Wow! What a difference... I checked my cpu usage on each playing in QTPro and there was a difference: 29.97 fps ran @ 23-25MB and 15 fps ran @ 21-22.5MB - fairly negligible on my machines... I wonder if will have greater impact on other people's machines.
The entire tone of the video was different. I have uploaded the new video: 29.97 fps: http://blip.tv/file/get/K9disc-RememberTheSun2997Fps973.mov 15 fps: http://blip.tv/file/get/K9disc- theArtOfK9DiscRememberTheSun514.mov It is a huge improvement, and am thinking I am going to do all my stuff on 29.97. I had no idea the file size was so similar. Anyone know what this does to the Flash versions in terms of quality? Thanks so much Steve... Cheers, Ron On Jan 8, 2007, at 10:23 PM, Mike Hudack wrote: > The issue with 15/30fps is not just file size. CPU utilization is also > a concern. H.264 and On2 VP6 (Flash 8 video) are extremely > CPU-intensive, and other codecs are as well but to a lesser extent. > Going from 15 to 30 fps doubles your CPU utilization on decompression. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Watkins > > Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 8:31 PM > > To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com > > Subject: [videoblogging] Re: FPS setting for high motion video? > > > > Those do seem quite good. > > > > I suppose there may be other factors which make some of the > > 15fps stuff Ive seen seem much more jerky than your videos, > > Ive never worked out why I seem to notice it more with > > certain videos, and be put off it, and not others. I guess > > 15fps might be slightly less appropriate for people in PAL > > countries where the standard framearate is 25, and so 15 is > > not halving the framerate. But I think theres some other > > factors at work, dunno. > > > > Last time I discussed this here, it seemed I was in a > > minority with my complaining about 15fps. > > > > Certainly traditional TV, and some areas of the 'science of > > motion pictures', suggests that 25 or 30 fps, 50 or 60 fps > > interlaced, is necessary to give results that really look > > smooth to the mind (similar to rate of fluorescent tube > > lighting rate needing to be 50Hz or much higher to avoid the > > brain picking up flickering). And some gamers spend quite a > > lot of money trying to get high framerates of over 100fps for > > maximum gaming experience, but I guess just like resolution, > > video on the internet has proved that much lower rates can be > > gotten away with without totally spoiling the experience. > > > > If anybody is curious Id say just try encoding your footage > > at the native framerate of your camera, and see how much you > > can or cannot tell the difference. Your files wont end up > > twice as large or anything like that, under most > > circumstances, for reasons I wont waffle about right now. > > > > I guess its probably not worth losing any sleep over either > > way, would love it if people ocasionally revisited the issue > > rather than everyone 15fps-ing it just because its what > > they've gotten used to doing, but the more I think about it > > the more I recall how unimportant it seemed to end up when I > > waffled about this 18 months->2 years ago. > > > > Cheers > > > > Steve Elbows > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Ron Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > I would be interested in this discussion as well. > > > Can 15 fps deliver nice video with high motion? > > > > > > I think the .mov files I post at http://k9disc.blip.tv do a pretty > > > good job, and I believe they are 15 fps. (Pick an outdoor > > vid for high > > > motion.) > > > > > > Can I do better with a different frame rate? > > > > > > I just went with 15 because I thought it would at least be an even > > > motion, being half ntsc and all. > > > > > > I'd love to hear more about this. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Ron > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
