Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 105

Thread: (MP4) Need your feedback

  1. #61
    Down With It
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    13,538
    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.
    Last edited by R.D.; 07-19-2006 at 12:07 PM.

  2. #62
    MY TVC 1 5 SeaniBu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Watching the Wheels
    Posts
    4,984
    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.

  3. #63
    Down With It
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    13,538
    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.

  4. #64
    MY TVC 1 5 SeaniBu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Watching the Wheels
    Posts
    4,984
    The rate is now at 256, what do you suggest?

  5. #65
    Down With It
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    13,538
    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.

  6. #66
    MY TVC 1 5 SeaniBu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Watching the Wheels
    Posts
    4,984
    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 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.

  7. #67
    Down With It
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    13,538
    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.
    Last edited by R.D.; 07-19-2006 at 01:02 PM.

  8. #68
    MY TVC 1 5 SeaniBu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Watching the Wheels
    Posts
    4,984
    Quote Originally Posted by Red Dog
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Red Dog
    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
    Quote Originally Posted by Red Dog
    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.

  9. #69
    Down With It
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    13,538
    Quote Originally Posted by SeaniBu
    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... awesome...
    Last edited by R.D.; 07-19-2006 at 01:26 PM.

  10. #70
    Figure Skating Is A Dangerous Sport Dee4707's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    16,671
    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

  11. #71
    Down With It
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    13,538
    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.

  12. #72
    Down With It
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    13,538
    Quote Originally Posted by Dee4707
    Red Dog, stay on topic!!
    But I am on topic...where did I go off? Nowhere...so I dunno what you are talking about...

  13. #73
    Figure Skating Is A Dangerous Sport Dee4707's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    16,671
    Ok, now I'm totally confused. Brief explanation please!!!

    Dee

  14. #74
    Down With It
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    13,538
    What are you confused about?

  15. #75
    Figure Skating Is A Dangerous Sport Dee4707's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    16,671
    Quote Originally Posted by Red Dog
    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

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •