[videoblogging] Re: Slimmer's recipe for iPod H.264

[wazman_au]

OK. For completeness, and with due acknowledgement to Mike and Steve,
here's the RIGHT way to get H.264 mov files that work on an iPod. The
specs given at the start of this thread are not quite right because
they omit a step to set the video profile to baseline, which is
required by the iPod.

This is for the brothers and sisters who want to put out QuickTime mov
files using the H.264 codec, but want them to work on iPods as well.

A mov H.264 file has to use the "baseline" profile or it won't work on
an iPod. Problem is, QuickTime doesn't give you that option when you
export to a mov file. Yet you have to use mov if you want to retain
special QuickTime features like clickable links and other
interactive/funky stuff.

But there's a workaround that allows you to use the baseline profile
and make your mov file ipoddable.

* Export -> Movie to MPEG-4 file. Dig around in the settings and
options and select the H.264 codec, along with the framerate, bitrates
etc. that you like. And, vitally, the BASELINE profile. Baseline is
non-negotiable - my suggestions for the other settings come later on.
Make sure you've selected AAC audio, too. This first step is where
you'll be doing your compression of both video and audio, so make sure
you get the settings right for a good squeeze.
* Once you've exported (it might take a while), open the resulting
file in QuickTime. Add any text tracks, hyperlinks etc. THEN choose
SAVE AS and select the option to save your movie as a self-contained
movie. This should be fairly quick.

What you get is a mov file that contains baseline H.264 and it will
definitely work on an iPod. Of course, your links can't be clicked on
an iPod (yet) but people don't only watch your vids on an iPod do they???

OK, full credit to Mike and Steve for their work on this. Here are my
suggestions (previously posted elsewhere) for settings that produce
very watchable video at a reasonable file size.

These are based on Mike Verdi's 3ivx specs I've been using for a
while. They produce a slightly larger file (14.5
meg, compared with about 13.8 for 3ivx). But the H.264 version
supports a 50% higher bitrate than 3ivx; and a framerate of 24
compared with 12 for 3ivx. It is definitely more watchable than the
3ivx version.

Remember, these are the settings you use when originally exporting
your movie to an MPEG-4:

File format, MP4
Video format, H.264
Data rate, 225 kilobits/second (roughly 28 kilobytes/sec)
Optimized for download
Image size 320 x 240 QVGA
Frame Rate 24
Key Frame, automatic
Frame Reordering, box ticked
Then click Video Options, and ...
Restrict profile(s) to baseline.
Encoding mode best quality (multi-pass)
Then click OK 
Now in the second-top drop-down box select Audi
Format, AAC
Channels, mono
Data Rate 32kbps
Output sample rate 22.050kHz
Encoding quality better 

OK, then SAVE.

You're now outputting your MPEG-4. Follow the instructions above to
save the resulting file as a mov file.

Hope this helps someone,
Waz.
www.crashtestkitchen.com





 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Get Bzzzy! (real tools to help you find a job). Welcome to the Sweet Life.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/A77XvD/vlQLAA/TtwFAA/lBLqlB/TM
~-> 

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[videoblogging] Re: Slimmer's recipe for iPod H.264

[wazman_au]

Yes, we're using H.264 within a .mov file because of the extra
features available with .mov, such as clickable hyperlinks. 

Based on our vlog's stats, the vast majority of our watchers are using
 iTunes. So we place a link at the end of each vid hoping they'll
click through to our site and leave a comment. It works well.

Maybe we're cutting out some Linux users by not producing raw mpeg-4,
but I think that _in our case_ it's outweighed by the benefits of
using .mov files. I am not advocating either raw mpeg-4 or .mov as
being superior, just saying that it works best for us.

On iPod compatibility: based on the footnote on this page I'm
confident our files will be compatible:

http://www.apple.com/quicktime/tutorials/creatingvideo.html

Waz
www.crashtestkitchen.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 19:35:49 +0200, Steve Watkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
> wrote:
> 
> > I dont think he was suggesting they are totally the same in terms of
> > features, just that the video and audio tracks can be the same, and he
> > didnt mention the advantages of mov over mp4.
> 
> Same difference. He was talking about how everyone should use MP4
and not  
> MOV because one is open and one is closed. I'm just saying it's not
that  
> simple. One is just a file format - the other is an authoring
enviroment.  
> It's apples and oranges.
> 
> > But lets face it, though the mov-compatible stull like SMIL, chapter,
> > text etc that you mention are nice, most people never use any of them,
> > and thus its not relevent to them. Im sure more people would use some
> > of this stuff if it was inherently easy and more blindlingly obvious
> > how to do so using their exissting workflow & software tools, but as
> > we have seen with even basic meta-data, many people arent going to  
> > bother.
> 
> Not really an argument to use MP4. All the Cool Shit(tm) will
certainly  
> never be used if the format is phased out. Wince we are at the cutting  
> edge, working on making Cool Shit easier and/or promote it is what we  
> should do.
> 
> > This does tie back into discussion with you about videobloggins as a
> > tv-like experience vs interactive videoblogs. I think its safe to say
> > that we are not going to see the same level of interaction with mobile
> > video as you would expect and like of computer-viewed interactive
stuff.
> 
> The features of MOV can be used in both settings. They are nice
because  
> you can automate more stuff easier because you don't have to re-encode  
> your video every time you make a small change to a chapter or a bug.
> 
> > Some engadget article that someone linked to earlier suggested that
> > the new ipod cannot even fast forward or rewind video? Thats crazy if
> > true, and one element of 'interactivity' I wouldnt want to be without
> > on any platform. Still if it is true then it sure makes short things
> > like videoblogs more attractive to play on the ipod than longer stuff.
> 
> Fast forward? Rewind? Like a player has been able to do since the
VCR? The  
> days were rewinding is sold as a *feature* should be long gone by now.  
> Players should just do it.
> 
> - Andreas
> -- 
> http://www.solitude.dk/>
> Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.
>






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Fair play? Video games influencing politics. Click and talk back!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/T8sf5C/tzNLAA/TtwFAA/lBLqlB/TM
~-> 

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[videoblogging] Re: Slimmer's recipe for iPod H.264

[wazman_au]

To answer, Justin: "Yes, yes, and yes." And finally, "et cetera."

Our vlog was serving seven gigabytes a day recently, and even though
I've offloaded most of the content to Ourmedia I still think it's a
good idea to keep file sizes under control.

Basically I'm trying to keep each episodes a size that people will
feel is a reasonable download, while still allowing for reasonable
quality.

Waz
www.crashtestkitchen.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Justin Chapweske <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> In this context, what defines "too large to be practical"?  It is
> bandwidth cost?  Download speed?  Disk space utilization?
> 
> -Justin
>






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Most low income households are not online. Help bridge the digital divide today!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/cd_AJB/QnQLAA/TtwFAA/lBLqlB/TM
~-> 

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Slimmer's recipe for iPod H.264

[Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen]

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 19:35:49 +0200, Steve Watkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
wrote:

> I dont think he was suggesting they are totally the same in terms of
> features, just that the video and audio tracks can be the same, and he
> didnt mention the advantages of mov over mp4.

Same difference. He was talking about how everyone should use MP4 and not  
MOV because one is open and one is closed. I'm just saying it's not that  
simple. One is just a file format - the other is an authoring enviroment.  
It's apples and oranges.

> But lets face it, though the mov-compatible stull like SMIL, chapter,
> text etc that you mention are nice, most people never use any of them,
> and thus its not relevent to them. Im sure more people would use some
> of this stuff if it was inherently easy and more blindlingly obvious
> how to do so using their exissting workflow & software tools, but as
> we have seen with even basic meta-data, many people arent going to  
> bother.

Not really an argument to use MP4. All the Cool Shit(tm) will certainly  
never be used if the format is phased out. Wince we are at the cutting  
edge, working on making Cool Shit easier and/or promote it is what we  
should do.

> This does tie back into discussion with you about videobloggins as a
> tv-like experience vs interactive videoblogs. I think its safe to say
> that we are not going to see the same level of interaction with mobile
> video as you would expect and like of computer-viewed interactive stuff.

The features of MOV can be used in both settings. They are nice because  
you can automate more stuff easier because you don't have to re-encode  
your video every time you make a small change to a chapter or a bug.

> Some engadget article that someone linked to earlier suggested that
> the new ipod cannot even fast forward or rewind video? Thats crazy if
> true, and one element of 'interactivity' I wouldnt want to be without
> on any platform. Still if it is true then it sure makes short things
> like videoblogs more attractive to play on the ipod than longer stuff.

Fast forward? Rewind? Like a player has been able to do since the VCR? The  
days were rewinding is sold as a *feature* should be long gone by now.  
Players should just do it.

- Andreas
-- 
http://www.solitude.dk/>
Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Get Bzzzy! (real tools to help you find a job). Welcome to the Sweet Life.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/A77XvD/vlQLAA/TtwFAA/lBLqlB/TM
~-> 

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[videoblogging] Re: Slimmer's recipe for iPod H.264

[Steve Watkins]

Cheers for the guide. 

The one issue I worry about with ipod compatible h264 is that
according to apples apecs, it only supports the h264 profile called
'baseline'.

Now if I go to manually export h264 .mp4 in quicktime, in the video
options section there is the following:
restrict profiles to:

Main
Extended (greyed out)
Baseline

It looks to me like main is ticked by default, but in theory for ipod
compatible h264 I believe you need to untick main and tick baseline. 

Like I said thats just in theory, as far as I know video ipods are
likely available sometime between this wednesday and this saturday,
according to what steve jobs said and other articles published last
week. So I think we have to wait a little longer to see what the
reality is.

People wondering if their existing mpeg4 or h264 videos are ipod
compatible should not forget to make sure their audio is the right
format also. Luckily it seems most people use AAC, but theres one or 2
who use something else that wont work on the ipod.

Cheers

Steve of Elbows

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "wazman_au" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I should have mentioned that the encoding was really slow compared
> with what I've been used to when encoding in 3ivx. I think this might
> be because of the multi-pass setting. You could probably use single
> pass but my understanding is the compression might not be as efficient.
> 
> Also, how I found out the "Movie to iPod" presets: I opened an
> existing AVI file, exported it using the "Movie to iPod" setting,
> opened the resulting file in QuickTime and looked under Window -> Show
> Movie Info.
> 
> The Apple iPod website suggests the video iPod is available now, so it
> will be interesting to see how they sell and what resulting feedback
> we get on our video podcasts.
> 
> All the best,
> Waz.
> www.crashtestkitchen.com
> 
> 
> 
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Deirdre Straughan
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > This is very helpful, thanks. Does anyone in the group have a
video iPod
> > yet? It would be nice to be able to test and see what actually works!
> > 
> > --
> > best regards,
> > Deirdré Straughan
> > 
> > www.straughan.com  (personal)
> > www.tvblob.com  (work)
> >
>






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Most low income households are not online. Help bridge the digital divide today!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/cd_AJB/QnQLAA/TtwFAA/lBLqlB/TM
~-> 

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[videoblogging] Re: Slimmer's recipe for iPod H.264

[Steve Watkins]

I dont think he was suggesting they are totally the same in terms of
features, just that the video and audio tracks can be the same, and he
didnt mention the advantages of mov over mp4.

But lets face it, though the mov-compatible stull like SMIL, chapter,
text etc that you mention are nice, most people never use any of them,
and thus its not relevent to them. Im sure more people would use some
of this stuff if it was inherently easy and more blindlingly obvious
how to do so using their exissting workflow & software tools, but as
we have seen with even basic meta-data, many people arent going to bother.

This does tie back into discussion with you about videobloggins as a
tv-like experience vs interactive videoblogs. I think its safe to say
that we are not going to see the same level of interaction with mobile
video as you would expect and like of computer-viewed interactive stuff. 

>From the printed spec, the ipod will play .mp4, m4v and mov, so its
not much of an issue with that device (except im sure the ipod mov
support wont support (m)any of .movs advantages anyway).

For me cross platform compatibility and not being tied to one company
are the most important factors, so I am (obviouslly by now) in the
.mp4 supporters club, only use mov if you have a good reason.

Some engadget article that someone linked to earlier suggested that
the new ipod cannot even fast forward or rewind video? Thats crazy if
true, and one element of 'interactivity' I wouldnt want to be without
on any platform. Still if it is true then it sure makes short things
like videoblogs more attractive to play on the ipod than longer stuff.

Steve of Elbows
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> The two are not interchangeable like you suggest. MP4 doesn't
support all  
> the nice things .mov does - like SMIL, chapter, text and sprite
tracks or  
> links.
> 
> - Andreas
> -- 
> http://www.solitude.dk/>
> Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.
>






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Fair play? Video games influencing politics. Click and talk back!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/T8sf5C/tzNLAA/TtwFAA/lBLqlB/TM
~-> 

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[videoblogging] Re: Slimmer's recipe for iPod H.264

[wazman_au]

I should have mentioned that the encoding was really slow compared
with what I've been used to when encoding in 3ivx. I think this might
be because of the multi-pass setting. You could probably use single
pass but my understanding is the compression might not be as efficient.

Also, how I found out the "Movie to iPod" presets: I opened an
existing AVI file, exported it using the "Movie to iPod" setting,
opened the resulting file in QuickTime and looked under Window -> Show
Movie Info.

The Apple iPod website suggests the video iPod is available now, so it
will be interesting to see how they sell and what resulting feedback
we get on our video podcasts.

All the best,
Waz.
www.crashtestkitchen.com



--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Deirdre Straughan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This is very helpful, thanks. Does anyone in the group have a video iPod
> yet? It would be nice to be able to test and see what actually works!
> 
> --
> best regards,
> Deirdré Straughan
> 
> www.straughan.com  (personal)
> www.tvblob.com  (work)
>






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Most low income households are not online. Help bridge the digital divide today!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/cd_AJB/QnQLAA/TtwFAA/lBLqlB/TM
~-> 

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/