high quality vs compression? how do they do it!! at DVinfo.net

Michael Sweeney · January 26th, 2006, 05:16 PM

okay, i am sure this has been asked before...but how the hell do these people get super high quality movie trailers and still have small files??? example...quicktime.com

i am using the new quicktime codec and it does wonders but nothing like i am seeing on the quicktime website.

Emre Safak · January 26th, 2006, 06:59 PM

1. Use low bit rate sound (mono, 64kbps, AAC).
2. Use a low resolution (no more than 320x240).

Some people also reduce the frame rate (e.g., halve it), but I have not experimented with that.

Keith Wakeham · January 26th, 2006, 08:33 PM

Or do you mean the HD trailers?

What is captured and then edited and colour corrected are either film transfers or uncompressed HD captured from high end cameras, or with minimal compression. This allows for very little compression artifacts in the encode and they us the h.264 codec with 2 pass variable bitrate encoding. End result looks great.

Theirs a movie up in a HD trailer their that was shot in HDV and still looks really really good too.

Mark Sloan · January 27th, 2006, 12:50 PM

There is a difference between what comes free with QT and what you get with professional encoders like Sorenson Squeeze and such. They do a better job, but what you get for "free" is pretty good.

Michael Sweeney · January 27th, 2006, 06:36 PM

I have Quicktime Pro. Also, I thought the h.262 or whatever it is, is the best codec right now for the web?

Keith Wakeham · January 27th, 2006, 09:31 PM

Its h.264 or sometimes called AVC or AVC h.264.

It is pretty much the best compression available (my opinion but many others, likely the most advanced codec commonly available) but its very processor intensive to encode video with compared to anything else out their.

It is superior to Divx and Xvid and others in that class but again with the trade off of encoding time.

January 26th, 2006, 05:16 PM	#1
Michael Sweeney Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 97	high quality vs compression? how do they do it!! okay, i am sure this has been asked before...but how the hell do these people get super high quality movie trailers and still have small files??? example...quicktime.com i am using the new quicktime codec and it does wonders but nothing like i am seeing on the quicktime website.

January 26th, 2006, 08:33 PM	#3
Keith Wakeham Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: St. John's, NL, Canada Posts: 416	Or do you mean the HD trailers? What is captured and then edited and colour corrected are either film transfers or uncompressed HD captured from high end cameras, or with minimal compression. This allows for very little compression artifacts in the encode and they us the h.264 codec with 2 pass variable bitrate encoding. End result looks great. Theirs a movie up in a HD trailer their that was shot in HDV and still looks really really good too. __________________ www.engr.mun.ca/~wakeham/index.htm

January 27th, 2006, 09:31 PM	#6
Keith Wakeham Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: St. John's, NL, Canada Posts: 416	Its h.264 or sometimes called AVC or AVC h.264. It is pretty much the best compression available (my opinion but many others, likely the most advanced codec commonly available) but its very processor intensive to encode video with compared to anything else out their. It is superior to Divx and Xvid and others in that class but again with the trade off of encoding time. __________________ www.engr.mun.ca/~wakeham/index.htm

January 26th, 2006, 06:59 PM	#2
Emre Safak Trustee Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Brookline, MA Posts: 1,447	1. Use low bit rate sound (mono, 64kbps, AAC). 2. Use a low resolution (no more than 320x240). Some people also reduce the frame rate (e.g., halve it), but I have not experimented with that.

January 27th, 2006, 12:50 PM	#4
Mark Sloan Major Player Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Venice, CA Posts: 346	There is a difference between what comes free with QT and what you get with professional encoders like Sorenson Squeeze and such. They do a better job, but what you get for "free" is pretty good.

January 27th, 2006, 06:36 PM	#5
Michael Sweeney Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 97	I have Quicktime Pro. Also, I thought the h.262 or whatever it is, is the best codec right now for the web?