The group seems to be against the idea of using H.264 due to the  
smaller installed base of QuickTime 7 seats. I am using HandBrake to  
achieve less than 1 MB per minute. Please tell us what size per  
minute you are shooting for.
Taylor Barcroft
New Media Publisher, Editor, Video Journalist, Webcaster, Futurecaster
Santa Cruz CA, Beach of the Silicon Valley

On Sep 27, 2005, at 10:37 PM, Richard Bennett-Forrest wrote:

> So much so that in my tests I was able to compress my standard H.264
> 320x240 videos down to a much smaller file size with roughly the same
> video quality, but at 480x320 and 640x480 resolution, depending on
> the content. Smaller file, same quality, larger resolution. Sounds
> good 'ey?
> I think we all standardised on 320x240 because it was a small file
> size and consistent with client windows in Ant and other apps.
> Which begs the question, are people happy with 320x240, or would a
> larger size be preferable? Would Ant choke on larger sizes? Would
> they be displayed at the larger size, or just be scaled to the
> 320x240 window? Same questions re the new iTunes video playback.
> With bandwidth exploding, I'm seriously considering upping my output
> resolution for roughly the same file size.
> Does anyone have any concerns or feedback on this?

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Get Bzzzy! (real tools to help you find a job). Welcome to the Sweet Life.

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

Reply via email to