MPEG and QuickTime

[Tim Palmer-Benson]

I must confess that I am confused about the efficacy of using MPEG 3, (and now 4) when it comes to Web delivery. I think I understand that MPEG-3 and MPEG-4 are compatible with Windows and that if one produces in MPEG-4, there will be no problem for Windows and MAC users. However, which codec (if that is the correct word here) produces the best compression for web delivery via http?


Should I be trying to compress my FCP videos into MPEG using Cleaner 6? Where does Sorenson Video Pro and 2-pass VBR fit in this? I use it all the time for QuickTime and produce solely in QT because any time I try to do anything else, I end up with humungus files! If I do use MPEG, what is the html code for it? Does it require all that Embed stuff that Quicktime requires?

Pardon my ignorance. I hope you video gurus can enlighten me!

Tim

[Rob Lohman]

As far as I know there is no MPEG-3. At least I haven't seen it
anywhere. Most people that use mpeg for web either use MPEG-1
or MPEG-4 (mpeg 4 itself, DiVX, xvid etc.). But, I personally would
go with QuickTime and a Sorenson codec. That produces the best
quality versus filesize and compatibility in my humble opinion.

QuickTime can both be played back on PC & Mac. Ofcourse you do
need QuickTime installed (at least on the PC). But most people
do. I think MPEG-1 can be played on ANY operating system without
any other software (almost). But those files are a lot larger with
less quality.

I don't know how well Mac's handle MPEG-4 within an AVI file
for example.

[James Rulison]

I being a heavy MPEG 4 user agree that the Sorenson codec does give better results but better compatablitiy? It still requres the user to download quicktime. Not every machine has that and not every user wants to install another player onto the machine.

Best,
James

[Steve Nunez]

So which is better- the Sorenson 3 or regular Sorenson codec (for www use)

Would someone mind checking out my XL 1S videos compressed with Cleaner 5 (Mac OS X) and telling me if this quality vs. filesize is acceptable or should I be getting better results?

http://stevenunez.com/video/pages/videos.html

let me know what you guys think.

stevenyc1@aol.com

[Bill Ravens]

In my own experience, QT, and in particular the Sorensen compression/decompression schemes use enormous amounts of CPU resources. In many cases, older PC's can't process Sorensen codecs fast enough to avoid freeze-ups and skipping video. Perhaps it's different in the Mac world, but, in the PC world, I avoid QT and always revert to MPEG2. Now that M$ has MPEG4 available in their WMP9 encoder, its quality is superior to MPEG2.

[Rob Lohman]

As I said before, there is not one format (except for perhaps
MPEG1 that is playable out of the box on each OS), plain and
simple as that.

If you go with AVI/MPEG4 you will need to have an MPEG4 codec
installed on everything before WMP9 and Mac etc. If you go with
MPEG2 you most of the times need another player or codec as well. QuickTime and Real are the same. I was just saying that
QuickTime seems to be used the most, that is all.

Regarding your movies they look pretty terrific for that small
screen size, nice job. I cannot comment on the filesizes because
I do not know them.

[Jeff Donald]

MPEG 3 is probably on everyones computer. They are known as MP3's. Sorrenson http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...&threadid=5265has announced support for MPEG4 with Squeeze. This will be ideal for web use because of it's ability to make much smaller files sizes (lower CPU overhead). By most accounts Cleaner 6 does a better job overall than version 5. This discussion on Apples site might be of interest to the Mac users. http://discussions.info.apple.com/We...4@.3bbcbd39/11

Jeff

[Julian Luttrell]

Jeff,

in fact MP3 does not stand for MPEG-3.

When the MPEG work started they outlined a number of workstreams, and imaginatively numbered them from 1 upwards. MPEG-1 was for low bandwidth video delivery, MPEG-2 for high bandwidth, MPEG-3 (as was intended) for high res, and MPEG-4 for object-oriented multimedia (but so far this is only used for audiovideo compression).

Then, as the work progressed, they realised that MPEG-2 was going to deliver a high res solution too, so terminated the MPEG-3 workstream. Result, no MPEG-3.

MP3 as an audio format is defined as part of MPEG-1.

Regards,

Julian

[Jeff Donald]

MP3 stands for MPEG Audio Layer 3. For a period of time in the late '80's and early '90's it was known as MPEG 3. The name was shortened to MP3. This will give you a brief history of the formats and some technical info http://www.iis.fraunhofer.de/amm/tec...3/index.html#2

Jeff

[Rob Lohman]

Jeff,

It may have been known as MPEG3, but it certainly is not
MPEG3 for the reasons Julian described! He is spot on. You
actually give the answer yourself because you write:

" MP3 stands for
MPEG
Audio
Layer 3 "

Notice that layer 3 is a subterm for MPEG. Also note that MPEG
here has no number (and we know that terms without a number
is version 1).

MP3's are MPEG1 layer 3 files.