I uploaded this page to test out the HD streaming abilities and quality of Flash. I feel like it probably looks good enough to share here. Nothing amazing like Steven Dempsey, or anything, but not too bad I guess. One of my zooms is particularly harsh, but I left it in there.

http://www.brownland.org/video/beetest.htm

I shot this clip this summer, manual everything, gain at -3db, Panalook preset, IIRC. I just down-rezzed it in PPro CS3, no effects, color correction, or anything. I encoded to Flash @ 3000k VP2 codec, 128k audio. About 29MB for 1 minute.

Music track is by Steve Hansen/ TracksNow.

Depending on your connection speed, it may not stream w/o hesitation and you'll have to pause and wait.

Enjoy,
Brian Brown
BrownCow Productions

My Dual Core Mac was not able to play the file smoothly. Not sure why. I also would recommend updating to the latest version of the JW Flash player. It has lots of improvements in the current release of 3.12

Jerky play on my AMD dual core, too.

Hmm... interesting. I just updated the JW Flash Player, per Josh's advice. Not sure if that will help with the stuttering or not. Once the file streams (I have to pause it), it seems to play OK for me online... about 40% CPU utilization on my quad-core.

Here's an H.264 file of the same video: http://www.brownland.org/video/beetest.mp4

The colors are a bit more muted on the H.264 than the Flash file.

Thanks,
Brian Brown

Brian,

It seems to me that you have a very high bitrate setting for your flash video, which is why it is very jerky.

What birate setting did you use?

The same goes for your quicktime file. Even after downloading it playing it from my machine I get jerks every once in a while. Deffinately a bitrate issue. Try using a bitrate of about 768kbps to start with.

Shiv,

I used the guidelines for Vimeo HD here: http://vimeo.com/help/hd Their recommendation was 3000-5000kbps, but it sure seems WAY too high. I'll try your suggestions and see how it looks.

Thanks!
Brian

Brian,

Typically bitrate is kind of directly proportional to the amount of movement in your video. The more the movement the higher the bitrate required in order to make the video look good. In one sense they are correct is stating 3000 kbits/s (note also that it's bits and not bytes, where 8 bits make a byte).

Since the bitrate has the most impact on the final file size of the video you need to play around with this number so as to get the best compromise between file size and quality. Also keep in mind that most people's download bandwidth can't support 3000 kbits/sec and most hosts will throtle the download bitrate of files so as to balance out their bandwidth utilization.

So if you're showing a prospective customer your work you might want to encode your video at a high bitrate and play it back directly on your laptop or whatever (or make sure you download the video first if online and then playback).

My 5 year old laptop can play back smaller (dimension) videos at 3000 kbits/s but not larger dimension videos (at the same bitrate). My 3 year old desktop(the one I use for work other than video editing) could not play back your quicktime video smoothly even after downloading it locally :).

Shiv

Most excellent information, Shiv. Thanks for the info and tips.

Here's a 768kbps render of the same video: http://www.brownland.org/video/beetest768k.htm

It seems to stream well from my 1Mbit connection. The files size is about 7.5MB compared to the other one's 29MB. Some artifacting is evident, esp. on fast motion. There's a few times the background breaks up completely. Had I been on a tripod for the shot, I probably would have had a cleaner encode.

Thanks again,
Brian

Brian,

I have the same issue still :). Yes I see some smudging on the edges.

If you'd like, send me your 2 .flv files (3000 kbit/s and 768 kbits/s). I can put them up on one of my servers so we can see if the bitrate is causing this or their player/bandwidth is.

I have my own flash player than can host any .flv file. Typically, I've found that once the video has downloaded is plays just fine, but in your case that does not seem to be happening.

Weird! I would have thought that the reduced-bandwidth version would stream fine.

So, here's the FLVs...

http://www.brownland.org/video/beetest.flv
http://www.brownland.org/video/beetest768k.flv

Thanks for the help!
Brian

I think flash has issues playing movies that large (pixel wise), only the new beta flash when using MP4s seem to do well. I think you are better off, using a smaller 16:9 resolution with a higher bitrate and FPS and then stretching it using the player. Give that a shot :)

I often use a 800+ bit rate and do not have the same glitching issues. One other thing to note about the JW player is that is only runs @ 20FPS and it does a fine job of playing FLVs with a faster frame rate but you can some times save space by changing your video to 20FPS.

Brian,

I tried your flv files locally before posting them online and find that both videos still jerk quite a bit. So It's not the JW player or the bandwidth it seems.

The next thing I'd try (as Josh also suggested) is smaller dimensions. Videos playback best when their dimensions are multiples of 16. So good dimensions are:
640x480
576x432
480x270
384x288
320x240

I use 576x432 most times for online video.

Sorry about the dimensions in the last post, they were examples of 4:3 :)

For HDV use:
1024x576
768x432
512x288
256x144

Cool. Thanks for the info, guys.

Looks like Flash is not quite ready for HD prime-time. I may post some vids to Vimeo HD and see how they stream.

Cheers,
Brian

480P is still HD :) give that a shot.

can i just ask you, why to use flash? it doesn't seems to be the best format for video, i would prefer wmv. i used to do it this way and viewers are happy [ http://tvb1.cz/canon-xha1 ]. it works on generally all pc [win, linux] and mac machines

Brian,

I was able to view both files with no jerky behavior. Looked good to me. I am viewing through Safari on Leopard (Mac OS 10.5) on a PowerMac Quad.

can i just ask you, why to use flash? it doesn't seems to be the best format for video, i would prefer wmv. i used to do it this way and viewers are happy [ http://tvb1.cz/canon-xha1 ]. it works on generally all pc [win, linux] and mac machines

Mainly because I had to click your video, wait for it to download. Unzip the file (Why did you zip a compressed file?) and then potentially spend 10 minutes downloading a multi megabyte codec because I did not happen to have flip4mac installed on my Mac. (I did have the codec but I am playing devils advocate)

The main reason to offer flash in my opinion is so viewers can have near instant starts. They click, it streams and you then offer a download link to an even higher quality (9 times out of 10 I use a WMV too :) ) The second option is because when I tested the codec install system on my late grandmother she was able to install the flash player in about 2 minutes, albeit with the google toolbar, while WMV and quicktime took closer to 15 minutes each. The type of format you put the video in really depends on your target audience. When I post a video here I am always sure to include at minimum a 720P WMV or MP4 for the viewers here who crave the best quality, however, for most of my videos they are aimed at parents trying to watch their kid play sports so its best to put it in a format that just plays via the website instead of having to answer 50 emails about how to watch the movies. Nearly everyone watches videos on Youtube and if they can watch them there, they can watch the videos on my site :)

By the way, your fish market video was nicely done :) I did some testing and the original file was 231MB and I did a ~1Mbps render into an FLV and got it down to 41MB. The file I think looks very good when viewed at its new resolution of 512 * 288. When going into full screen it obviously looses its appeal but its still pretty darn good in my opinion. If you are OK with it I will host the FLV of your fish video for the other members to take a quick look at but only link to it from this thread.

Well said, Josh.

Let me add a few things, and hopefully contribute to the discussion. To me, Flash is web video. WMV and QT are great delivery formats. Bus as Josh says, too complicated for the casual user. It also seems that for ideal experiences: QT is for Mac and WMV is for PCs. But Flash is universal, OS and browser agnostic.

Also, with Flash, I can encode an alpha channel that I've keyed or matted out and overlay video seamlessly on a webpage, like a "walk-on" video, for example. Or, if I want to get fancy, I can create a SWF that streams any number of FLVs with queue points from user clicks, making web video a much more user-experience process than "click here to play this file that pops up here and hope it works OK with your particular on your OS/browser combo."

And Vimeo HD (http://www.vimeo.com/hd/) is showing me the future of HD Flash (with H.264, another OS-agnostic codec)... and I like it!

My $0.02,
Brian Brown
BrownCow Productions

Indeed, every codec has its value and use, it really just depends on what you are trying to do and your target audience.

Brian, Josh,

I agree with most of what you both say.

First I'd like to add that I've found with FLV the video doesn't look "washed out". It's like one needs to bump up the levels or something, even though it looks fine (and the levels have been bumbped up) in flv. QT is quite a bit worse than WMV in this regard.

Cue points and interactivity is also available in WMV and Quick time. Remember that when you use Flash video you're essentially playing back the video through Flash Player and within Flash player the video player, unlike QT and WMV. So Flash video has an advantage in that it seems to allow for more interactivity and programability since it's running in a whole runtime environment and not just a video player.

Now both QT and WMV players can be hosted inside of a runtime environment or simply programmed in a webpage but most times people simply link directly to the video files, while for flv you don't link directly to the video file, you typically link to an html page that hosts the flash player that in turn knows about the flv to playback.

In other words, all Im saying it with regards to some points you mention you're not really comparing apples to apples :).

For Flash video to stream you do need the Flash streaming server from Adobe (very expensive) or an open source version (not so good). For Quicktime it's the same deal, you need to Quicktime streaming server from Apple that (I believe) only runs on a Mac platform. For WMV you need the Media streaming server installed (free with the OS) and of course a Windows server platform.

So they each have their streaming options as well.

Then you have Microsoft's Silverlight and VC1. Being a full time software programmer myself, I prefer the FLASH and Silverlight platforms since I get more control over things.

Yeah, all of them can be embedded into webpage and prior to flash I used QuickTime. The difference came in when people did not have one of the codecs and they have to download it. That was my main move to flash originally. The flash installer is around 4MB but QuickTime comes in over 30MB and will do its best to bring iTunes with it. WMV is about the same size and then it wants to activate and check for genuine software for your own protection. As for the streaming bit you can achieve a similar effect with flash just using a PHP script like I use on my website. It first downloads an index of all key frames and then you can jump to any of them and load from there so this is a very viable solution for low budget people similar to us. I defiantly get the apples to oranges idea though :-)

Shiv, it's great to have a programmer's perspective on these things. I believe that Flash can stream via progressive download (which is what I use on my pages/ domains), but this does throw a monkey-wrench in the whole cue point-interactivity thing I brought up.

It also seems that I too have to be a computer programmer to make much headway in Flash CS3, which is why I resort to third-party components like JW's. I received the application with my Adobe CS3 suite upgrade, but I'll be darned if I can figure it out coming from an NLE and After Effects background. Time for some "book-learnin'" I guess.

Thanks for your insights and clarifications,
Brian

Brian, Josh,

"Streaming" allows a user to click anywhere on the timeline (while playing back) and watch the video instantly from that point. So Josh the keyframe bit is not really "streaming" but I get your point.

Brian, Streaming and Progressive are two different methodologies actually.

Progressive is the most common. In this situation the video actually downloads to your machine (somewhere) and once downloaded can be played back any number of times without going to the server. The user can't jump to any point (in advance) unless that part of the video has downloaded.

Streaming requires the corresponding "streaming server" on the server end of the equation. Streaming allows a user to click anywhere on the timeline and the videos plays from that point forward. The video is no cached on the local machine and so each time the user shuttles through the video it needs to come from the server. It provides for a seemingly instant playback but it's not a property of streaming as explained below.

Instant playback is not a tell tale sign of streaming. It depends on a few factors. One the bandwidth on both sides plays a big role. Two, some encoders give you control of the amount of buffer and that plays a role as well.

Yea, FLASH is not fun. Personally, being a programmer I prefer Flex, where I can program and the net result is very smart swf file. FLASH per se is more for the designer type. I do ues it for some things, but since most of what I do is "data driven" where the data resides on a server on the internet somewhere, using FLASH makes things cumbersome, since it's great for "static" content.

If you need a FLV player for your needs, let me know and I can build you one (for free) so you can use it.

Take a look at this page
http://thehomefront.dynamicarchitects.com/staging/buildorbit

Keep an eye out for the images that appear underneath the video. These images are controlled with a simple xml file but triggered via cue points in the video.

Shiv, that makes sense now with streaming and progressive downloads.

That's some beautiful FLV on the site, BTW. Did you encode it? Looks like it must have originated in HD. The lighting on the talent is great, too. Cuing the pics via xml is pretty cool.

FWIW, I'm a licensed architect that's gotten into video production in the last few years. That software could have really helped out some of my clients a few years back.

Thanks for the offer with the FLV player. I might take you up on it sometime. I do have the source code for JW's Player, and my license with it allows me to de-construct it... so I might start there.

My next project will be getting some "walk on" videos like you see on Rovion's site (http://www.rovion.com/). I have some clients that just love the concept. I'm hoping I can just make simple SWFs in Flash that autostart and then stop the vids. Rovion's cool implementation is how the talent scrolls down with the window, using some kind of scripting, I guess.

Thanks again for your insights on Flash, etc.,
Brian Brown
BrownCow Productions

Brian,

Thanks for the complements. Yes, it was shot with the A1 and I encoded it using PPro CS3 and here's the kicker. It's encoded at 3000kbps :).

It looks like you'll need to shoot green screen. That's quite a pain in HD. Take a look at a video I tried. Go to the same link I gave you earlier and then click on the "Philosophy" link. It may look like nothing happens when you click on that button but it will start downloading the other video. You'll need to click on the play button. Allow for some buffer or wait till it downloads 100% and then play.

The shot with the guy talking (that's me) is green screen. That was my first and last attempt at green screen in HD. I had to take that footage into After Effect (to key out the background) and then back in PPro. Not a lot of fun.

Let me know what you'd like in your FLV player and I'll make it for you.

Cool, Shiv. I'm still waiting for the FLV to download and then I'll check it out. It's good to know the 3000kbps FLV works for someone here. :) Wow, it looks good.

Yes, the walk-on stuff will have to be chromakeyed for sure. My last project involved a little greenscreen work with HDV and it went great. I used AE's Keylight to pull a really tight (and easy) key and then used Dynamic Link right into PPro for final tweaks.

Here's a low-rez FLV of the commercial (local cable TV) spot: http://www.browncowvideo.com/svvcu/TOM/
It's more motion graphics than video, but my client's pleased with how it turned out.

There's a few stills of the setup and results:
http://www.browncowvideo.com/svvcu/greenscreen.jpg
http://www.browncowvideo.com/svvcu/chromasetup.jpg

And this is pretty silly, but was shot against the same greenscreen and keyed the same way.
http://www.brownland.org/blog/2007/10/27/rockies-fever/

I'll need a bit taller space than my basement to run the full-body "walk-ons" I'm pretty sure.

I'll keep you posted my ideas for that FLV player offer. It should be a pretty transparent thing with very little navigation. Maybe a sound on/off button. If I can "feed" it via an xml file, all the better. Now see what you created here with that offer of yours? *grin*.

Thanks!
Brian

p.s. all this time, and your Philosophy video won't play in the viewer... just repeats the other one. I'm using Firefox and Vista-64 if that helps. But I did find the BuildOrbitPhilosophy720x405.flv file in your HTML and am downloading it now. Big file... will post back about it.

Brian,

Yes, I used keylight in AE as well. Heck nothing else seemed to work at all. If you've got to do chromakeying then that's what you've got to do :).

Thanks for you feeback and give me a shout when you need my help.

Shiv.