(MP4) Need your feedback

R.D. · Jul 19, 2006

Yes, I downloaded it and watched it. I think it was OK in terms of file size and quality...let me make that pretty good, actually. H264 simply can't be beat (yet) when it comes to practical size and good quality. if you will allow me to be a little critical, though, I think what I would have done is to lower the bitrate of the audio and shrink the dimensions so the video is sharper and not so pixellated. Doing this could dramatically shrink the size of the file. I think I could have made that same file 1/2 - 2/3 it's size if I used the settings on my program. But then again, it looks like your video is more of a montage which would mean that the audio settings should not be turned all the way down. FYI I use 32k, 22050 Hz, Mono. Maybe with that video I would try 48, or the highest, 64.

But that's just me being nitpicky. It's fine the way it is.

SeaniBu · Jul 19, 2006

I just watched i myself, It looks like crap! Super pixed and fuzzy. EEsh. The 360x240 looks way better even when I enlarge the screen. ? Not at all the results I thought I would get. No wonder it was only a mb larger.

I am going to repost the last one and replace the old. Could you view that one if I load it on FF? That feed back could clear up any diffs between machines.

As far as the sound, I just like full sound. I play through 6:1 and even though the system still compensates with all files, it sounds cleaner in the speakers so I have always left it that way. That is great advice acutely 'cause I never thought of reducing size that way. If it's not full quality in the first place what is one going to expect - good info to ease the download.

R.D. · Jul 19, 2006

Know why that happened? Because of the bitrate. The bitrate was too low and the dimensions were too large. If you go below a certain bit rate you need to shrink the dimensions so the video looks better.

I actually never thought about the audio either until recently when I discovered (by accident let me add) that if I change the audio so it's more like streaming audio rather than a music file, that can help shrink the size of the file. Also using mono instead of stereo makes a big difference.

SeaniBu · Jul 19, 2006

The rate is now at 256, what do you suggest?

R.D. · Jul 19, 2006

I assume you mean the video. OK here's what you do: 256K, 320x240 (or if you want to keep the aspect ratio of NTSC, 320x213). Choose your frame rate- either 15.00 or 29.97 fps.

For the audio, go for 32k (or 48 if you want better quality), 22050Hz, Mono.

This should get you a filesize of around 10MB if you do it correctly.

SeaniBu · Jul 19, 2006

Yes that was a good and correct assumption.

But if I want to adjust the bit rate for 640x480, any guesses?

For the rate on the audio I set it at 32 kbps - mono - encode at "good. This is for a Sasha LP someone wanted. I am sure they are not too interested in getting the best quality for Dick's voice :laugh:

But they did want it at 640x480.

I am tempted - and probably should - just to go back to the big files of Quicktime for the better res on a larger vid, but I would be willing to try this rout if you have any suggestions.

R.D. · Jul 19, 2006

Well, if they want quality give them quality. A good setting is around 1000Kbps for 640x480. Preferred: 1500Kbps or higher. But be prepared for a large file...maybe around 60MB or so.

Which SC LP is it? Just curious. I might have it in my collection.

If you encode the video with a high bitrate...this is important...the audio should match. Go with 128K or higher, 44100Hz, Stereo. If you wish, you could also try Joint Stereo if it's an option (but that sounds worse). But remember, no one wants to see a vibrant picture accompanied with crappy sound.

If you want convenience, use the suggestion I gave in my above post.

SeaniBu · Jul 19, 2006

Red Dog said:
Well, if they want quality give them quality. A good setting is around 1000Kbps for 640x480. Preferred: 1500Kbps or higher. But be prepared for a large file...maybe around 60MB or so.

That is why I am tempted just to do it in QT - plus it only takes about 20 min - , but I would like to see how this comes out. And it does pump it up to 51mb. As a matter of fact I think I will just send a QT now and see what aspires and try this latter. I need to complete something for Peil I would like to get done for her today.

Red Dog said:
Which SC LP is it? Just curious. I might have it in my collection.

Olys 06 - splash fest. sorry I shouldn't say that. I think their reason is the are in love. I believe this due to refusal of low quality vids, but who am I to say - she pretty and a great skater, of course guys are going to fall for her. Just like she falls for all of us :laugh:

Red Dog said:
If you encode the video with a high bitrate...this is important...the audio should match. Go with 128K or higher, 44100Hz, Stereo. If you wish, you could also try Joint Stereo if it's an option (but that sounds worse). But remember, no one wants to see a vibrant picture accompanied with crappy sound.

If you want convenience, use the suggestion I gave in my above post.

That is a good point to be reminded of, and the things we have discovered via this thread have been enlightening for the convenience factors as well.

R.D. · Jul 19, 2006

SeaniBu said:
That is why I am tempted just to do it in QT - plus it only takes about 20 min - , but I would like to see how this comes out. And it does pump it up to 51mb. As a matter of fact I think I will just send a QT now and see what aspires and try this latter. I need to complete something for Peil I would like to get done for her today.

Try that and report back...I want to know how it went.

Olys 06 - splash fest. sorry I shouldn't say that. I think their reason is the are in love. I believe this due to refusal of low quality vids

Yeah...actually I'd consider her Worlds 06 program more of a "splash fest" than her Olympic one. She DID stay upright after the first minute, afterall.

I think my version of her Olympic long is bigger than 200MB...I think it's closer to 250MB. (eta: I checked and it's 223MB). But I encoded all the Olympic videos at 3000Kbps (near broadcast quality) so ALL the files are huge.

of course guys are going to fall for her. Just like she falls for all of us

that's a good one... :rofl:

awesome...

Dee4707 · Jul 19, 2006

Red Dog, stay on topic!!

Anyhow, I have some questions. I don't know if you had a chance to look at the Johnny Weir on Kathy Griffin vid I did but I really think it came out good. I streamed it which is sacrificing some quality, right?? When you're talking about different rates to render what is the end result of file, .wmv, .wav, .avi??? That's where I'm getting a little confused.

Dee

R.D. · Jul 19, 2006

the extension is just the codec used to compress the file. It has nothing to do with quality. You are the one who configures those settings for the respective codec.

R.D. · Jul 19, 2006

Dee4707 said:
Red Dog, stay on topic!!

But I am on topic...where did I go off? Nowhere...so I dunno what you are talking about...

Dee4707 · Jul 19, 2006

Ok, now I'm totally confused. Brief explanation please!!!

Dee

R.D. · Jul 19, 2006

What are you confused about?

Dee4707 · Jul 19, 2006

Red Dog said:
the extension is just the codec used to compress the file. It has nothing to do with quality. You are the one who configures those settings for the respective codec.

This is what I'm confused about. So are you saying .avi is not the file extension but a codec???

Dee

Dee4707 · Jul 19, 2006

oops, forgot to mention I went to your new site for only about 45 seconds because I'm at work. What I saw looks good, I will check it over more at home.

Dee

SeaniBu · Jul 19, 2006

Red Dog said:
Try that and report back...I want to know how it went.

The QT vid, works the same as it always has, reduces a 1gb to arond 180mb and looks great. The problem was that the files are so big. If that is what you are asking?
If it is in reference to the MP4 thing, I am going to do that tonight after I get done with Peil's project and most definitely would want the feedback from yopu and DEE.

Red Dog said:
I think my version of her Olympic long is bigger than 200MB...I think it's closer to 250MB. (eta: I checked and it's 223MB). But I encoded all the Olympic videos at 3000Kbps (near broadcast quality) so ALL the files are huge.

This makes me think you are asking about the QT, but I am going to try something slightly different by going with the H264 instead of DV for compression. I've used MP4 before and it wasn't as clean as DV but was smaller file. It is telling me now that it is going to take under 2 hours using the H264 at "best" quality multi pass, size 640x480 - sound at Linear pcm 16 bit.
Do you have any suggestive changes there? That is pretty much a default setting out side of the H264.

SeaniBu · Jul 19, 2006

Dee4707 said:
This is what I'm confused about. So are you saying .avi is not the file extension but a codec???

Dee

The extension as far as I am aware is just designating the "player," which will use a specific player that opens that "extension" - hence the player choice via a "extension." All the "quality" aspects should be dependent on the compression / codec, then you are just telling the file it should open with...

Dee4707 · Jul 19, 2006

Thanks Sean, I think I'm understanding a little more now. I think I need to play a little more with my program. I think with explanations here that I'm going to get it.

BTW, I just wanted to let you know I love the Piel photo. You did a great job. You're very artistic.

Dee

SeaniBu · Jul 19, 2006

Dee4707 said:
Thanks Sean, I think I'm understanding a little more now. I think I need to play a little more with my program. I think with explanations here that I'm going to get it.

I should have thought about this earlier for you - I use this allot to find out and make sure.
Type in Google; define:anything

Heres an example -
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...ne:Codec&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

Dee4707 said:
BTW, I just wanted to let you know I love the Piel photo. You did a great job. You're very artistic.

Dee

Thank you. I am happy to get that response on something I really didn't spend much time on. Sometimes that is the best type of art. Try too hard and it is "pretentious" and shows all the flaws more so - have fun and focus on conveying a message without having a distraction and it works. Adn doing something like this is a lot more fun and rewarding than anything I've done that with in the past.

I really like what RD is helping me discover about sharing with this thread. This could help me not have to send out DVDs as demos as much. I have never studied the aspects of compressing on my own. Just kept everything full quality or only shrunk the size for fear of loosing to much of some little aspect - or getting a mess. But this helps me feel like I can share via the web that much more "friendly." Always room to learn more.

(MP4) Need your feedback

R.D.

SeaniBu

R.D.

SeaniBu

R.D.

SeaniBu

R.D.

SeaniBu

R.D.

Dee4707

Ice Is Slippery - Alexie Yagudin

R.D.

R.D.

Dee4707

Ice Is Slippery - Alexie Yagudin

R.D.

Dee4707

Ice Is Slippery - Alexie Yagudin

Dee4707

Ice Is Slippery - Alexie Yagudin

SeaniBu

SeaniBu

Dee4707

Ice Is Slippery - Alexie Yagudin

SeaniBu

Similar threads

Connect with us