thanks cammack.... done!
K On Feb 22, 2008, at 2:44 PM, Bill Cammack wrote: > --- In [email protected], Kathryn Jones > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > revisiting the great apple tv debate once more.. > > > > I have spend the past few days experimenting with recompressing my > > "35" files- tricky because they are large files with a lot of > > movement and not a ton of light (I know! I know! lets not go > > there!)... what seems to work best for me is compressing a high > > quality .mov , importing into itunes and then recompressing again > via > > the advanced tab (thats also the best way for me to include my > > higher quality thumbnails).... but... > > > > itunes provides me with two options, a larger "convert for apple tv" > > file, a smaller "convert for ipod" file.... if I compress all my > > files to the larger apple tv specs... are they viewable on an ipod? > > I would assume the answer is of course, so what are the downsides > > (besides download time). > > AppleTV files are *NOT* viewable on an iPod. The data rate is way > too high, and, > depending on how you make the AppleTV file, the frame size is too > large as well. > > If you want something compatible with both, you have to make a > really good quality "for > iPod" file, or do it the way they recommend @ http://freevlog.org . > > Bill > http://BillCammack.com > > > appreciate the input.... > > > > Kathryn > > http://www.synchronis.tv > > On Feb 19, 2008, at 7:57 PM, Steve Watkins wrote: > > > > > 640x360 is a good compromise resolution, not a bad balance between > > > res, bitrate & > > > filesize, and device compatibility. > > > > > > It will be passable to many people on a larger screen via Apple > TV, > > > but your 720p version > > > should be noticably better. > > > > > > There are still some users & devices that will struggle with h264 > > > in general, but most will > > > be ok with 640xwhatever videos. 1280x720 or higher, some will > > > struggle with cpu use, > > > and such high resolutions are likely a hinderance rather than a > > > help to portable device > > > users. > > > > > > But also bear in mind that the tone of that email suggests > Apple is > > > desperate to get people > > > to move beyond 320x240 more, as that low a res starts to look bad > > > on the Apple TV. So > > > they are mostly targetting people to move their res up, not down. > > > > > > Jay that Apple video loks like quicktime, at a guess they have > > > hidden the quicktime plugin > > > controls and used javascript to make nicer looking controls. > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > Steve Elbows > > > \ > > > --- In [email protected], "Jay dedman" <jay.dedman@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > From the Apple TV e-mail, it looks like 640x360 is what > they're > > > > > recommending for the widescreen aspect for both Apple TV and > > > > > iPods/iPhones, but... won't that look less clear than the full > > > 720? > > > > > Or is it possible that with the right settings, 640x360 > would look > > > > > passably good on the widest range of devices. > > > > > And do these settings create specific headaches for non-Apple > > > users? > > > > > Or, at this point, can most users play with these MPEG-4 > files? > > > > > > > > apple hasnt always thought about the larger web community > when they > > > > come up with apple standards. > > > > its always good to be the king. > > > > > > > > I thought this was an interesting video they included in their > > > email: > > > > what is a podcast= http://www.apple.com/itunes/tutorials/ > #podcasts > > > > (is this flash or a weir new QT player?) > > > > > > > > Jay > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > http://jaydedman.com > > > > 917 371 6790 > > > > Professional: http://ryanishungry.com > > > > Personal: http://momentshowing.net > > > > Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/ > > > > Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman > > > > RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
