Frank,
Thanks for taking the time to make those wmv files.
On Oct 24, 2005, at 6:43 PM, Frank Carver wrote:
To that end I have re-encoded your source AVI at 256kbps and 384kbps
(more common WMV bitrates) for comparison. To me there seems little by
way of difference in quality between these
Tuesday, October 25, 2005, 1:48:17 PM, Verdi wrote:
URL: http://michaelverdi.com/codec/256_H264.mov (481KB)
URL: http://michaelverdi.com/codec/256_3ivx.mov (561KB)
URL: http://michaelverdi.com/codec/384_H264.mov (725KB)
URL: http://michaelverdi.com/codec/384_3ivx.mov (729KB)
The point
Okay, first the easy part. Both of those clips - the 3ivx and the
H.264 - should be fine on the iPod. (I'm still waiting to receive mine)
Settings. Let me start with H.264.
Video
320 X 240
15fps
Automatic keyframes
restrict bit rate to 355kbits/sec
compressor quality high
Better quality
As a user, I really wish people would stop encoding at less than 768
Kbps. Anything below that looks awful, and anyone on broadband should
be able to fast start it. Apple picked the right trade offs with the
video iPod and I think people should use those specs _at a minimum_.
I've been targeting
On 10/25/05, Verdi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The point of this discussion, for me, was to point out what I feel is an often repeated and unfair criticism of
QuickTime, by Windows users. Namely, you can't make QuickTime clips as small as Windows Media. [is wrong]
On 10/24/05, Frank Carver
using 3ivx as per Verid's new tutorial video, my MOV files are fully twice the filesize as my WMV files.
The MOVs are slightly better quality ... but not so much so as to be worth 2x the file size IMHO. I mean I'm still gonna have to find a way to do it as I want to be on the iPod ... but I
You're still comparing apples and oranges. I told you I was talking about
low datarates. Verdi's tutorial sets the bitrate at 600 kbits/s (75 KB/s).
Try comparing at a low datarate like 160kbits/s (20 KB/s) - remember to
set the same datarate for your WMV. When I create WMV with Movie Maker
Sorry David,
I'm getting really frustrated by these responses. The only reason
the tutorial you followed produced a file twice as big as your WMV
file is because it was encoded at twice the bit rate. It has nothing
to do with quicktime or 3ivx. If you want to do an experiment you
have
ok maybe I should have been clearer ...
When I limit the bit rate when publishing quicktime/3ivx such that I get a filesize at about the same size as the WMV, the MOV version looks far far worse.
On 10/24/05, Verdi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry David,I'm getting really frustrated by these
When using single pass, you can use Average Bitrate, Constant Quality and Constant Bitrate.With 3iVX, I recommend using Average Bitrate, MED quality.The default setting are:MAX QUALITY = 100%MIN QUALITY = 10%This usually works for me. But if you want to drastically alter the quality/file size
On Oct 24, 2005, at 1:35 AM, David Meade wrote:
ok maybe I should have been clearer ...
When I limit the bit rate when publishing quicktime/3ivx such that
I get a filesize at about the same size as the WMV, the MOV version
looks far far worse.
That's never been my experience.
I
On 10/24/05, Verdi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you want to do an experiment youhave to have a control.In this case it would be the file size or
the quality.
That's what I was trying to say ... the result I was talking about produced two files that seemed to have about the same quality. Yes
around the 24/10/05 David Meade mentioned about Re: [videoblogging]
QuickTime (and anything else) can make that:
using 3ivx as per Verid's new tutorial video, my MOV files are fully
twice the filesize as my WMV files.
The MOVs are slightly better quality ... but not so much so as to be
worth
On Oct 24, 2005, at 2:10 AM, Adrian Miles wrote:
i haven't seen michael's latest guide but if it still suggests
forcing keyframes at the rate of every n frmaes then yes, your
results will be poor in terms of final file size. H.264 and 3.ivx
both support natural keyframes. enabling this is
On Oct 24, 2005, at 11:01 AM, Verdi wrote:
Ultimatly, I think it's a matter of preference and looking forward, I
don't see video delivery via the internet heading in the direction of
200kps. I tell people that videoblogging requires broadband for both
production and consumption. If we were
On Oct 24, 2005, at 12:39 PM, andrew michael baron wrote:
By serving a .3gp file for the phone, this doubles as a great way for
international and low-band audience to get the content when quality/
time must be compromised. Almost all of our 3gp files weigh in under
2megs total.
I never
Best to not embed 3gp files in a page unless its specifaclly for low-
band users with a specific player, because you wouldnt want to limit
the players.
If you do not embed, the file can launch in whatever player is set up
on the platform.
I updated the Apache .htaccess file with the
Monday, October 24, 2005, 8:40:02 AM, Verdi wrote:
I compressed some files to compare. Windows Movie Maker didn't give
me many options so I went with the 768kbps, 320 X 240 30fps preset.
Windows Media Player says it's 705kbps when it's playing back which
pretty much meshes with the math
On Oct 23, 2005, at 6:31 PM, Gena wrote:
I couldn't use .mov because of the file size - too large for dial-up.
This, for some unknown reason, is an often repeated and completely
untrue criticism of QuickTime. By enforcing a limit on the bit rate,
you can make anything small enough for
That remark was made in a comparison to ther file types. The link
you sent is very nice quality and all .. but its half the size of what
we normall use on vlogs ... its appls and oranges.
The question/concern was about how files (for videos of the same
size/fps) have such dratmatically
On 10/23/05, David Meade [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The new tutorial you made fot 3ivx/MOV is really good and I'm still
gonna try some new stuff ... but doing as it describes makes a .MOV
files that is twice as large file size than the WMV of the same
thing. (the Mov did have better quality ...
..how crappy of a file I am willing to post..
bwahahahaa!
On 10/23/05, Verdi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Oct 23, 2005, at 6:31 PM, Gena wrote:
I couldn't use .mov because of the file size - too large for dial-up.
This, for some unknown reason, is an often repeated and completely
untrue
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 04:16:39 +0200, Jake Ludington
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The more accurate criticism is at comparable bitrates, WMV targeted for
dial-up users looks better than MOV. This is one of the many reasons
Apple
adopted MP4 as their alternate standard.
MOV isn't a codec, so
23 matches
Mail list logo
