Re: [videoblogging] Re: Blip.tv and 1.33 aspect ratio
I have been looking for a workflow which will allow me to move quickly from my HDV video (Sony FX1) from the non square format to square format for the web, Blip etc. Visual Hub is a compression app (not free) that will do batch compression. Just create your different settings...and it goes to town. jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790 Professional: http://ryanishungry.com Personal: http://momentshowing.net Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9
RE: [videoblogging] Re: Blip.tv and 1.33 aspect ratio
Hey guys, Just to follow up: We've been running after this anamorphic video issue for a couple weeks now at blip HQ. Today I escalated to Adobe to ask them how to deal with it. Their answer: Tell your users not to do anamorphic video! I realize this isn't a good answer, and I told them so. They're trying to figure out a real answer now. In the meantime please upload square pixels! :) -Original Message- From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob Fish Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2008 3:35 PM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: [videoblogging] Re: Blip.tv and 1.33 aspect ratio By way of brief introduction, I am a long time lurker, first time poster and trying to find time for a videoblog. I have been looking for a workflow which will allow me to move quickly from my HDV video (Sony FX1) from the non square format to square format for the web, Blip etc. I use Vegas pro 8 for NLE and I wish to end up with video encoded to various web flavored formats. I realize I can convert the video in the editor. I'm looking to find an optimal work flow that involves the least personal attention after editing (while encoding) because it seems to be very compute intensive. A semi random search for Nirvana in the encoding world looks like it will be very time consuming. I have high hopes of finding some sage advice here. Bob... --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jake Ludington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Good arguments, however, neither 1440x1080 nor 720x480 Anamorphic are meant to be viewed (as you stated in your other post, so I'm not telling you anything new) in those dimensions in square pixels. Since blip delivers video to computers, which use square pixels, IMO, there's no reason they should cater to anything other than 16x9 or 4x3 formats. One more time, with feeling: I'm not asking them to present non square pixels. I'm asking them to convert non-square pixels for the Web. As you say below: How come videos are expected to be formatted at television sizes (4:3 and 16:9)? I'm expecting them not to be and you're telling me I shouldn't. ;) And because I'm feeling snarky, from the Blip site: We're sending our top shows directly to the television set with Internet video on demand. And that's just the start. We believe that your show should be indistinguishable from a show on a broadcast network in terms of how people find and watch it. We're working hard to make this happen. More snark quoting Blip on the issue of formats: You shouldn't have to choose between great quality Flash video and compatibility with iTunes. Your videos should work everywhere, no question. That's why blip.tv supports every video format under the sun, from Flash 8 (much higher quality than most Flash video) to Quicktime (for the all-important iTunes) to DivX and 3gp (we think cell phones are cool, too). That sounds like a utility knife to me. ;) I think you bring up an interesting discussion. How come videos are expected to be formatted at television sizes (4:3 and 16:9)? other question is What is the benefit to a company to accommodate people that choose not to conform? If I'm an average video guy who just wants to make video, how would I know whether I'm conforming or not? I have a vision, my camera shoots at this resolution, I can output files in the same resolution from my video editor, so how am I *not* conforming? Jake Ludington http://www.jakeludington.com Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Blip.tv and 1.33 aspect ratio
If I'm an average video guy who just wants to make video, how would I know whether I'm conforming or not? I have a vision, my camera shoots at this resolution, I can output files in the same resolution from my video editor, so how am I *not* conforming? Im not sure if this is related, but ive had this same issue. (yes, ive also taken this to the blip group). Im posting my videos in 640x480. Blip page: http://blip.tv/file/596840 Permalink: http://blip.tv/file/get/Jaydedman-aStoryThatIsntYou166.mp4 But when I grab their embed code, the video is much smaller: http://www.momentshowing.net/2008/01/video-a-story-t.html They told me they shrink the video in the embed code since so many people were embedding blip videos on pages that couldnt fit 640x480. The videos would overlap the sidebars making the video look bad. (wish they said that somewhere) Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790 Professional: http://ryanishungry.com Personal: http://momentshowing.net Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9
RE: [videoblogging] Re: Blip.tv and 1.33 aspect ratio
You got it Bill. We made the default embed small because larger embeds don't fit well in a lot of sites -- most notably the large majority of blogs. People can tweak the embed size to make it larger, but we've found that making the default size smaller is the most effective option. In our next release we're going to have saved player functionality that will allow you to customize version of the blip player with your own color scheme, branding, dimensions, et cetera and re-use those players in cross-posting, copy paste, et cetera. So you'll have much, much more control over these things pretty soon. -Original Message- From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Cammack Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 7:10 AM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: [videoblogging] Re: Blip.tv and 1.33 aspect ratio --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If I'm an average video guy who just wants to make video, how would I know whether I'm conforming or not? I have a vision, my camera shoots at this resolution, I can output files in the same resolution from my video editor, so how am I *not* conforming? Im not sure if this is related, but ive had this same issue. (yes, ive also taken this to the blip group). Im posting my videos in 640x480. Blip page: http://blip.tv/file/596840 Permalink: http://blip.tv/file/get/Jaydedman-aStoryThatIsntYou166.mp4 But when I grab their embed code, the video is much smaller: http://www.momentshowing.net/2008/01/video-a-story-t.html They told me they shrink the video in the embed code since so many people were embedding blip videos on pages that couldnt fit 640x480. The videos would overlap the sidebars making the video look bad. (wish they said that somewhere) Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790 Professional: http://ryanishungry.com Personal: http://momentshowing.net Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9 It's not related, but it's similar. I have the same issue. I made my post width specifically large enough to contain 640wide video and I upload (for the most part) @ 640x360 or 640x480 and when you auto-crosspost, the thumbnail comes out smaller (480x270 or 480x360) and I have to tweak parameters to get it to my intended size. If you actually go to share and copy paste, you get a box where you can tweak parameters first and then use that to paste to your blog. Still... If someone uses the embed code from what you've posted using the most blogs and web sites option, it's going to be 'small' again, which, to me, makes sense because there's no telling where someone's going to try to embed it, and there's always the fullscreen button if people want to see it larger. -- Bill BillCammack.com Yahoo! Groups Links
RE: [videoblogging] Re: Blip.tv and 1.33 aspect ratio
Repost your question here: http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/blip-users/ Will do. What kind of file do you have that has the dimensions of 1440x1080? Every HDV camcorder on the planet records at 1440x1080. :) 16x9 = 1920x1080 or 1280x720 or 640x360 or 480x270 or 320x180 16x9 also = 1440x1080 displayed with a non-square pixel aspect ratio. It also equals the less common 1280x1080 displayed with a non-square pixel aspect ratio. And let's not forget our dear friend 960x720. If only aspect ratios were as simple as you describe them here. :) What do you have that plays back 1440x1080? Windows Media Player, iTunes, RealPlayer, VLC, and the list goes on. Jake Ludington http://www.jakeludington.com
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Blip.tv and 1.33 aspect ratio
Right - was just going to say that it sounds like HDV. You have to compress that first into some sort of quicktime or wmv, converting it to square pixels in the process so that it's one of those resolutions that Bill said - 1280 x 720, 640 x 360, etc. - Verdi On Jan 15, 2008 4:27 PM, Jake Ludington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Repost your question here: http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/blip-users/ Will do. What kind of file do you have that has the dimensions of 1440x1080? Every HDV camcorder on the planet records at 1440x1080. :) 16x9 = 1920x1080 or 1280x720 or 640x360 or 480x270 or 320x180 16x9 also = 1440x1080 displayed with a non-square pixel aspect ratio. It also equals the less common 1280x1080 displayed with a non-square pixel aspect ratio. And let's not forget our dear friend 960x720. If only aspect ratios were as simple as you describe them here. :) What do you have that plays back 1440x1080? Windows Media Player, iTunes, RealPlayer, VLC, and the list goes on. Jake Ludington http://www.jakeludington.com -- http://michaelverdi.com http://freevlog.org http://nscape.tv
RE: [videoblogging] Re: Blip.tv and 1.33 aspect ratio
Right - was just going to say that it sounds like HDV. You have to compress that first into some sort of quicktime or wmv, converting it to square pixels in the process so that it's one of those resolutions that Bill said - 1280 x 720, 640 x 360, etc. But that doesn't really address my question. I know I can convert to a square pixel resolution using my editing software. I *can* also opt to output a WMV, MOV or MPEG file with non-square pixels (I'm not saying this is the right way to do things, just pointing out the option). My question was why can't Blip do that for me? Jake Ludington http://www.jakeludington.com
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Blip.tv and 1.33 aspect ratio
You have to get the answer from the blip guys but I don't think the intent is for you to upload your full rez video. You compress your video and they host it (plus lots of other features). - Verdi On Jan 15, 2008 4:43 PM, Jake Ludington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Right - was just going to say that it sounds like HDV. You have to compress that first into some sort of quicktime or wmv, converting it to square pixels in the process so that it's one of those resolutions that Bill said - 1280 x 720, 640 x 360, etc. But that doesn't really address my question. I know I can convert to a square pixel resolution using my editing software. I *can* also opt to output a WMV, MOV or MPEG file with non-square pixels (I'm not saying this is the right way to do things, just pointing out the option). My question was why can't Blip do that for me? Jake Ludington http://www.jakeludington.com -- http://michaelverdi.com http://freevlog.org http://nscape.tv
RE: [videoblogging] Re: Blip.tv and 1.33 aspect ratio
You have to get the answer from the blip guys but I don't think the intent is for you to upload your full rez video. You compress your video and they host it (plus lots of other features). If I upload 1920x1080 or 1280x720 both are available for download at full rez and look correct in their Flash altered version, which leads me to think that it's a settings issue on their encoder. :) Jake Ludington http://www.jakeludington.com
RE: [videoblogging] Re: Blip.tv and 1.33 aspect ratio
Verdi, that's my point, exactly. My Canon HV-20 shoots 1440x1080. This is why I asked Jake what he has that's going to play it back. There's no reason that I can think of that blip should support those frame dimensions. I'm not asking them to support 1440x1080 at 1.33:1 on the Web, I am asking why they don't convert 1440x1080 1.33:1 properly. Big difference. The Blip encoder (apparently) assumes the video is 4:3 or some approximation of that and outputs a 4:3 file instead of respecting the aspect ratio of the video. You'd have the same problem with a video shot with one of the standard def camcorders that records a 720x480 widescreen mode. With millions of devices shooting files of these dimensions, I'm not asking for a fringe case exception to the rule. Jake, if all those media players play back your 1440x1080 file in the correct dimensions (meaning that if you filmed a square, it looks like a square, and not a rectangle in Windows Media Player, iTunes, etc), then I don't see what the problem is. The problem is inconsistent experience. And you make my point as to why Blip (or anyone else) should do the conversion correctly. Let's say I opt to leave my file at 1440x1080 because I want to deliver a pixel for pixel consistent experience with what I shot. If I make my RSS delivered file 1440x1080 1.33:1 the people who download the video will get the experience I intended because there media player will handle the file correctly because Blip merely hosts the file. The people who watch it on the Web will get a squished 4:3 experience. I'm not knocking your desire to have a file hosted in those dimensions. :) I'm trying to understand what the benefit is to you of having a file like that hosted. There are many potential benefits, one being more bits per pixel than stretching the 1440x1080 image to 1920x1080. There's a reason HDV records to 1440x1080 instead of 1920x1080 - at the required compression rate to fit on a MiniDV tape it looks better and you get efficiencies of encoding. HDV is not the only video medium that does this - many television shows are delivered this way (although you'd likely never know it), which doesn't make it right but is also an indication that I'm not simply being obtuse. For example, if someone posted that they were trying to get blip to host 60x200 videos, I would assume they were trying to make videos that fit as banner ads. Which would be an entirely different scenario. I'm not asking for support of dimensions not native to camcorders. If a camcorder shot at 60x200, then yes, they should support it. I have options of outputting a finished file from at least a half dozen programs that all result in a 1440x1080 1.33:1 file. Jake Ludington http://www.jakeludington.com
RE: [videoblogging] Re: Blip.tv and 1.33 aspect ratio
Good arguments, however, neither 1440x1080 nor 720x480 Anamorphic are meant to be viewed (as you stated in your other post, so I'm not telling you anything new) in those dimensions in square pixels. Since blip delivers video to computers, which use square pixels, IMO, there's no reason they should cater to anything other than 16x9 or 4x3 formats. One more time, with feeling: I'm not asking them to present non square pixels. I'm asking them to convert non-square pixels for the Web. As you say below: How come videos are expected to be formatted at television sizes (4:3 and 16:9)? I'm expecting them not to be and you're telling me I shouldn't. ;) And because I'm feeling snarky, from the Blip site: We're sending our top shows directly to the television set with Internet video on demand. And that's just the start. We believe that your show should be indistinguishable from a show on a broadcast network in terms of how people find and watch it. We're working hard to make this happen. More snark quoting Blip on the issue of formats: You shouldn't have to choose between great quality Flash video and compatibility with iTunes. Your videos should work everywhere, no question. That's why blip.tv supports every video format under the sun, from Flash 8 (much higher quality than most Flash video) to Quicktime (for the all-important iTunes) to DivX and 3gp (we think cell phones are cool, too). That sounds like a utility knife to me. ;) I think you bring up an interesting discussion. How come videos are expected to be formatted at television sizes (4:3 and 16:9)? other question is What is the benefit to a company to accommodate people that choose not to conform? If I'm an average video guy who just wants to make video, how would I know whether I'm conforming or not? I have a vision, my camera shoots at this resolution, I can output files in the same resolution from my video editor, so how am I *not* conforming? Jake Ludington http://www.jakeludington.com
