Re: [videoblogging] files
biggest mistake is to set manual keyframes. make them automatic (also known as natural), will produce better compression results and generally smaller file sizes... an appropriate closing Adrian Miles School of Media and Communication Program Director B.Comm Honours vogmae.net.au On 7 June 2010 14:44, Tom Dolan tomjdo...@gmail.com wrote: Thanx for taking the time to explain that Adrian, I guess I'll select 'quick start' when I convert. I use Quick Time Pro to convert from iMovie to a QT movie which I then upload to YouTube, blip and a few others. My files have been very large, even after following the advice of a very popular vid-blogger. I don't like the resolution that he apparently finds acceptable. But thru trial error just the other day, I discovered a combo of selections that reduced my file size to about 1/3 size with ok acceptable rez. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] files
Hi, Can someone tell me the meaning of: Flattened movie or video file? I'm looking into different ways to compress for the web from iMovie and occasionally I see this term. Thanx Tom Dolan tomjdolan.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] files
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 10:21 AM, Tom Dolan tomjdo...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, Can someone tell me the meaning of: Flattened movie or video file? I'm looking into different ways to compress for the web from iMovie and occasionally I see this term. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=flattened+video+file Which links to stuff like this: http://developer.apple.com/mac/library/qa/qtmtb/qtmtb47.html Dave.
Re: [videoblogging] files
Flattening the movie interleaves data through the file structure. The aim (from memory) is to have key data up front so the player gets it first and doesn't have to wait for it to arrive. I don't know what data this is but imagine it would be things like: duration frame rate gamma volume metadata (who, when, etc) Actually, that's what fast start does. I think flattening only interleaves the data so that it is 'packed' into the file format in the most efficient way for playback. For fast start the object is to let the video be able to begin playing before all the media has arrived (aka fast start). This was (and is) an innovation as in the early days of video, unless you were using RTSP, the entire media file would have to be delivered before it could play. With long and large files this was a nuisance. It might sound obvious, but it wasn't at the time. (Imagine being able to start reading a very large Word doc in Word, that was online, before all the pages had arrived, that's what flattening - and fast start - help to achieve). an appropriate closing Adrian Miles School of Media and Communication Program Director B.Comm Honours vogmae.net.au On 7 June 2010 10:21, Tom Dolan tomjdo...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, Can someone tell me the meaning of: Flattened movie or video file? I'm looking into different ways to compress for the web from iMovie and occasionally I see this term. Thanx Tom Dolan tomjdolan.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: videoblogging-dig...@yahoogroups.com videoblogging-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: videoblogging-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [videoblogging] files
Thanx for taking the time to explain that Adrian, I guess I'll select 'quick start' when I convert. I use Quick Time Pro to convert from iMovie to a QT movie which I then upload to YouTube, blip and a few others. My files have been very large, even after following the advice of a very popular vid-blogger. I don't like the resolution that he apparently finds acceptable. But thru trial error just the other day, I discovered a combo of selections that reduced my file size to about 1/3 size with ok acceptable rez. Anyway, I was happy about that. Again, Thanx. Some folks on this site seem to have an elevated opinion re: their opinion and so I don't engage the group often. You've been considerate. Thank you, Tom Dolan On Jun 6, 2010, at 6:46 PM, Adrian Miles wrote: Flattening the movie interleaves data through the file structure. The aim (from memory) is to have key data up front so the player gets it first and doesn't have to wait for it to arrive. I don't know what data this is but imagine it would be things like: duration frame rate gamma volume metadata (who, when, etc) Actually, that's what fast start does. I think flattening only interleaves the data so that it is 'packed' into the file format in the most efficient way for playback. For fast start the object is to let the video be able to begin playing before all the media has arrived (aka fast start). This was (and is) an innovation as in the early days of video, unless you were using RTSP, the entire media file would have to be delivered before it could play. With long and large files this was a nuisance. It might sound obvious, but it wasn't at the time. (Imagine being able to start reading a very large Word doc in Word, that was online, before all the pages had arrived, that's what flattening - and fast start - help to achieve). an appropriate closing Adrian Miles School of Media and Communication Program Director B.Comm Honours vogmae.net.au On 7 June 2010 10:21, Tom Dolan tomjdo...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, Can someone tell me the meaning of: Flattened movie or video file? I'm looking into different ways to compress for the web from iMovie and occasionally I see this term. Thanx Tom Dolan tomjdolan.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links Tom Dolan tomjdolan.com
Re: [videoblogging] files
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 2:44 PM, Tom Dolan tomjdo...@gmail.com wrote: Thanx for taking the time to explain that Adrian, I guess I'll select 'quick start' when I convert. I use Quick Time Pro to convert from iMovie to a QT movie which I then upload to YouTube, blip and a few others. My files have been very large, even after following the advice of a very popular vid-blogger. I don't like the resolution that he apparently finds acceptable. But thru trial error just the other day, I discovered a combo of selections that reduced my file size to about 1/3 size with ok acceptable rez. Here are some Apple recommendations: http://www.apple.com/quicktime/tutorials/h264.html What settings do other people use for their final output? For my talking head blog I generate 1280x720 MP4 at either 2000Kbps or 2500Kbps average sample rate using Handbrake, using 2 pass encoding if I'm not in a hurry. Uploaded to Youtube. Sometimes I'll use 3000Kbps or a bit higher for slightly higher quality if I think my content deserves it or has more motion content than normal. Dave.
Re: [videoblogging] files
For YouTube I've been using 2 - 4mbps for ages, but recently I've upped myself to 10-20mpbs on short clips and it really does improve things. If one can afford the bandwidth there's no reason not to go even higher - there's a 20GB limit, right? j For my talking head blog I generate 1280x720 MP4 at either 2000Kbps or 2500Kbps average sample rate using Handbrake, using 2 pass encoding if I'm not in a hurry. Uploaded to Youtube. Sometimes I'll use 3000Kbps or a bit higher for slightly higher quality if I think my content deserves it or has more motion content than normal. Dave. Yahoo! Groups Links -- --- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com Secretary - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org ---
Re: [videoblogging] files
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 3:16 PM, Joly MacFie j...@punkcast.com wrote: For YouTube I've been using 2 - 4mbps for ages, but recently I've upped myself to 10-20mpbs on short clips and it really does improve things. If one can afford the bandwidth there's no reason not to go even higher - there's a 20GB limit, right? 20GB for partners, 2GB for the plebs. It also depends on your source material. My Sanyo Xacti shoots at 1280x720 6Mbps, so it's kinda pointless to render any higher than that on my final output. Especially after there being slight loss due to the rendering to MP2 and then converting back to the final MP4. For short and/or important clips I'll ramp it up, but a 1 hour long talking head blog episode gets the 2Mbps treatment :- Dave.
