In any case, Australians are NOT scheduled to see it first, as it opens TWO days before the U.S. in Belgium, France and Switzerland.
http://www.startrekmovie.com/releasedates/

The second link is about how the stuff in the first is authored, and doesn't require Silverlight. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

That part was clear. My issue was that the content of the first link was not clear. I assume from the name it's a site that streams HD videos. Which means... well, nothing. Absolutely nothing to me. There's a variety of sites that already do that. Without more information, I can't understand why your site is superior enough to make me install Silverlight.

The challenge with offering multiple sizes is that in forces the user to know what their system and connection can play

Complete nonsense. The idea of "SD" vs. "HD" has been so ingrained into our culture at this point, that it's quite easy for users to figure it out. Take this movie website as an example:

http://www.startrekmovie.com/

It streams the trailer in computer resolution by default and gives the options for smaller versions (iPod/iPhone) and larger versions (HD). No one complains that they can't see the trailer. It either just works, or they select a resolution more appropriate to their device. Plus they're made aware that they can watch the super-hires stuff by the "HD" link. Apple's website gives users the option of "Small/Medium/Large/iPod". Again, no one complains that they can't figure out how to get the video to work. They complain far more about having to install Quicktime. (Sort of like I'm complaining about Silverlight.)

Ah, that's the point! Smooth Streamings gets us out of having to wait for everyoen to be able to do HD to use it for mass audience content

You're completely missing the point. Multibitrate does not matter. Consider how many people link off to the Youtube versions of the Star Trek trailers! Those are of terrible quality. Yet the convenience and real-world benefits are more important to them than HD resolutions.

HD will catch on when the hardware gets here. And the reason why it will catch on when the hardware gets here is because that is when the best experience can be offered. It's not about HD vs. non-HD. That's a red herring. It's about providing a better service overall. HD video is a bonus and nothing more.

I understand that you've probably put a lot of heart and soul into making multibitrate work. But what you're working on is the modern equivalent of sending VOC files to the PC Speaker. A nifty technology that never saw wide distribution because it attempted to close a perceived gap that simply wasn't there. In the end, users upgraded to SoundBlaster sound cards rather than supporting the VOC->Speaker technology.

There's a lot of flexibility in how a site can present the install option.

You aren't listening. I don't care about the install option. I don't want to install Silverlight. It's the job of the website to convince me that "Yes you do!" The website does nothing to convince me. It merely gives me an ultimatum: We won't show you what we're about until you install this plugin. So install it or leave.

I leave.

In comparison, Youtube can be navigated without Flash. A user can understand what the site is about, why they might want the service, and ultimately make an informed decision about installing Flash.

For example, NBCOlympics.com offered a fallback to an IE embedded WMP ActiveX component.

Good to know that they made the effort to support my Mac, cell phone, Nintendo Wii, PS3, set-top box, Linux, etc. No, wait...

I agree that more sites could do a nicer job of it

Indeed. They could use multi-platform H.264 codecs and thus support nearly every web player on the market. From HTML5 video to the widely deployed Flash 10.

Whoops. That wasn't what you mean

The repairs will actually be done a little sooner, but they pushed back the release date so they wouldn't have to fight with Star Trek, Transformers, or Harry friggin Potter. Just be lucky Iron Man is waiting until 2010 or we'd never get any sciencing or universe imploding done.

The REAL trailer is coming out in another five days. (Per startrekmovie.com where you can watch the previous trailer in HD.) Perhaps it would have been better to wait before proclaiming it? Or at least give useful information on the release date of the footage?

The real news at the moment is that a photo of the new Enterprise was released yesterday. I was expecting changes, but this awkward kitbash makes me very unhappy.

The new bridge was also revealed about a month ago. Many refer to it as the "iBridge" because of its resemblance to Apple hardware. Personally, I'm mostly happy with the bridge design. It appears to be functional and otherwise looks nice.

I just wish they hadn't made a parody out of the old girl. :-(

"Let's make sure history never forgets the name, Enterprise."
--Captain Picard (Yesterday's Enterprise)