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 2000 Kbps @ 720x480 for SD material, and the results have been pretty good with both 3ivx and H.264.
-Justin > Second, While I can see that the examples you chose seem to give > equivalent quality, they are all at much higher bit rates (and thus > larger sizes) than I would normally use for my WMV files. > > 1.5MB for 15 seconds works out at about 6MB/minute. I much prefer my > WMVs to be more like 2MB/minute. > > 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 and your much larger files, > but I'm certainly not a video quality expert. > > http://www.makevideo.org.uk/direct/source-256.wmv (552KB) > http://www.makevideo.org.uk/direct/source-384.wmv (775KB) > > Both are 320x240 15fps and use Windows Media 9 audio and video codecs > > Can anyone match their size with your Quicktime skills and software so > we can compare quality at these rates? I know so little about > producing Quicktime files that I have so far been unable to do so > myself. > ------------------------ 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/
