Thanks, I already have Media Encoder 9 on my machine, but only ever thought
of using it when creating streaming or on-demand content - I'll give it a
try
BTW - If you subscribe to The Langalist (a tech newsletter put out by IT
writer Fred Langa), you may have seen the following article on ME9 and
MovieMaker touting some of their additional little-known capabilities.....
3) Free Tools, As Good As Any
Hi Fred- I recently had an idea to film full-motion screen
captures as tutorials for my students. I wanted to go through
the updating & running of the various spyware, antivirus, &
firewall programs that I recommend. I would then burn these
tutorials to CD to hand out at a free security class I want to
host at the local library.
After researching various programs, I found Camtasia seemed to
fill the bill best- but...at $300 it's a bit too rich for my
pockets.
In the midst of more searching I stumbled across an article
talking about Windows Media Encoder-- OMG! It does all that
Camtasia does & much more- & I had to laugh that I actually had
it in my program list but never noticed it?
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/9series/encoder/default.aspx
Please pass this around as I'm sure I'm not the only one who
was "in the dark" about this marvelous tool.
Sincerely, Tracy Fortune
Indeed, it's pretty good stuff, Tracy. There also are additional free add-
ins and utilities here:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/9series/encoder/utilities.aspx
XP's built-in "Movie Maker" is another nice tool that uses much of the
same core technology. (
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/updates/moviemaker2.mspx )
It's as slick as many commercial movie-making tools, but offers much
higher compression rates. In fact, all the Windows Media audio and video
compression rates can be much, *much* higher than their MPx counterparts.
this lets you either pack more AudioVisual content into a given space, or
end up with smaller standalone files that are easier to store and share.
Related example: I recently bought my wife a little iPod-type player. I
say "iPod-type" because it's not an iPod: I instead choose a player that
also supports WMA (Windows Media Audio) because a WMA audio track is only
about half the size of the same track in MP3 format. That means my wife
can load literally twice as many songs into her player as she could if
the songs were in MP3 format. (Yes, she also can load MP3s, if she wants
too; the player handles both formats.) There's no special software
needed, either: The free Windows Media Player will "rip" a CD into WMA
format in just seconds per track. It's utterly simple.
The audio quality of WMA is functionally the same as MP3; I can hear no
difference when the music's played through the earbud headphones that
come with those portable players. So, there's no real downside to WMA: No
audible difference, easy to use, and twice the number of songs in a given
storage space. True, WMA is a proprietary format--- but I seriously doubt
it's going away anytime soon, as it's compatible with the majority of the
world's PCs. <g>
Apple gets all the press for audio and video, and their mechanical
designs and marketing are very slick, but the Windows media software has
some real advantages. Plus, it's either built into XP, or can be added
for free. <g>
