Guys guys guys, Are you really content with imposing such a bloated file format on your viewers?
Does 120MB for a 10-minute episode seem reasonable, for example? Not to me it doesn't, when it's about six times the size of what I've been putting out so far - and when my source videos aren't hi-def or anything, just garden variety Mini-DV at 4:3. I have managed to produce a 640x480 video that is 10 minutes long and takes up about 50 megs but because of this "baseline low-complexity" issue it won't iPod. There are such simple ways of chopping down the size - such as changing sound from stereo to mono - if you can control the parameters, which you can't with Export to iPod in QT Pro. Waz --- In [email protected], "Bill Cammack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Good call, Bill. That's right along the lines of what I was thinking. > > -- > Bill C. > BillCammack.com > > --- In [email protected], "Bill Shackelford" > <bshackelford@> wrote: > > > > My video feed enclosures support ipod,iphone,itv and quicktime.. I > just use iPod .m4v > > format. So in quicktime export to ipod and get a 640x480 video that > anyone can watch. > > The only thing that *might be worth while to instead of .m4v would > be .mp4 video that > > you can play in all of apples stuff in addtion to PSP... but .mp4 > videos kinda suck to > > playback over the web in my opinion. > > > > My feed: > > > > http://feeds.feedburner.com/billshackelfordcompod > > > > All my links in my podcast rss file point to flash video on my site > and the enclosures are > > the .m4v files. > > > > I have also been provideing .3gp video.. but no no one has been > looking at those. > > > > my mobile site: http://m.billshackelford.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Bill Cammack" <BillCammack@> > wrote: > > > > > > Steve: That's precisely what I was thinking. Subscribe to the feed > > > that works for you. http://JetSetShow.com , for instance has about 6 > > > feeds. > > > > > > Waz: Personally, if I were concerned about a video being playable on > > > iPods as well as AppleTV and having only one feed for the reasons you > > > mentioned, I'd aim for the lowest common denominator. I haven't > > > looked into AppleTV, so I'm not sure this is possible, but the data > > > rate for iPods is lower than the data rate for AppleTV, so I'd make a > > > video to iPod spec and test it through iTunes to make sure it also > > > runs on AppleTV. You might lose some resolution that way, but if you > > > insist on having only one feed, that's the only way I can see it > > > working. Again, assuming there IS a LCD that you can encode to. > > > > > > -- > > > Bill C. > > > BillCammack.com > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Steve Watkins" <steve@> wrote: > > > > > > > > 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" <elefantman@> > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
