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 http://www.blogger.com/profile/11159903
New Media Publisher, Editor, Video Journalist, Webcaster, Futurecaster
Santa Cruz CA, Beach of the Silicon Valley
URL http://FutureMedia.org
RSS http://feeds.feedburner.com/FutureMedia
iTunes http://tinyurl.com/8ql87

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.
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/
 


Reply via email to