If I may suggest. I am no expert on video encoding techniques, but I would consider myself an expert on playback and user experience. For exmaple I would recommend flash playback for in the browser if possible, and MP4 as your primary video format for compatibility with the most computers, software, and hardware like the iPod, and PSP.
That said I have also recommended in the past and recommend now... that if you encode your videos at 320x240 that you present them on your blog by embedding them in the page at approximately 375x500 allowing for considerations due your page layout. Some people have a wider main column, and some people have a slightly narrower main column. Don't actually encode the videos at an alternative larger size. It's really just a waste of time, server space and bandwidth. The truth is the human eye cannot detect every pixel at 15 fps. Sure you wouldn't present a JPG or a GIF in your web page at a higher resolution than it actually is... but they are STATIC not moving at 15fps. Most people, even critical film editor types would not be able to recognize the difference between a video enocded at 320x240 and presented at 500 pixels... vs one actually encodded at 500 pixels and presented at 500 pixels. We did this at mefeedia.com about 3-4 months ago. We now display ALL videos at approximately 480 pixels wide (it was the best for our page layout) regardless of their original size and the presentation and viewing experience is a whole lot more enjoyable. In fact noone has ever even mentioned a word about it artifacts or oddities due scaling. But don't simply take my word for it. Youtube is displaying at these larger sizes and their video quality is obviously *CRAP*. Google also defaults to displaying the video at the size of your web browser window... which is ussually WELL over twice the original video's resolution. The google interface allows you to view each video at 1:1, 1:2 (double size) or fit to window. Go take a look. Ideally videos should not be presented in a web page over 1:2 (double size) because the eye can then start to detect the pixel doubling. But this is not the biggest factor... I recommend 500 pixels wide because the biggest thing is proportionality to the rest of the page layout. 500pixels by 375pixels leaves plenty of space on the page for a right hand column as most blogs have, and enough white space for not only the operating system and browser menus and controls... but enough room for supporting text and information in the page. BTW, let's not forget that Democracy and Fireant also by default scale videos up for presentation. What presenting the video larger than it's original resolution does is it allows the eye to relax, and the user to sit back in their chair and enjoy the video. Wether the video is 30 seconds or 5 minutes... alowing the user to relax and sit back is important. Speaking of which, this reminds me blip.tv even updated their cite about a month back to present all videos at 500 pixels... precisely what I recommended. i.e. http://blip.tv/file/122903/ The above example is a video encoded at 320x240 and presented at 500x375 as are virtually all the videos on blip.tv. Virtually all the major video sharing services encode their videos at 320x240 but present the videos at 400 pixels, 500 pixels wide or more. Consider this too... it's a great way to enhance your viewing experience and it's absolutely *free*. It takes no more extra time, server space or bandwidth. Just specify. <embed stc="http://urltoyourvideo.mov"; width=500 height=375> the next time you embed your video. Or in whatever web side playback tool you use. The primary consideration in fact should be your layout. I recommend 500pixels because MOST videoblogs use about a 500 pixel wide main column layout. Some may use a little less... about 480pixels wide... and some may have a little wider column about 520 pixels wide. Scale appropriately. I share because I'm a big fan of Wandering West Michigan as I am of all vlogs that cover the "local beat" ... what steve garfield likes to call "citizen journalism"... and bloggers of old like to call "hyper-local journalism". I just like to call it localism... and it's the quintesential form of putting "think global act local" idealism to practice. Some of my other favorites in addition to Wandering West Michigan are. Mnstories.com, Chuck Olsen's pet project on Minneapolis Lofistl.com, Bill Streeter's project on local St. Louis. nTune.tv, covering the Chapel Hill, NC area NewEnglandStories.com, Steve Garfield's Boston based project I'm always looking for more, and I know they are out there so shoot me a line if you see any. I'm keeping a list here. http://mefeedia.com/lists/14/ Keep rocking Josh. Peace, -Mike mefeedia.com mmeiser.com/blog On 1/8/07, Josh Leo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I would love to offer a slightly larger size video on my West Michigan blog, > but often when i go any larger than 320x240, I get interlacing lines in my > video... I want to keep my horizontal dimension no larger than 420 how do i > go about doing this.. and what are good dimensions? I use either 3ivx or > h264 for my quicktime compression... > > -- > Josh Leo > > www.JoshLeo.com > www.WanderingWestMichigan.com > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > >
