I guess the assumption would be that your viewers would subscribe to one feed or the other, depending on which hardware they owned.
Its not ideal but it may be ideal for some viewers, depending on how fussy they are about getting the best possible qualiy on their device. Unfortunately these issues are unlikely to vanish. Because for all my evangelising about mpeg4 and h24 standards, this is unlikely to boil down to one common subset of h264 just so long as theres so much variation in decoding power between devices. Battery life is a big issue for mobile devices and high-def TV's arent very forgiving of low-quality/low res footage, so it may get worse. If high-def web video wasnt so absurdly huge in comparison to what we're mostly used to, there would probably be even more confusion and conflicting pressures already. The jump from 320x240 t 640x480 is quite significant, I know Apple mailed people advising everyone to change, but theres certainly merit in considering still offering a 320x240 version at this time. You could for example keep the ipod feed at 320x240 and offer the 640x480 version specifically for apple TV. Because Im not sure how many ipod people use the TV out, and they might hate the increased filesizze more than they appreciate the higher res they may never get to see. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In [email protected], "wazman_au" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Bill, > > Can't see how that would work, because Apple TV syncs with iTunes on > your computer, which means your iPoddable feed. > > You could have a separate feed but this would effectively be a > separate podcast - and would you expect your viewers to subscribe to both? > > Waz > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Bill Cammack" <BillCammack@> > wrote: > > > > Work-around #4 > > > > 1) Export for AppleTV > > 2) Export for iPod > > 3) Two different feeds > > > > Bill C. > > http://BillCammack.com > > > > --- In [email protected], "wazman_au" <elefantman@> wrote: > > > > > > Stupid bloody Apple, why do they DO things like this???? > > > > > > Folks, this is a tough one, and yes, I've read through the > > Casey-initiated thread. Good start > > > but sadly optimistic. > > > > > > The question is, how do we pump out vids that are 640x480 and have > > the "baseline low- > > > complexity" profile, thus being both iPod and (presumably) Apple TV > > compatible? > > > > > > Baseline can be selected when exporting with your own settings, but > > the "low-complexity" > > > sub-option cannot. According to Apple's developer spec, > > low-complexity has been defined > > > by Apple for the iPod, and it seems to be restricted to the Export > > for iPod option, which > > > cannot be configured. > > > > > > When exporting an iPod video, QuickTime chooses automatically > > whether to use "baseline" > > > or "baseline low-complexity" - in a nutshell, anything upwards of > > 320x240 gets low- > > > complexity. Gory details here: > > > > > > http://developer.apple.com/technotes/tn2007/tn2188.html > > > > > > Three possible workarounds. I am not in front of QTPro right now so > > will try later: > > > > > > 1) Use the Export for iPod option with the source vid sized at > > 640x480 - this will goad > > > QTPro into using low-complexity - and then find some way of saving > > the resulting video > > > _again_ with a chopped-down bitrate, perhaps by doing a "Save as > > ..." but without re- > > > encoding. > > > > > > 2) Do it the other way round - export at the bitrate etc. that you > > want, then run it through > > > the iPod export. The developer spec suggests QT iPod exporter using > > a 640x480 source > > > file will pick its own bitrate according to a complex formula ("DR = > > { (nMC * 8 ) / 3 } - 100" > > > I kid you not, check out the developer link above) between 700 and > > 1500kbps. But maybe > > > if the source file is already lower, it won't jump up the bitrate > > too shockingly. The MC in > > > the equation stands for "macroblock" and if the number of these can > > be reduced in the > > > source file (how? Dunno) then, doing the maths, you are headed for a > > smaller result. > > > > > > 3) Resize your source video to 640x480, whack it through Export for > > iPod and hope the > > > filesize is not too bloated. As in the formula above, this should > > produce something > > > between 700kbps and 1500kbps, although Apple doesn't say whether the > > audio is > > > included in that bitrate (AAARGH!). > > > > > > I found to my horror this afternoon that my carefully crafted > > 640x480 recipe with > > > meticulously pared down video and sound bitrates that delivered a > > file of 5MB/minute that > > > looks alright on the telly via laptop S-Video cable doesn't work on > > the iPod. > > > > > > I am just about ready to tell Apple where to shove their TV box ... > > and all of the above still > > > leaves the question unanswered: will the aforementioned oblong > > suppository PLAY H.264 > > > BASELINE LOW-COMPLEXITY??? > > > > > > Anyone got one of these boxes? > > > > > > That's all for now. I know none of the above is tested but I thought > > I'd post now while my > > > blood is up, and to give others the chance to look for a solution. > > > > > > Waz from Crash Test Kitchen > > > http://www.crashtestkitchen.com > > > > > >
