Video Internet Compression

[Stephen L. Noe]

Originally Posted by Joyce Mahoney

Well, I reduced to 424 X 240, limited to 200 bit rate and sorensen 3 at 50% quality and 15 fps which resulted in a final file size of 88Mb. I just don't get it but thanks guys for trying.

If it makes you feel any better, I opened up Premiere with just a DV clip on the timeline and tried to encode H.264 and the file size it huge.

Try this instead.

Go to:

File > Export > Adobe Media Encoder (opens the encoder window)

Now Select Widows media but don't bother to drop down and select any of their preset's. Instead, to the right of the "Preset" drop down there is an open preset button. Click it and it will ask you to browse for the preset. Instead of the vpr it suggest drop the file type box down and select prx instead. Now, you'll need a prx to use so Click here to download a medium quality prx to use. Try encoding and see if it works. I have all kinds of custom preset. The one I've provided will work for PC or MAC users.

Let me know how it works out...

[Dionyssios Chalkias]

Originally Posted by Stephen L. Noe

I'm not aware of ANY application that will encode H.264 properly except QTPro7 (on the PC side).

Vegas 6.0d comes with the MainConcept H.264 encoder, a great performer. If not, Nero has an encoder that is not bad. And there are free ones if you search around.

[Paolo Ciccone]

Originally Posted by Stephen L. Noe

It wouldn't have bothered me so much but T.Dashwood frequently asked me to post video's using the H.264 format and I tried like hell to accomodate but it is a pain on a PC.

This is interesting. Makes you wonder what's the big deal in creating an encoder that works acceptably on Windows. If I were the conspiracy theory kinda guy I would smell smoke from Redmond, but of course I'm not that kind of person ;) I bet this is going to be solved soon.
Tell you the truth I was quite surprised about the speed of Compressor. It used to take a lot longer, they probably improved it in the last revision. It could be that the video that I submitted was mostly virtual sets from Chromakey, maybe the consistent background makes the encoder go a lot faster.

Take care.

[Stephen L. Noe]

Originally Posted by Dionyssios Chalkias

Vegas 6.0d comes with the MainConcept H.264 encoder, a great performer. If not, Nero has an encoder that is not bad. And there are free ones if you search around.

I have not explored that app. Thanks for pointing it out. Let's just say it's not in my bag of tricks.

[Dan Euritt]

Originally Posted by Stephen L. Noe

I'm not aware of ANY application that will encode H.264 properly except QTPro7 (on the PC side). That is the problem with the codec is that it is completely proprietary to QTPro.

another way to look at it is that h.264 won't play back on any of the commonly available software players, except for quicktime.

beyond that, apple did not fully implement h.264 with their player, so you can't get the best h.264 quality when you encode or play back with quicktime... if you want to see real h.264, get the nero encoder, and use the nero player with it.

nero also includes a quicktime-compatible setting, so it will create really nice two-pass mpeg4 files... i would do that before i'd pay for qt pro, because for one thing, nero is a whole lot faster to encode.

the holy grail of web video files is to create something that can be played back natively, without having to download the player software first... the only codec that does that is wmv, because winxp makes up the vast majority of computers on the 'net.

flash used to be part of the native winxp install, but microsoft stopped doing that with the flash 8 codec and player... but the flash 8 player download is pretty small, so it's the only realistic alternative to wmv these days.

i would not put divx or any qt format on the web, go flash 8 if you don't like wmv.

[Stephen L. Noe]

Dan,

Native playing is what it's all about for web TV (wmv). For web movies I choose WMV or DivX. Lately I've been making iPod & PSP content. That is a very little MP4.

Thanks for the Nero gold...

[Paolo Ciccone]

Originally Posted by Dan Euritt

another way to look at it is that h.264 won't play back on any of the commonly available software players, except for quicktime.

... and iTunes. Given the popularity of iTunes, it is a very "commonly available player".

Originally Posted by Dan Euritt

the holy grail of web video files is to create something that can be played back natively, without having to download the player software first... the only codec that does that is wmv, because winxp makes up the vast majority of computers on the 'net.

I'm sorry but this is a overly generalizing statement, and one that encourages proprietary solutions. Nobody argues that the majority of PCs are Windows-based but the number, non the percentage, of non-Windows users is around several millions. Now, while that probably represent 10% of the installed based, it's still a few millions. Using wmv is gonna piss off a lot of people. Using something like Flash, which is even available for Linux, is a much fairer solution.
[/QUOTE]

I released my first Vodcast, made with the HD100, this weekend, produced a H.264 file, made it clear that it requires iTunes, which is probably already installed on the majority of machines but just in case, here is a link.
The video has been downloaded solidly for the past 3 days and I didn't hear a word about any problems.
I watched the server's log files continuosly and the majority of downloads where indeed from Windows machines and a lot of them downloaded the video using iTunes for Windows. Not one email about "I can't play the video".
And the target audience, motorcycle riders, is not famous for being computer savvy ;)

IMHO, iTunes is the great equalizer of video distribution on the Net. Love it or hate it, it's free, it's available, it's probably already there, it's gonna be around for a while. Take advantage of it.

Just my 2,000 Lire ;)

[Dan Euritt]

nero rocks, no doubt about it! i have an ipod demo clip up on my website that was created with nero, so you can download it and check the compatibility for yourself... i posted a link to it somewhere here on dvinfo.net, but i can't remember where?

paolo, there are over 1 billion people using the internet today, so millions is pretty insignificant... specifically, here are the exact statistics: less than 3% of the computers on the 'net are macs, so both qt and itunes are basically not native installs with any operating system.

i personally refuse to install itunes, in part because the qt player has become unmanageable bloatware... in particular, it always re-installs itself as a startup no matter how you tweak the settings, and lately i've been unable to get it to open up clips in the same window, it always defaults to a new window every time that you click on a video clip... so you end up with multiple windows all over your desktop.

i am not alone in this, there is a big anti-qt backlash going on right now, and that will encompass itunes as well, because it's also a proprietary apple product... there are very few pc software alternatives to itunes, for downloading and viewing ipod files.

we need to concern ourselves with professional solutions that allow for the widest possible distribution of our content, so it behooves us to watch how big business is handling the video ipod format... putting your content on the 'net only in the video ipod format is way too limiting, as you can see here:

“But NBC and station owners were quick to to draw distinctions between NBBC and other broadcasters’ efforts to put their shows on the Internet and sell episodes on iTunes....We are prioritizing NBBC compared to the revenue sharing on portable devices,” says Terry Mackin, executive VP, Hearst-Argyle Television and past Chairman of the NBC affiliates board. “As the market exists right now, the revenue would be a small opportunity compared to this business. Very small.”

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/art...&referral=SUPP

[Paolo Ciccone]

Originally Posted by Dan Euritt

paolo, there are over 1 billion people using the internet today

Which is built on non PC machines and it has proliferated and expanded thanks to the platform-independent standards designed in the past 30 years.
Amazon, Google etc don't run on Windows. 60%+ of web servers run Apache and the vast majority of emails are handled by Sendmail etc. etc.
Platform independence and adherence to standards is important. Especially because Microsoft has a track record of poor quality in their software.
Once you give up your freedom of choice, it's gone and it doesn't come back.

Originally Posted by Dan Euritt

so millions is pretty insignificant... specifically, here are the exact statistics: less than 3% of the computers on the 'net are macs.

Well, from the point of view of a business man, myself, millions are really relevant. If I have a solution that satisfies the majority of potential users, I'll take that instead of one that excludes millions of them. Also, were did you see the numbers that you quoted? Do you have a reference to the sources?

Originally Posted by Dan Euritt

i personally refuse to install itunes, in part because the qt player has become unmanageable bloatware...

...

i am not alone in this, there is a big anti-qt backlash going on right now, and that will encompass itunes as well, because it's also a proprietary apple product...

Speculations and personal bias. BTW, I would not have a problem with proprietary players, mind you, that is a completely different story than propriatary formats, as long as the player is available on all platforms and it's supported and developed at the same level on all platforms.
That makes plain sense because you, the author of the video, know that the same experience will be delivered regardless the personal choice of the viewer. Again, Macromedia/Adobe Flash and iTunes are good examples.
Simple MPEG files are also good. Probably DivX, I'm not yet familiar with it, as long as a format is an open standard and there is a player for it on all majors OSs.

Originally Posted by Dan Euritt

we need to concern ourselves with professional solutions that allow for the widest possible distribution of our content, so it behooves us to watch how big business is handling the video ipod format... putting your content on the 'net only in the video ipod format is way too limiting

I never mentioned nor suggested to use "only the video ipod format" whatever that means. iPods don't have a proprietary format. They support MPEG4 and H.264, another MPEG spec. Don't see the limitation there.
No, when I suggested H.264 and the fact that everybody and his brother has iTunes installed, I meant just that. My Vodcast is formatted at 640x360 24fps, a format incompatible for the iPod. But the fact that I publish it in H264 means that I can give you a one-click link to get it inside iTunes and to subscribe you to next ones. One click. Doesn't get any easier than that.
Now, you want to make your life harder and not install iTunes, that's OK, you still retain your freedom of choice, see, I like that.

You want to play the video with your favorite player? Go ahead, it's still a glorified MPEG file. If that was a WM file that freedom of choice would be taken away from millions of viewers.

[Stephen L. Noe]

Originally Posted by Dan Euritt

i personally refuse to install itunes, in part because the qt player has become unmanageable bloatware... in particular, it always re-installs itself as a startup no matter how you tweak the settings, and lately i've been unable to get it to open up clips in the same window, it always defaults to a new window every time that you click on a video clip... so you end up with multiple windows all over your desktop.

i am not alone in this, there is a big anti-qt backlash going on right now, and that will encompass itunes as well, because it's also a proprietary apple product... there are very few pc software alternatives to itunes, for downloading and viewing ipod files.

OMG Dan, You hit the nail on the head. QT is becoming the new RealMedia. You would think they'd have learned from Real. Real would have absolutely owned online media but they sold out to the advertisers and now so is QTPlayer.

I only have QTPro for one reason and that's to encode H.264 but now that I know about Nero, QTPro's days are numbered on my system.

[John Mitchell]

I personally have a problem with iTunes in that interferes with some of my other software (Avid).

So that rules it out for me.

This is why we should be looking for platform independent solutions. I am still delivering in MPEG1 because it plays on everything (even those with OS9).

[Dan Euritt]

Originally Posted by Paolo Ciccone

Amazon, Google etc don't run on Windows.

how many people sit at a web server to watch video over the internet? none.

Originally Posted by Paolo Ciccone

If I have a solution that satisfies the majority of potential users, I'll take that instead of one that excludes millions of them.

the ipod video format excludes millions of web surfers, because most of 'em do not have the required software necessary to 1)download the video file(itunes), and 2)play it back(quicktime).

why would you put up a video file that requires proprietary software just download it? and then it can only be played back by a player that none of the major video sites use?

since it went online, over 15 million video ipod files have been downloaded from apple's site... that's a good number, but it pales in comparison to the biggest video sites on the 'net:
video streams per month-
MSN Video 9,279,000
YouTube 9,045,000
Google Video 6,246,000
iFILM 4,336,000
no quicktime, no h.264, no mpeg, and no video ipod format on those sites.

Originally Posted by Paolo Ciccone

I never mentioned nor suggested to use "only the video ipod format" whatever that means.

do you put your vodcasts online in any video formats other than h.264? can your footage be accessed and downloaded by anything other than itunes?

you asked to see operating system stats:
"Windows XP is the most popular operating system. The windows family counts for nearly 90%" http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

"The Mac only had 2.35 percent of the world’s personal computer market in 2005, according to IDC, up slightly from its 2.02 percent share in 2004." http://www.redherring.com/Article.as...its+Jump+41%25

the point here is that the internet is a windows-only world, and if you want your footage to get the widest possible distribution, you'd better be putting it out there in a native windows format like wmv... the only exception to that is flash 8.

i used to encode a lot of mpeg1 for the 'net many years ago, and while it is still very compatible, everyone has a wmv player these days... look at the winxp o.s. penetration of 73%, wmv is the native video format for winxp, because it's a mandatory part of every winxp install.

[Paolo Ciccone]

Originally Posted by Dan Euritt

how many people sit at a web server to watch video over the internet? none.

That wasn't the point, the point is that open standards are what made the Internet possible. If, for example, TCP/IP was made to run only on IBM mainframes, the vast majority of computers at that time, then we would not have the wonderful world of Internet that we have today. HTTP and HTML were invented on a NExt workstation and designed to be open and platform independent. Taking all that and saying that other platforms are not important is a bit like biting the hand that fed you.

Originally Posted by Dan Euritt

the ipod video format excludes millions of web surfers, because most of 'em do not have the required software necessary to 1)download the video file(itunes), and 2)play it back(quicktime).

Dan, there is no iPod format. It's either MPEG4 or H264, I said that before. Those are general formats, can be played with all kind of players.

Originally Posted by Dan Euritt

why would you put up a video file that requires proprietary software just download it? and then it can only be played back by a player that none of the major video sites use?

We're going in circles here. See above.

Originally Posted by Dan Euritt

since it went online, over 15 million video ipod files have been downloaded from apple's site... that's a good number, but it pales in comparison to the biggest video sites on the 'net:
video streams per month-
MSN Video 9,279,000
YouTube 9,045,000
Google Video 6,246,000
iFILM 4,336,000

BTW, iFILM gives you multiple choices. Google uses MPEG4. Both Google and YouTube don't give you the level of control on the quality that I need.

Originally Posted by Dan Euritt

do you put your vodcasts online in any video formats other than h.264?

No.

Originally Posted by Dan Euritt

can your footage be accessed and downloaded by anything other than itunes?

Of course. It happens every day. The site provides both a direct link to the video file and a one-click link to subscribe. Nobody, I repeat, nobody made a single criticism about the format.

Originally Posted by Dan Euritt

you asked to see operating system stats:
"Windows XP is the most popular operating system. The windows family counts for nearly 90%" http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

Nobody argues about the fact that Windows is the OS of the majority. Your source though is not representative of the common user. That is a specilized web site collecting statistics about people hitting on their website. I never visited that site and the company/organization is not a credited survey specialist. Those numbers have little or no value for the purpose of drawing a map of OS users in the world.

Originally Posted by Dan Euritt

the point here is that the internet is a windows-only world

No it's not, the Internet is largely run by Unix and Mainframes machines.
When Microsoft tried to switch Hotmail from BSD Unix to Windows the whole system came to a screaching halt and they had to go back. BTW, the Mac
business unit in Redmond is about 300 people, if I remember well and MS has recently started a Linux Lab. Even MS recognizes that there is diversity out there and that it deserves attention.
There is a lot of clients that run Windows, I don't contest that.

Just to be totally clear about the intention of this post, I don't pretend to tell you what to use for encoding. You're happy with WM, more power to ya.
This thread was started by somebody who needed advice on what format to use. Several people gave their contribution and we tried to stay away from "religious wars" because we all know how it ends.
I'm not against WM, my rebuttal was against some rather totalitarian and outrageous statements made.
The validity of a software or a format goes way beyond the market penetration validation. Just because everybody is doing it it doesn't mean that other solutions are not valid. In fact many time we found better solutions than the status quo.
Keeping our options open and supporting platform-independent standards is not only easy but necessary for the survival of the computing platform that we enjoy today. Think of it as "digital enviromental protection". Or we might end, like in "Demolition Man", having only Taco Bell as a choice for dinner out.

I said all I had to say, I believe that people heard enough about this and I will not post more messages in this thread.

Taike care.

[Paul Carlberg]

I should probably let this thread die, but I have a situation that I think pertains and I wonder if anyone has seen anything similar?

Has anyone noticed significant real-world performance differences amongst the various codecs? Perhaps a loaded question.

To make a long story longer, I started out with Quicktime and Windows Media 9 endcoding which I put up on my web host. From my home (DSL/cable) I can see many, if not all, of my various encoding attempts, from both a web host (progressive downloads) and streaming host.

However, my wife at her work, (T1) indicated that she could never see any of these clips, perhaps a corporate firewall issue. Nonetheless, I switched to Flash and viola! she can see all of it. (at my local public library, I can't even see my website!)

Many details could account for the differences here, e.g. bit rates, file sizes, streaming vs. progressive, so on and so forth, but for me, bottom line, with media of comparable encoding inputs, the Flash video, for some reason, succeeded where the others could not. Any rational explaination here?

For what's it worth, I don't care what I codec I use as long as it's broadcast quality, large aspect ratio, small file sizes, quick renders, and immediate playback, all over a heavily congested internet :^) (tongue-in-cheek)

Thanks in advance, Paul Carlberg

[Stephen L. Noe]

what's your web address Paul?