Hey Steve, I would not be entirely averse to using another encoder. I have tried Videora iPod converter in the past with little success, but may give it another go since there's a new version out.
I would also mess around with ffmpeg if I could find any "for dummies" documentation - and an executable version of the software too! Hell, I'd even be prepared to brave the command line options! I think the Videora converter is built on ffmpeg so it might be possible I guess the reason I "think Apple" is that where podcasting is concerned they are the big game in town. Oh, and I paid for QTPro. I like my final file to be in .mov format only because I can add a link to our site at the end, but considering the banjax that's been made of all this by Apple I might go for a generic H.264 MP4. I mean, I'm sure there are Apple tech people reading all this and thinking "Gee, who is this idiot? It all makes sense to US why things are set up the way they are." But we're the ones with the content and a bit of thought about our needs would be nice. Waz --- In [email protected], "Steve Watkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I see it as an expansion of the subject, to 'how to get round ipod > h264 640x480 issues and be in control of bitrate at the same time. > > Ive already answered with more than enough waffle, I think you are > reliant on Apple changing something in future to make this possible > with quicktime, or use one of the other non-ideal workarounds, or use > a different encoder. I would not hesitate to switch encoder, theres > plenty of alternatives to quicktime, it wasnt the best mpeg4 encoder > so its probably not the best h264 one either. > > Im quite happy to go research, in more detail than previously, which > applications exactly will work, but Im not getting much of a sense > that Waz is interested in abandoning quicktime? > > As fo bitrate, 120MB for 120 minutes footage will seem huge and > bloated to some but quite fine for others. Its certainly valid to be > concerened about this and err on the side of smaller files, > particularily if you only offer one version of your show. But on the > otherhand do the 640x480 shows look significantly better with the > higher bitrates that Apple use? Theres a balance to be strck, no point > moving to a higher res if there are lots more compression artifacts > because you havent used a high enough bitrate. Apple probably go too > far the other way, and people likely differ in sensitivity to certain > compression artifacts, whras lower resolutions may be more universally > noticed, I dunno. > > And as for asking blip how they will do it, well again I assume they > arent using quicktime to do their server side transcoding so they > arent facing the same issue that you are. I imagine they may use > ffmpeg but thats only a guess. So any answers they could give would > probably be similar to mine, only useful if you are prepared to use > something other than quicktime to do the encoding. > > Cheers > > Steve Elbows > > --- In [email protected], "Bill Cammack" <BillCammack@> > wrote: > > > > Now you've completely changed the subject. Look at the title of the > > post. You asked what to do in order to get past the "clash between > > Apple TV and the iPod". Now you're talking about data rates instead > > of compression formats. > > > > --- In [email protected], "wazman_au" <elefantman@> wrote: > > > > > > 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" <BillCammack@> > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
