[videoblogging] Re: The Best Codec

Mon, 02 Jan 2006 03:14:13 -0800


Hi Steve of Elbows,

Your reply was really useful. Thanks for taking the time. I'd like to reply/ask about 3 issues:

> Why not embrace a format like .mp4
> container with mpeg4 video, as it isnt controlled by any one company.
> Choice of encoder, choice of player. Just because Aple is doing a lot
> of the visible stuff with promoting .mp4, doesnt mean they control it,
> eg realplayer can play mpeg4 too if you tell it too.

I recently got the $30 QuickTime Pro 7 player/encoder for converting my raw clips to MP4. I bought it only with the idea of comparing file size/quality to the results of the other codecs. BTW, I joined this group just a few days ago, and I think I understand the way you're all using the term "container".
So, ***are you saying that Windows XP & Mac users can read MP4 files in the player of their choice without having to make special efforts in  downloading a player codec for MP4?***  If this is the case, I'm going to start re-encoding my raw library of video into mp4, because the results look really good, even if the the filesize/quality issue is inferior to the real codec.

> I guess its probably really the filesize/quality issue that has won
> you over?
Yes, absolutely. I want good quality streaming faster than you can say "real".

> Thats fair enough, just cant avoid the fact that other
> people may balance factors differently and so thats why real isnt used
> much, it scores poorly on other fronts.

Can't agree more. And what a waste! The Real Media company seems to have absolute geniuses in charge of technical codec issues, & the worst people in the video world in charge of distribution and marketing.

> What bitrate etc are you using to achieve the quality/filesize that
> you are happy with in real? I would like to compare it to a few
> things, as I am also very much influenced by quality factors.

These are my typical encoding specs below, although I change them now and then to see if any users tell me that the quality and "speed of stream start" isn't as good as my standard one:
First of all, I only do single audience encoding (which helps explain why my video file sizes are so small), despite the fact that the Real Producer 10 Plus can encode for a couple dozen audiences at the same time. I figure there's simply no reason to encode for 56K modem users anymore, and why bother to encode for those with extremely fast DSL or T1 or T2? They are rare, lucky people, who will see good results anyway with these lowish DSL rates (Next year this might change drastically, which is why I keep my raw video files on a couple 400GB hard disks with DVD data backups so as to re-encode in the future for future average rates).
**Source: half of the video in the clip below was shot in 1994 with a single chip Hi-8, and half was shot very recently with a new cheap 3-chip Panasonic
**Encoding after capture and editing in Raw Intel Indeo:
Total Video+Audio Bit Rate: 225 Kbps
Size: 320x240
Frame Rate: 25 fps (I live in France and shoot in PAL when I'm in the States)
Video Bit Rate only: 193 Kbps
Audio Bit Rate only: 32 Kbps, mono, at 22 Mhz
 
Example: I am not trying to promote my site here, honest (and you don't have to learn English as a Second Language anyway!), it's just really easy to see the subjective result by going to www.real-english.com and click on "Sample Video" which should begin streaming in 2 seconds at the most in average conditions of general traffic, for low to average DSL/cable users. This "What have you got" clip was encoded exactly as described above. This one is 9 minutes long and takes up less than 15 megs on my hard disk!
Thanks again for your input,
Mike Marzio


 

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



Reply via email to