Re: [videoblogging] Re: comparison of quicktime compression techniques

2006-04-27 Thread Michael Verdi
I forgot to send this yesterday. It's not a full on comparrison but I did make a 3ivx dual pass tutorial for Freevlog. The post also links to a regular Apple mpeg 4 and a 3ivx dual pass version of a test clip. Also, in the begining of the tutorial I show a sample frame from those two videos plus

Re: [videoblogging] Re: comparison of quicktime compression techniques

2006-04-25 Thread Michael Verdi
On 4/25/06, Stan Hirson, Sarah Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I would suggest that the test clip have more movement than Verdi on thetoilet (pardon the pun) -- although I thought it was funny as hell andlaughed all he way through it -- or the aquarium. I agree -Verdi SPONS

Re: [videoblogging] Re: comparison of quicktime compression techniques

2006-04-25 Thread Michael Verdi
On 4/25/06, Andreas Haugstrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: That is because your clip is very short. If the clip is only one secondthe difference in file size will be equal to the bitrate (ie. with 50kbpsand 25kbps the difference in file size will be 25kb or about 3 kilobyte). If the clip is one mi

Re: [videoblogging] Re: comparison of quicktime compression techniques

2006-04-25 Thread Andreas Haugstrup
On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 23:35:08 +0200, Andy Carvin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Actually, I created a bunch of clips with various bit rates, but when > I then reviewed their file size, for some reason I saw little > difference in them. For example: That is because your clip is very short. If the