DVC7 confirmed submissions

Alex T. Hurter · December 21st, 2006, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bradley L Marlow

lol Sean. Does that mean "owed cheese"?

Mine might have been: "Memoirs de suite odorat saucisson meilleur de jeunez!"

Bradley it would mean "Memories of cheese"

I believe your title would mean "memories to follow the smell of the best sausages of the day" Well roughly translated that is.

Bruce Foreman · December 21st, 2006, 08:45 PM

A bit off topic...But I have no experience with QuickTime. In an attempt to save my submission in .mov format, I upgraded my player to QuickTime 7 Pro and then started trying to save a "small file size" version.

I guess I don't understand the myriad of setting options in QT, smallest file size I've been able to save is 51MB.

I edit in Pinnacle Studio 10.7 and have been trying to use QuickTime to convert a 618MB .AVI file to .MOV format. Pinnacle Studio will save in MPEG4 (10MB) and high quality .WMV (11MB) but has no .MOV option.

What configuration settings in QT should I be trying.

Andrew Khalil · December 21st, 2006, 09:31 PM

I don't know how Pinnacle works (hopefully someone who uses it can chime in) but when converting to Quicktime with FCP (what I use) there are several compression methods that use the .mov extension such as H.264, Sorenson video and several others, each of which gives you even more options for compressing it which is good for those of us who like the control, but can get a bit confusing/excessive for those who are just trying to do a quick encode for the web.
What worked for me was setting it to Sorenson video 3, 12 fps (half of 24 fps which is what I shot mine at), key frame every 300 frames and the quality slider set to medium. Resolution was set to 320x240. I used Apple AAC encoder for audio at 96kbps since the music and voice in my video was important to me and I wanted it to sound good too.
Using these settings, my final video was 16mb for a 3 minute video and I made a small version that looks reasonable which is 5mb.
By the way, this "compression recipe" isn't mine, so thanks Dylan for posting it (I believe it's a sticky now). Only variation between Dylan's and mine is the audio compression.

Hope this helps

Robert Martens · December 21st, 2006, 09:32 PM

See Dick Mays' thread from DVC 5 for some suggestions I made regarding his Quicktime issues.

One thing I neglected to recommend in that situation was to simply try lowering the framerate. Try fifteen frames per second. It's noticeable, but not as upsetting to people as you might think, especially if the audio is decent.

The advice I did give Dick boils down to two major points:

1.) Most codecs I know of--granted, I don't know of many, but still--work with sixteen pixel macro blocks, meaning the image is broken up into a grid of sixteen-by-sixteen pixel squares for compression purposes. I'm not entirely sure why it's faster/easier/better for the software to break the picture up into little boxes, but that's the way it goes. Therefore, it's best to work with video whose axes are both evenly divisible by sixteen. That way, the grid of macro blocks is nice and neat, filling up the whole image, instead of being broken up into pieces at the edges. As an example, 640x360, a resolution many people love to use for widescreen footage, will encode somewhat less efficiently than 640x352. I'm not entirely sure how much more efficient it is, or if it makes a huge difference for most footage, but 352 is close enough to 360 for most purposes, and still gives a nearly 16:9 look while ending the rows and columns of blocks evenly at the extents of the picture.

2.) An easy way to deliver run of the mill, interlaced 640x480 DV footage (remember that 720x480 is only 4:3 in the world of non-square NTSC pixels; on a computer, with square pixels, it's 640x480) is to halve the vertical resolution. What do I mean? I'm glad I asked me that, allow me to elaborate. Quicktime allows the display resolution of a file to be different than its stored resolution. Encode said 640x480 footage as 640x240, then set the display resolution to 640x480. It's simple enough to do: after initially compressing the video, open the resultant file in QT Pro and go to Window->Show Movie Properties. Look in the Visual Settings tab of the Video Track, uncheck "Preserve Aspect Ratio", and type in the new size. Save the changes, and the file will now play at the new resolution. Now, halving only the vertical resolution provides video that's effectively deinterlaced, so this trick is most useful if, as I mention, you're using a 640x480 source file that's regular old DV. Otherwise, there's no reason you couldn't shrink both dimensions down during the encode, and bring them back up for playback. Encode 320x240, play at 640x480 if you like. Saves you the trouble of telling everyone who downloads the movie to play it "Double Size" (which isn't really double size anyway, it's quadruple size, but never mind me).

I would think all of these principles hold true with HD footage (far as I know, those codecs tend to use the same size macroblocks, the half-rez trick should work with 1080i, and lower framerates always help), but don't hold me to that, as I've got no experience with it.

Bradley L Marlow · December 21st, 2006, 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex T. Hurter

Bradley it would mean "Memories of cheese"

I believe your title would mean "memories to follow the smell of the best sausages of the day" Well roughly translated that is.

ROFLMAO! Thank you Alex, for your kind translation. I believe my poor attempt at French actually came pretty darn close.

Tank you again!

Best wishes~
Bradley

Dylan Couper · December 22nd, 2006, 01:04 AM

Should have this list tomorrow night!

And yes, if you all named your films "Memories" it would have been really, really funny...

(can you feel the sarcasm burning through your screen?) :)

Hugh DiMauro · December 22nd, 2006, 07:51 AM

I feel better.

Dick Mays · December 22nd, 2006, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Martens

See Dick Mays' thread from DVC 5 for some suggestions I made regarding his Quicktime issues.

Everything I did to try to get decent QT output from Adobe Premiere failed miserably. I eventually upgrades to QT Pro and used the H.264 code for good looking output. So I ouputed a DV .avi file from Premiere, and imported that into QT Pro. QT Pro was only $25, so it was no big deal.

Chris Barcellos · December 22nd, 2006, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dick Mays

Everything I did to try to get decent QT output from Adobe Premiere failed miserably. I eventually upgrades to QT Pro and used the H.264 code for good looking output. So I ouputed a DV .avi file from Premiere, and imported that into QT Pro. QT Pro was only $25, so it was no big deal.

Dick:

I bought the QT pro too, but didn't have that much success. What settings did you use for H.264. The codecs were actually available in Vegas and Premiere too. In Vegas I had great success with Sorenson. I fear that in Premiere, Premiere presets the codecs to a low standard, and I just don't know what I am doing trying to adjust the various levels.... that I will confess to.

December 22nd, 2006, 01:04 AM	#21
Dylan Couper Wrangler Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Vancouver, British Columbia Posts: 8,314	Should have this list tomorrow night! And yes, if you all named your films "Memories" it would have been really, really funny... (can you feel the sarcasm burning through your screen?) :) __________________ Need to rent camera gear in Vancouver BC? Check me out at camerarentalsvancouver.com

December 22nd, 2006, 07:51 AM	#22
Hugh DiMauro Trustee Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Central Florida Posts: 1,207	Thanks Fellas! I feel better. __________________ Interesting, if true. And interesting anyway.

December 21st, 2006, 08:45 PM	#17
Bruce Foreman Trustee Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: San Angelo Texas Posts: 1,518	A bit off topic...But I have no experience with QuickTime. In an attempt to save my submission in .mov format, I upgraded my player to QuickTime 7 Pro and then started trying to save a "small file size" version. I guess I don't understand the myriad of setting options in QT, smallest file size I've been able to save is 51MB. I edit in Pinnacle Studio 10.7 and have been trying to use QuickTime to convert a 618MB .AVI file to .MOV format. Pinnacle Studio will save in MPEG4 (10MB) and high quality .WMV (11MB) but has no .MOV option. What configuration settings in QT should I be trying.

December 21st, 2006, 09:31 PM	#18
Andrew Khalil Major Player Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 424	I don't know how Pinnacle works (hopefully someone who uses it can chime in) but when converting to Quicktime with FCP (what I use) there are several compression methods that use the .mov extension such as H.264, Sorenson video and several others, each of which gives you even more options for compressing it which is good for those of us who like the control, but can get a bit confusing/excessive for those who are just trying to do a quick encode for the web. What worked for me was setting it to Sorenson video 3, 12 fps (half of 24 fps which is what I shot mine at), key frame every 300 frames and the quality slider set to medium. Resolution was set to 320x240. I used Apple AAC encoder for audio at 96kbps since the music and voice in my video was important to me and I wanted it to sound good too. Using these settings, my final video was 16mb for a 3 minute video and I made a small version that looks reasonable which is 5mb. By the way, this "compression recipe" isn't mine, so thanks Dylan for posting it (I believe it's a sticky now). Only variation between Dylan's and mine is the audio compression. Hope this helps

December 21st, 2006, 09:32 PM	#19
Robert Martens Major Player Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Miller Place, NY Posts: 820	See Dick Mays' thread from DVC 5 for some suggestions I made regarding his Quicktime issues. One thing I neglected to recommend in that situation was to simply try lowering the framerate. Try fifteen frames per second. It's noticeable, but not as upsetting to people as you might think, especially if the audio is decent. The advice I did give Dick boils down to two major points: 1.) Most codecs I know of--granted, I don't know of many, but still--work with sixteen pixel macro blocks, meaning the image is broken up into a grid of sixteen-by-sixteen pixel squares for compression purposes. I'm not entirely sure why it's faster/easier/better for the software to break the picture up into little boxes, but that's the way it goes. Therefore, it's best to work with video whose axes are both evenly divisible by sixteen. That way, the grid of macro blocks is nice and neat, filling up the whole image, instead of being broken up into pieces at the edges. As an example, 640x360, a resolution many people love to use for widescreen footage, will encode somewhat less efficiently than 640x352. I'm not entirely sure how much more efficient it is, or if it makes a huge difference for most footage, but 352 is close enough to 360 for most purposes, and still gives a nearly 16:9 look while ending the rows and columns of blocks evenly at the extents of the picture. 2.) An easy way to deliver run of the mill, interlaced 640x480 DV footage (remember that 720x480 is only 4:3 in the world of non-square NTSC pixels; on a computer, with square pixels, it's 640x480) is to halve the vertical resolution. What do I mean? I'm glad I asked me that, allow me to elaborate. Quicktime allows the display resolution of a file to be different than its stored resolution. Encode said 640x480 footage as 640x240, then set the display resolution to 640x480. It's simple enough to do: after initially compressing the video, open the resultant file in QT Pro and go to Window->Show Movie Properties. Look in the Visual Settings tab of the Video Track, uncheck "Preserve Aspect Ratio", and type in the new size. Save the changes, and the file will now play at the new resolution. Now, halving only the vertical resolution provides video that's effectively deinterlaced, so this trick is most useful if, as I mention, you're using a 640x480 source file that's regular old DV. Otherwise, there's no reason you couldn't shrink both dimensions down during the encode, and bring them back up for playback. Encode 320x240, play at 640x480 if you like. Saves you the trouble of telling everyone who downloads the movie to play it "Double Size" (which isn't really double size anyway, it's quadruple size, but never mind me). I would think all of these principles hold true with HD footage (far as I know, those codecs tend to use the same size macroblocks, the half-rez trick should work with 1080i, and lower framerates always help), but don't hold me to that, as I've got no experience with it.