|
|||||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
March 18th, 2009, 11:04 AM | #1 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Timonium, MD
Posts: 142
|
Poll: Best HD codec for Web
What codec/settings do you use for HD over Web for customer downloads (not streaming or Vimeo) but for clients who physically host the clips on their site for their customers to download. I've been doing MP4 (H.264) since I figured more people would be able to play the files. A 6-7 minute video usually clocks in around 120 MB using the settings below.
I encode H.264, 2200 kbits/sec, 1280 x 720, Current frame rate, and I do single pass (for speed and smaller file size) right out of Final Cut using Quicktime conversion. Everyone so far seems happy with the results, but I am curious to see how others are addressing similar situations. It always comes down to quality of the video vs. the size of the file and I want to make sure I am on track. Thanks in advance. Jeff |
March 18th, 2009, 10:10 PM | #2 | |
Major Player
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Goleta, CA
Posts: 233
|
Quote:
-Steve
__________________
www.spreefilms.com - Give me a museum and I'll fill it! |
|
March 19th, 2009, 01:29 AM | #3 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Norwich, Norfolk, UK
Posts: 3,531
|
H.264 is the best CODEC to use for quality/size reasons. The HD videos hosted on SmugMug. use 3.2 Mbps for 1280x720p & about 7 or 8 Mbps for 1920x1080p. Barkers Videos- powered by SmugMug I use multi-pass, I didn't notice overly longer processing time versus single pass but also I really didn't notice any difference in video quality either but figure that it is supposed to be better so I may as well use it.
Don't go for too high a bit rate otherwise your viewers with slow networks or slow computers will struggle to view the videos. For computer illiterates it gives a better impression with a smaller lower quality video that plays smoothly rather than a large pin-sharp one that stutters & is jerky. Cheers Nigel |
March 19th, 2009, 09:12 AM | #4 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Timonium, MD
Posts: 142
|
Steve,
As the editor, I normally get 1080i HDV and 720p DVCproHD. The 2.2 Mbps 1280x720 yields an okay picture. I think I'm going to increase the data rate to see how much larger the files get and see how that effects work flow. Do you use the MP4 wrapper or Quicktime? (is that the correct term--wrapper?) Nigel, Nice videos... I really want to go visit. Perhaps the lower airfares will get me there. I like the SmugBug interface, it makes it very easy to switch between low, medium, and high res videos. I assume you upload and then they convert to Flash for streaming? In broad terms, do we see Flash video being streamed more and more as opposed to actually downloading files one at a time for viewing? In other words, sure a 250MB file looks great, but the download time can be off-putting. Does high quality (HD) streaming Flash ultimately provide a better experience for the end viewer vs. downloading files? Thanks Jeff |
March 19th, 2009, 10:34 AM | #5 | |||
Inner Circle
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Norwich, Norfolk, UK
Posts: 3,531
|
Quote:
Quote:
I too really like SmugMug it is a very slick service that is not free but is designed for video/photo professionals. It's a far more impressive means of delivering our HD videos than using Vimeo or YouTube & worth the money ($150/year to upload & stream unlimited HD with a maximum length of 5-10 minutes. AFAIK they are the only place offering to host 1920x1080p & have the servers & infrastructure to handle it reliably. Offering the different video resolutions is important to us. I was with a customer yesterday who because of their network & computer cannot stream even 320x240 & we had to wait for the file to download before viewing. This morning I visited a customer who could easily stream the 1280x720p content. We need to cater for both extremes. Quote:
Cheers Nigel |
|||
March 19th, 2009, 02:47 PM | #6 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Timonium, MD
Posts: 142
|
Thanks again Nigel. I'll keep SmugMug in mind, that might be a good thing to have just for my own clients to proof videos. I agree the day of waiting for downloads is pretty much dead. I guess people would rather have the video pause here and there while buffering rather than actually downloading and then viewing the file.
Jeff |
March 20th, 2009, 07:30 AM | #7 |
Trustee
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Kennewick, WA
Posts: 1,124
|
We use the Telestream Flip4Mac WMV Studio Pro HD Quicktime Plug-In. When ever your in a Quicktime enabled program, you can simply export to Windows Media (WMV).
For the web, I choose one of the various presets that comes with the Plug-in. There are presets for Presentations (high,med, low), Broadband (high, med, low) and much more. From within Final Cut Pro, I can use Batch Export to convert a bunch of clips or a bunch of sequences to WMV. Or I can use Compressor if necessary. But most of the time, I just choose Export>Quicktime with Conversion within Final Cut Pro. We've been sending WMV's to our clients for about 6 years now and not once has one of them not been able to play them. The only issue we have is that a few clients are now switching to Apple, so we either show them there they can download the free Flip4Mac WMV player or just send them an H.264 file. Quality is great. Very close to the same quality as H.264 but slightly bigger files. 30 second commercials are small enough to simply email to them for approval. Longer format productions we upload to our server and send them the link to where they can view them within their browser (don't have to download and view).
__________________
Sony EX3, Canon 5D MkII, Chrosziel Matte Box, Sachtler tripod, Steadicam Flyer, Mac Pro, Apple/Adobe software - 20 years as a local videographer/editor |
| ||||||
|
|