Re: [videoblogging] crappy-looking video
You want crappy looking video?? Then I recommend Soreson Video codec (export using Quicktime conversion in Final Cut + pick Soreson Video as the codec... or some similar thing in a different system). Use this codec, along with the other advice (like a low data rate) to get a super pixelated look. (It was the main codec used for the Quicktime 5 Player and stinks compared to Mpeg-4.) The best thing to do is a lot of trial and error. There's nothing like compressing and recompressing the same clip a couple of dozen times while taking lots of notes about all the different numbers you are using to get a real understanding of how compression works. It will only take 10-12 hours or so :-) The best way to get crappy audio is to compress the audio at or below 24 kHz -- the lower, the crappier. But you may really, really NOT want to make your audio crappy too. So yeah, like Ryanne said -- what are you up to? jen jenSimmons http://www.emergingawareness.org http://www.inclinationsthemovie.com http://www.jensimmons.com On Aug 18, 2005, at 11:19 PM, Adrian Miles wrote: around the 18/8/05 Philip Clark mentioned about [videoblogging] crappy-looking video that: I've tried a couple of them, but I thought I'd save some time and just ask, are there any of these formats which lend themselves more to crappy-looking video? set a low data rate, large pixel size, and have a lot of action. if it is still then you just can't do it without a lot of effort. Also qt pro will give more control, but you want to over ride presets so that you drop data rate, bump up frame rate, and resolution. -- cheers Adrian Miles hypertext.RMIT URL:http://hypertext.rmit.edu.au/vlog Yahoo! Groups Links SPONSORED LINKS Individual Fireant Explains YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [videoblogging] crappy-looking video
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 20:29:40 +0200, Philip Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ideally, low quality would go hand-in-hand with a low file size; otherwise I'd just mess it up with some crazy pixelation/distortion effects. Yeah. :o) So I go to QuickTime Expert Settings, choose 8 frames/second, Quality: least, Data Rate: a very low number. Then there's a drop-down menu with a ton of different formats. If you've got 3ivx, use it. It gives pretty crisp images at low quality. Otherwise: Video codex: MPEG-4 Framerate: 6 for PAL, 5 or 10 for NTSC (Someone on this told me to scale down framerates in even fractions). Daterate: Start with 5 KB/s - move up if it looks too crappy. I've used 3ivx (instead of MPEG-4) with 6 frames per second and a datarate of 10KB/s before. It's pretty good. You can see what's going on fine. My video was 60x120 so YMMV. If there is a lot of movement (like Bre Pettis flailing his arms in the air) the low framerate is very noticeable, otherwise it doesn't matter. I'll encourage anyone who pushes compression. I'm not a fan of this whole 5 megs per minute is fine when 1.5 megs per minute is just fine. :o) I've tried a couple of them, but I thought I'd save some time and just ask, are there any of these formats which lend themselves more to crappy-looking video? If you just want it to look crappy go with an old video codec. Cinepak with a low datarate should give you a pretty crappy video. :o) - Andreas -- URL:http://www.solitude.dk/ Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology. SPONSORED LINKS Individual Fireant Explains YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [videoblogging] crappy-looking video
around the 18/8/05 Philip Clark mentioned about [videoblogging] crappy-looking video that: I've tried a couple of them, but I thought I'd save some time and just ask, are there any of these formats which lend themselves more to crappy-looking video? set a low data rate, large pixel size, and have a lot of action. if it is still then you just can't do it without a lot of effort. Also qt pro will give more control, but you want to over ride presets so that you drop data rate, bump up frame rate, and resolution. -- cheers Adrian Miles hypertext.RMIT URL:http://hypertext.rmit.edu.au/vlog SPONSORED LINKS Individual Fireant Explains YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
