--- In [email protected], "heytobey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I then opened QT Pro and exported as 'movie to QT movie' 
> Frame rate =15
> key frame = 5
> 
> I exported same .avi file in QT Pro but this time I chose: Movie to Mp4
> Frame rate = 30
> keyframe = 24
> 
> Now this video came out a bit smaller in size but you can see some
> sections that have a 'blurriness' to it. 
> 
> Tobey
>

The number next to "key frame" stands for "create a key frame every [number] 
frames".  In 
your first video, you made a key frame every 5 out of 15 frames.  In the second 
one, you 
made one every 24 out of 30 frames.  In both cases, "frames" stands for "frames 
per 
second", so in the first video, you were making three key frames per second, 
and in the 
second one, you were barely making ONE key frame per second.

Basically, let's say that key frames are 'definite' frames, and the frames in 
between them 
are interpretations from those key frames, and not their own "stand alone" 
frames.  This 
means that in the first video, you made one key frame and four interpretations, 
then 
repeated.  In the second video, you made one key frame, then 23 
interpretations, then 
repeated.

Video 1:KiiiiKiiiiKiiii every second.

Video 2: KiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiKiiiiii every second.

Your H.264 looked "blurry" to you because the computer was 'guessing' at the 
i-frames 
instead of creating "stand alone" frames.  Also, any time you change scenes in 
between 
key frames, the computer's REALLY not going to know what to make of it.

Your solution is to decrease the number next to "key frames", which actually 
_increases_ 
the number of key frames that you create per second.

Also, since you chose 30 frames instead of 15 frames, not only were you making 
more 
'guessing' for the computer by having all those i-frames in a row, but you 
doubled the 
amount of frames that the computer had to compress into your data rate.  H.264 
looks 
much nicer than Mpeg-4 at the same data rate, so it would have made up for the 
difference in this case, but if you had used the same codec, you would have 
been able to 
see the difference.

--
Bill C.
http://ems.blip.tv 

Reply via email to