Pain in the rear

[Marc W Shepherd]

Okay....

I took all of your advice and made the changes to the pictures, etc. It all looks pretty good. Still some jaggies. However, it's just something we have to live with.

I have saved it as both AVI and Quicktime files and they look really good. Even on the computer screen.

I also heard back from the client who checked a box on the Quicktime Preferences and it made a world of difference. However, he's still not satisfied because he believes the viewer shouldn't have to make a change on the Quicktime preference. But since it's streaming video, they won't have to make a change...correct?

The video is for a hotel chain that plans to use it in their website as an advertisement. I'm assuming they will run it as a Flash file since this is probably what most people would have on their systems. I'm also assuming that if it is used as a Quicktime file, etc, they will have to limit the size of the file and the make the viewing window fairly small due to the fact it will be streaming video. And if a viewer does have the option of making the window as big as their screen, it will be pixelated. Correct me if I am wrong here, but that just a feature of the internet I can't change.

Hopefully, what I've written makes sense. However, if I am wrong about all of this, let me know.

Thanks

[Craig Parkes]

Absolutely correct re the web viewing quality thing - that check box is only making a difference because you delivered it in a codec that Quicktime checks the high quality/low quality against (basically it's a hold over from when most computers weren't powerful enough to decode broadcast formats properly - it's pretty irrelevant these days).

If, for example, it was delivered in H.264 the High Quality box wouldn't need to be checked.

The quality of compression is up to the person encoding the video to h.264 or flash for the web, and the dimensions of the video on the website will determine how large the file size will need to be to get a clean picture. None of this has anything in particular to do with your end of the workflow in terms of delivery though, it's up to the person encoding for the web.

[Marc W Shepherd]

Thanks for all the advice, Craig. You, and the rest of the people here, have been a real blessing.

BTW, your site and work are incredible. I love the style.

Marc S.

[Nigel Barker]

Originally Posted by Marc W Shepherd

Hi Nigel,

CODEC:
DV/DVCPRO-NTSC
Big Indian
720 x 480

BTW, I live in Chateauroux for about 2 years. My mother is French. Great place. How far is it from where you live?

Over 500 miles according to Google Maps http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&sour...14&ie=UTF8&z=7

[Nigel Barker]

Originally Posted by Marc W Shepherd

The video is for a hotel chain that plans to use it in their website as an advertisement. I'm assuming they will run it as a Flash file since this is probably what most people would have on their systems. I'm also assuming that if it is used as a Quicktime file, etc, they will have to limit the size of the file and the make the viewing window fairly small due to the fact it will be streaming video. And if a viewer does have the option of making the window as big as their screen, it will be pixelated. Correct me if I am wrong here, but that just a feature of the internet I can't change.

The CODEC of choice for web delivery nowadays is H.264 MPEG4. The Flash player which is near universal has been able to play this format of file for some years. The files sizes are very small for the quality e.g. 3 minutes of 1080p HD at a bit rate of 8Mbps is around 200MB. You can just use Compressor to convert your file although this takes quite some time. I can highly recommend the Elgato Turbo.264 USB dongle that does the conversion almost in real time on my Mac Pro. Elgato Turbo.264 HD

[Marc W Shepherd]

Thanks Nigel,

I'll give it a shot.

Marc S