Playing this on my PC, I got a much larger image than usual.  The audio was fine and smooth but the picture was jerky and skipped between frames. I never had any problems playing Rocketboom before.
 
 
Randolfe (Randy) Wicker
 
Videographer, Writer, Activist
Advisor: The Immortality Institute
Hoboken, NJ
http://www.randywickerreporting.blogspot.com/
201-656-3280
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005 3:56 PM
Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: ffmpegX for mac now supports ipod h264

Actually, I have not been using the ffmpeg presets. I use the 
standard QT setting inside ffmpeg.

When I first tried this out when QT7 released, encoding h264 was very 
slow.

Thats not the case now, even in QT.

I think the H264 encodes faster than 3ivx from both ffmpeg expert 
settings and QT expert settings.

Check out this file which I was able to really optimize:
http://www.rocketboom.com/video/rb_05_nov_28_full.mov

It is only 24megs. It encoded super fast.




On Dec 2, 2005, at 3:35 PM, Steve Watkins wrote:

> Its a combination of factors. H264 is more demanding to encode and
> decode, but also Apple have not made the best job of it. There are
> faster h264 encoders than quicktime, and if you can live with
> single-pass rather than dualpass, it helps.
>
> Andrew's experience is due to the encoder used by ffmpegx in ipod h264
> mode, its an encoder called x264. Similar software for windows and
> linux that uses x264 should give similar results.
>
> And also the default settings. Andrew's seeing really low filesizes
> because ffmpegx have skimped a bit on the default bitrate in ffmpegx
> ipod h264 mode, its only 290kbits/sec. Nice and small fles, but not
> good enough quality for me, I just tried it. I stuck the video bitrate
> back up to 600 and got much nicer quality image, but the filesizes we
> are more used to seeing (no surprise really). Encoding was still fast,
> though again it defaults to single-pass mode so that helps a bit.
>
> Anyway using the same bitrate and settings there shouldnt be much
> variation in filesizes between quicktime 7 encoded h264 and h264 made
> with any other method. But encoding times and quality may vary
> considerably, so its worth not writing h264 off based on experience of
> quicktime7 alone. Same is true for playback to a certain extent, try
> another player (eg VLC) if youve had poor h264 playback on a machine
> in the past ith qt7 on windows or mac.
>
> None of this really helps with the 'can the masses easily see h264 in
> a browser' issue at the moment though, it just provides alternative
> solutions for those who want to dabble in this stuff either as
> creators or viewers.
>
> Steve of Elbows
>
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "T.Whid" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> They render really fast too.
>>
>> My experience is that, tho I think the H264 looks better at smaller
>> sizes, it's slow as dirt to encode. At least with QT... haven't tried
>> any other encoders.
>>
>> cheers,
>>
>> On 12/2/05, andrew michael baron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Ive been using it and its AMAZING how small in file size H.264s are
>>> compared to Mpeg and 3ivx.
>>>
>>> They render really fast too.
>>>
>>> H264 will take over quickly, I think, because its that much better.
>>>
>>> On Dec 2, 2005, at 2:41 PM, Steve Watkins wrote:
>>>
>>>> New version of ffmpegx came out the other day that apparently
> supports
>>>> ipod h264, Im just giving it a try now. Its probably a bit too 
>>>> nerdy
>>>> for some, hopefully iSquint will be able to learn the h264 ipod
>>>> secrets used in this ffmpegX, and also add ipod 264 support.
>>>>
>>>> ffmpegx:
>>>>
>>>> http://homepage.mac.com/major4/
>>>>
>>>> isquint:
>>>>
>>>> http://homepage.mac.com/tylerl82/
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> <twhid>www.mteww.com</twhid>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------
> ~-->
> Fair play? Video games influencing politics. Click and talk back!
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/u8TY5A/tzNLAA/yQLSAA/lBLqlB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> ~->
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>



YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS




Reply via email to