Buying some webspace. . .need the nitty gritty

[Dan Euritt]

josh, it sounds like you are off to a good start!

always choosing vbr for the video is the way that i do it as well... the hard part comes with fine-tuning the actual bitrate being used for both the video and the audio.

so you need to find the area in the encoder where you can manually manipulate the bitrate however you want it... i'm not referring to the quality setting you listed... you should be able to slightly improve the picture quality a chunk at a time, until you find that perfect balance between quality and file size... doubling the file size like you mentioned isn't what you want.

since you didn't mention it, i gotta repeat: if you aren't gamma-correcting somewhere along the line, it'll always look like mud when encoded to internet video... you might have to gamma-correct within the editing timeline itself, prior to creating the web video... high-end encoders like cleanerxl allow you to gamma-correct when making the internet video clip.

the ideal situation is to post a small version of your clip for dial-up modem users, and a bigger version of your clip for cable/dsl users... for the latter i usually don't allow more than 64-128 kbits/s max audio bitrate(stereo), with a 320x240 total bitrate of both audio and video of 380-1000+ kbits/s.

why so big for the video? the type of material and the equipment used to shoot it with makes a huge difference.

[Josh Bass]

Alright, well, I'll try the tests with the bitrates.


As for the gamma correction, I brightened/contrasted the hell out of one of my shorts, and I just have to use my computer monitor to judge the rest. . .I say if it looks good on mine, and mine doesn't look that weird, it should look acceptable on most people's. It seems like the only stuff that needs gamma correction is the stuff with lots of dark video in it. . .maybe I'm wrong. Guess we'll see when the site's up.

Won't I be able to tell if it'll look like mud by looking at the rendered WM9 file? Or are you saying you can't tell 'til it's actually online?

Oh, one more thing. A big thing. I don't really understand this bit rate stuff, or know what it is and what it does. If I've already rendered a file, and the quality looks real nice, and it's 12 megs or so (the short movie I mentioned above), are you saying I could still have problems because I didn't set the bit rate correctly? The "Quality VBR" option causes EVERYTHING under the bit rate tab to be inaccessible, so I'll have to use a different mode to be able to manually change the bit rate.

[Dan Euritt]

you really have to examine the wm9 file in detail to see what's up with the gamma and the bitrate both... but you can see the effects of gamma on the editing timeline... and no, i'm not saying that you could necessarily have problems, just think of it as an eternal struggle between picture quality and how much you want to pay for bandwidth when hosting your vids on the net :-)

usually a .1 or .2 change in the gamma is all that's needed, i never have to change the contrast on the stuff i shoot.

the other issue is that gamma/brightness settings on computer monitors are all over the place! check your file on multiple pc's if possible, just play the file back from the local harddrive, you don't have to be online.

what i usually end up with is the same video file rendered at multiple bitrates... then pick the best file from there.... maybe double the playback size in the windows media player to see the defects better.

the object is to know the audio/video bitrates of your files!

if your encoder won't allow you to change the bitrates under "quality vbr", you need to find an encoder that will... the free wm9 encoder from microsoft will allow you to change bitrates, just do the gamma correction in the editing timeline first.

this is a hassle, but what you gain from it is a good understanding of manipulating bitrates... that experience is directly transferable to mpeg2 encoding for dvd's.

[Josh Bass]

Ok, let me try again. Let's say I have already encoded a file, and I'm happy with the size and the video/audio qualiy. Are you saying that by encoding the way I did, and by NOT manipulating the bit rate, that I could be causing problems for my potential viewers, even though the quality and file size are both OK?

Do I HAVE to use the bit rate manipulation method to arrive at the results I want, or does it matter how I get there?

If so, can someone give me some starting points with the Microsoft Windows Media encoder? I'm not even sure where to start with it. . .selecting progressive download, windows media server, etc.

I've been so far using Vegas 4's encoder.

[Dan Euritt]

<<<-- Do I HAVE to use the bit rate manipulation method to arrive at the results I want, or does it matter how I get there? -->>>

you already are manipulating the bit rate, you just don't know it... the application has limited you to only a couple of bitrate choices, and hidden the details from you.

no, you probably aren't causing problems for potential viewers by taking the default choices.

but you might be paying for wasted bandwidth, or losing business because the audio/visual quality of what you just encoded isn't good enuf for your target market.

[Josh Bass]

Granted, but all I'm saying is, couldn't I tell that just by encoding the WM9 file and then watching it? I mean, there's no way I'm going to get crystal clear video, full screen, at a full frame rate without it being a huge file, right? I feel people who are evaluating the work should be able to tell the difference between badly shot video and lower quality encoding that's done for their specific benefit. I also want to be able to share with you guys, and though I'm lucky enough to have DSL (debate this if you want), some are still on 56k.

I think if it's reasonably sharp for online video, with no (or very few) "muddy" areas of the picture, and gamma corrected correctly (tee hee), it'll be okay. . .don't you guys? I'll put a few files up when I can (maybe tonight), and you can tell me if they come across okay on y'all's computers.

Basically, when I get the video real nice (audio doesn't seem to take too much work), it comes out to about 2 megs or more per 10 seconds of video (I use a little ten second clip as my test), which is way to large. I like to try to keep it under 900kb per 10 seconds (this is still large, but all the stuff I've done so far is so short it shouldn't be too much of a problem). Any less than about 800kb per 10 seconds, and muddy areas start to appear the video, and it starts to look real fuzzy.

[Dan Euritt]

ya, the ultimate deciding factor is how it looks! but it's always a battle between bandwidth vs. picture quality... just like when you are encoding mpeg2 for a dvd.

a 900kb file that is 10 seconds long would have a bitrate of 90kb/s?? that's dial-up modem quality... so you should think about making an additional clip that is dsl/cable modem quality, i listed the bitrates i use earlier.

what you have to end up doing is learning how to read the log files of your website... so you can see what gets downloaded the most, and if you are near your bandwidth limit.

did i mention that san diego is the first city in the country to have more people accessing the internet via broadband, than thru dial-up modems?

my weblogs reflect that... a lot more downloads of the big files than the dial-up modem files.

[Josh Bass]

About the quality of the files I mentioned. . .REALLY?

It looks damn good to me, very sharp, clear, not muddy at all (this is full screen quality, too, not just 320 x480). Granted, it's only playing at 15fps, but I swear it doesn't look that bad on my computer monitor.

[David Kennett]

Dan,

I've been thinking about putting together a little website, and the info here has been very useful. Since you stated that your video material looked very dark and needed gamma correction - and since some others do NOT see the same thing, I thought that your directshow window adjustments may be off. In your monitor setup, you should find adjustments to adjust only the video window (brightness, contrast, color, etc.) separate from the overall monitor adjustments. This is called OVERLAY CONTROLS in my Invidia card setup. Hope this helps.

[John Britt]

<<<-- Originally posted by Dan Euritt : since mac operating systems only make up about 3% of the operating systems on the 'net, you don't want quicktime -->>>

I'm surprised someone hasn't already called you on this. PCs may not come with Quicktime installed, but most people seem willing to install it. Quicktime is considered one of the best looking formats for web video, as far as I've ever been able to tell.

In fact, in February 2003, PC Magazine said that Quicktime has been "long considered the de facto format for delivering video content."

In March, 2003, PC World wrote, "MPEG-4 is quickly becoming the format of choice for delivery of high-quality video to everything ranging from VideoCD, broadband and even 56Kbps dialup connections" followed by a page of instructions on how to use Quicktime 6 to make video files.

I am no mac-head or Apple apologist. I am a long-time PC user and I offer video files on my website in QT format because people (mostly PC users) seemed to *demand* it. I know for a fact that mostly PC users visit my site and -- given the choice between QT and RealPlayer -- the majority choose Quicktime.

I used to offer .wmv files but removed them because people wanted QT and I didn't have room to offer 3 formats. Now that I have more disk space I am considering adding Windows Media back to the line-up, but only to help out the very small minority of people who can't seem to figure out how to download QT or RealPlayer files -- a problem which has already been fixed, in part, by creating streaming QT files instead of making users download them.

Users have to download a Flash Player, but that doesn't stop many, many designers from creating Flash-based sites. Quicktime is far more prevalent than just "3%" of internet surfers, and -- if what you have is worth watching -- people will be willing to download a reputable application like Quicktime in order to view your content. As a matter of fact, as a PC user, I prefer Quicktime files over Windows Media files, especially WM9 files.

You sound like you know your way around WM9 and have a lot of happy downloaders, but I think your suggestion that a designer *not* use Quicktime is ill-advised. My 2-cents.

[Dan Euritt]

<<<-- Originally posted by John Britt : I'm surprised someone hasn't already called you on this. PCs may not come with Quicktime installed, but most people seem willing to install it. -->>>

actually, most people are not willing to install it... the majority of people will leave your site before hassling with installing new player software... this has been proven statistically many times over the years.

back in ~1997(?) or so, i briefly worked as a 'net video encoding engineer for a company in solana beach, ca., that got bought up by akamai... at the time, quicktime owned video on the 'net, along with mpeg1(!).

apple foolishly let their quicktime dominance slip away over the years, and now the borg are taking over internet video, just like they took over in the browser war with netscape.

i really don't like microsoft, but i have become assimilated :-) because that is what it took for the maximum compatibility with everyone else on the internet... windows media has the greatest player penetration... why should a guy on a dial-up modem, for instance, have to suffer downloading the quicktime player, when he can watch wm9 without downloading any player at all? he will leave your website before sitting thru that player download.

i do like the superior functionality of quicktime, and it's reliability, but wm9 definitely has better audio/video quality than anything else on the 'net today... real media runs a close second, tho.

your stats for qt vs. real aren't too relevant when talking about windows media... and it's been literally years since i have had anyone ask for the quicktime video format... since i'll probably be serving up around 50+ gigs of web video this month, wouldn't you think that if it mattered, somebody would have asked for it by now?

flash vs. quicktime player downloads... which one is the biggest download? how hard is it to install for the end user? i think flash wins that contest, which is why it's a lot more popular than quicktime.

hi dave, i have been plenty guilty of creating overly-bright video clips :-0 because my monitor is kinda dark... lately i've been creating darker clips, here is one that i just did, i think it was shot kinda bright to begin with tho: http://www.sportcompactdragracing.co...dragdaybig.zip

[John Britt]

Dan wrote: "your stats for qt vs. real aren't too relevant when talking about windows media... and it's been literally years since i have had anyone ask for the quicktime video format... "

I don't wish to start an argument, but please reread my post. I quoted two major PC/Windows publications from *last year* and (a fact I didn't mention) I only started adding Quicktime video to my site within the past year as well, due to demand. I'm not speaking from 7 years ago, I'm quoting publications and relaying personal info from the past year. Why would a major PC publication waste precious space with a Quicktime tutorial if only "3%" of internet users have QT? How come 99% of my clients (who are mostly PC users and not particularly savvy ones, at that) don't seem to have a problem with the video files on my site?

The simple fact is that your "3%" comment is completely wrong. Quicktime is incredibly prevalent and Josh should be encouraged to have more than just Windows Media files on his site, to give users options. Beyond that, it's all personal preference. As I said before, I acknowledge that you show very healthy figures re: downloaded video, and you seem to know the ins-and-outs of encoding for the web very well, but I think some of your rational re: Quicktime is misguided.

[Dan Euritt]

<<<-- Originally posted by Josh Bass : I like to try to keep it under 900kb per 10 seconds -->>>

hi josh, i liked your website!

i downloaded your demo reel, it's running at 523kb/s, not sure where the 900kb per 10 seconds number came from??

on my monitor, a lot of the interior shots on your demo reel were way too dark... a great candidate for gamma correction :-)

but the bitrate quality was great!

[Dan Euritt]

<<<-- Originally posted by John Britt : I quoted two major PC/Windows publications from *last year* -->>>

no flames here, o.k.?

the only thing you quoted was the opinion of a couple of writers in non-internet magazines... and your quotes were totally unsubstantiated by any statistics at all!

i did NOT say that only "3%" of internet users had qt... i said that "mac operating systems only make up about 3% of the operating systems on the 'net"... do you understand the difference?

i'd be glad to entertain your qt pov, if you can back it up with some real-world facts... here are my numbers: i see over 20,000 unique url's a month, with not one single request for qt.

[Josh Bass]

Dark? I DID gamma correct all those clips. . .or most of them, anyway. I can try again, I suppose. I don't really know how I'm going to make them any better, since everyone's monitor's a little different.