Jen, Agree with Steve, excellent post. I think I have to concur (or should that be concede)?
For now, I'm going to send a 640x480 "Export for iPod" version out with the feed, while linking to a 320x240 "instant gratification" version at the site. People who use iTunes are probably more prepared to wait ... in fact I don't know whether you can play vids in iTunes until they finish downloading anyway. I don't see this as "embracing" the 1,500kbps Apple impost - it's a very reluctant and formal embrace on my part! I mean, what's the point of having a "low-complexity" format, supposedly to make it easier for the iPod to handle, but jacking the bitrate up to the max at the same time? Maybe I should let Lenny handle this stuff in future... Waz from CTK --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Watkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Great post, you raise some very important points. > > Its certainly true that sites that offer transcoding to multiple > formats, should encourage the user to encode & upload the highest > quality/bitrate/resolution version of the video, and all the lower > quality/res/bitrate versions are then created from that high-quality > version. > > Uploading DV has always been very far from ideal, too large, and > whilst in many countries the download rate of broadband has been > increasing, upload rates are still relatively slow for most. > > You are right to point out that if blip use a higher bitrate for > certain new transcoded formats, much higher than the bitrate the user > has uploaded video to blip as, then its a pointless waste. But this is > also extremely true of resolution which you didnt mention as much - > mostly the 600kbps files that people may currently upload to blip, are > likely to be at 320x240 or equivalent widescreen res, and then it > would be really pointless for these to be converted to 640x480 files. > > For me it would make more sense, if the 640x480 apple-tv is the > highest quality & largest filesize offered, that this is the format > the user encodes to ontheir compuer, then uploads that to blip. Then > blip can make a slightly smaller 640x480 version for the ipod, and the > various 320x240 versions in mp4 and flash format. All of these are > then available. > > Strictly speaking for the absolute best quality you would encode all > of the formats yourself, straiht from the master edited DV or > equivalent, without using any intermediate formats, but obviously this > has to be balanced against the extreme convenience of hosted > transcoding services, and the fact these quality issues arent dramatic > enough for everyone to need to worry about in this depth. But then as > Mike has pointed out (I think), blip does already give the flexibility > to go down this route if you want to. > > Cheers > > Steve Elbows > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jen Simmons <jensimmons@> wrote: > > > > I will be interesting to see what the blip transcoding to AppleTV/ > > iPod results in. If I upload a 600 kbit/sec file to blip, and the > > magicians at blip translate that to a 1500-1800 kbits/sec Apple TV > > file (assuming its the same bitrate as the pre-fab settings here in > > FCP / Mac OS world) -- then that will be a poor result: all the long > > download times without any of the high-quality. [once data is thrown > > away, it cannot be gotten back -- for those of you who believe the TV > > spy shows that show "zooming in" on video -- that's not possible!] > > > > The debate, to me, is not 640x480 vs. 320x240 -- the debate is 600 > > kbits/sec data rates vs. 1500 kbit/sec. Using the freevlog advice, I > > can get files that will start playing immediately (on U.S. > > 'broadband' connections) and still be the highest quality possible. > > At 1500, people _would_ have to wait several minutes _if_ they were > > trying to watch the file from a web browser -- a far too long a > > wait / most people would give up and leave. BUT I'm not going to stop > > encoding at 600 kbit/s for the website itself -- I'm just going to > > add a 1500 kbit/s video for the iTunes feed. People aren't expecting > > to watch the video right away from the iTunes environment. And a bit > > rate that is three times wider is going to result in some beautiful > > footage. I can only expect Apple did all kinds of market research / > > planning / thinking about wait times vs. files sizes vs. image > > quality when deciding to move all of their TV shows and movies to > > this new bitrate. I do love that these files Apple is making look > > great when blown up to two or three times the original size (to fill > > the HD screens). You just cannot do that with a 600 bkit/sec file! > > > > The biggest disadvantage I think of the wider bitrate is the fact > > people's harddrives are going to get full 3 times faster. And that > > Apple TV harddrive is awfully small. But that "problem" comes long > > after the viewer has already downloaded and watched your show -- it's > > not going to stop them from subscribing in the first place. I > > download two to four 45 minute files at 1500-1800 kbits/sec every > > week from the iTunes store, and I have no problems with "waiting". It > > all happens in the background, and I'm excited to get the content > > every time. > > > > So I say: let's embrace the Apple settings / 1500-1800 kbit/second! I > > was avoiding it based on Verdi + Ryanne's advice, but once I poked at > > the files and started figuring out what Apple is up to, I got excited > > about Apple's choices. The are trying to get us to all do one thing > > (not 50,000) and have it work as best as possible. I plan to use this > > for all iPod / Apple TV feeds. (And NEVER for files that are played > > straight from the browser.) > > > > I just hope the Blip transcoding does not use the higher bitrate, > > since (if people are uploading 600 kbit/sec source files) the quality > > will not reflect it. If Blip can get an Apple TV / iPod compatible > > 640x480 or 640x360 sized video going at the regular 600 kbits/sec > > rate -- that will be an incredibly useful tool. Small files for those > > who want it. Larger physical size. Works on the iPod/TV devices -- > > this is what is not possible right now, at least not from Quicktime / > > iMovie / FCP. > > > > The other option for Blip, I would guess, is to have users upload > > "high res" videos -- DV? / High-bit rate mpeg-4 files? -- expressly > > for the transcoding into multiple formats. Including a "normal" > > Quicktime format at a rate people can watch from the blip site / the > > creators website without waiting. > > > > Jen > > > > > > > > Jen Simmons > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://jensimmons.com > > http://milkweedmediadesign.com > > 267-235-6967 > > > > > > On Apr 23, 2007, at 4:32 pm, Mike Hudack wrote: > > > > > Hey Waz, > > > > > > I'm afraid the secret sauce includes a dozen pages of signed legal > > > documents and some custom code :) not sure what kind of file size > > > we're > > > talking... > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of wazman_au > > > Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 1:29 PM > > > To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com > > > Subject: [videoblogging] Re: Apple TV and iPod clash > > > > > > Mike, > > > > > > Great. How about sharing the secret with those of us who'd like to > > > encode the vids ourselves??? > > > > > > What sort of file size are we talking? Let's talk megabytes per minute > > > at 640x480. > > > > > > Waz > > > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Hudack" <mike@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Waz, > > > > > > > > Blip pro account holders soon won't have to worry about this :) > > > We're > > > > hoping to have transcoding to an Apple TV + iPod compatible format > > > > available for pro users in our next release (about two weeks away). > > > > > > > > Yours, > > > > > > > > Mike > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com > > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of wazman_au > > > > Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2007 3:30 PM > > > > To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com > > > > Subject: [videoblogging] Apple TV and iPod clash > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > >
