Best encode settings for web from ex1 720/50p footage

Craig Seeman · December 14th, 2008, 03:05 PM

You might need to try using Compressor's Frame Controls Retiming feature which uses Optical Flow technology.

The first step is to check results on the computer. It should play back 25p smoothly on your computer before uploading.

Dominik Seibold · December 14th, 2008, 05:13 PM

To convert 50p to 25p there's nothing more to do then to drop every second frame. You don't need advanced techiques like optical flow for that. 50p to 24p conversion for vimeo of course will benefit a lot from optical flow, but it will take a lot of render time.

Mitchell Lewis · December 14th, 2008, 07:54 PM

Having "choppy video" on Flash video playback may be caused by the speed of your CPU. I know that on my previous MacBookPro (single processor G5) it would have to work really hard just to play a Flash video without dropping frames. One thing to check (if you're on a Mac) is to launch the Activity Monitor and then Window>CPU History. This will show you how hard your CPU is running when viewing a Flash movie. If the graph is showing that your CPU is maxed out, that may be why you're dropping frames.

On the other hand, if you're NOT having trouble viewing other people's Flash videos, then forget everything I just wrote above. :)

Evan Meades · December 14th, 2008, 07:58 PM

Hey just a thought but why not upload to your own site and let them download it or play it there? I encoded a few versions of a 5 min production to mp4 and it worked well coming from a EX3 1080I source. I encoded in compressor (Mac) converting to progressive frames (25fps). If you have your own site or ftp isn't this easier?

Evan

Paul Cronin · December 15th, 2008, 08:41 AM

Mitchell for me it is not CPU with dual quad core 3.0 and 16GB of ram the machine is not even working when it views the footage. It is a Vimeo problem.

Evan I do upload to a hidden page but letting them download is not an option since most of the footage is right protected from a few TV shows. That is what intrigued me with Vimeo Plus you could have it play on your site only and no download. For me high quality is a must and their footage is not there yet.

Craig Seeman · December 15th, 2008, 10:23 AM

Dominik, Carlos said he used Compressor without any special settings (optical flow) and was not happy with the results. Sometimes theory and practice are very different. If dropping every second frame doesn't look good (after all you are changing the temporal resolution) there's no reason why not trying optical flow. Maybe it's created frames based on the motion estimation will do a better job, maybe not. With technology NEVER assume the "white paper" matches reality.

In fact if dropping every 2nd frame where fine that Carlos' 50p wouldn't look too bad as a Vimeo convert. I suspect Vimeo going from 25p to 24p drops fewer frames than 30p to 24p.

Basically Vimeo has a serious frame rate conversion issue and one must do the frame rate conversation yourself if you are to use Vimeo. Not of this is necessary with YouTube.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dominik Seibold

To convert 50p to 25p there's nothing more to do then to drop every second frame. You don't need advanced techiques like optical flow for that. 50p to 24p conversion for vimeo of course will benefit a lot from optical flow, but it will take a lot of render time.

Carlos Padilla · December 15th, 2008, 11:32 AM

Craig, I do it like you said and the results are far better. No perfect but not bad. I upload a clip to Vimeo and though that 25p>24p don't would be very agressive but it was a disaster. Now I'm uploading to expossure room. In an hour or less I post the link

Craig Seeman · December 15th, 2008, 11:59 AM

Carlos, looking forward to the ExposureRoom link.

Other experiments might be: once you convert 50p to 25p, do a speed change to 24p and use that as your source to upload. Another might be go directly from 50p to 24p using optical flow. Of course you could try uploading your 50p to YouTube and see how that handles it. At the very least YouTube should handle 25p better than Vimeo since it doesn't do any frame conversion at all.

Carlos Padilla · December 15th, 2008, 12:45 PM

Because with optical flow the 50>25p conversion was better I'll try that you said, directly to 24p. You now if youtube will allow in the futures view 720 footage without upscale to 1080?

The video in expossure room. It's the better I find at the moment. Let me know if you find it jerky or something. I think is so good vs vimeo
Carlos Padilla On ExposureRoom

Password: Patr

Dominik Seibold · December 15th, 2008, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig Seeman

Sometimes theory and practice are very different.

I wouldn't accept that. ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig Seeman

Maybe it's created frames based on the motion estimation will do a better job, maybe not.

The results will be in both cases 100% identical. Try it, if you don't believe me.
Btw, the biggest error-source there is: the user.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carlos Padilla

You now if youtube will allow in the futures view 720 footage without upscale to 1080?

Which upscale? Do you mean full-screen-mode?

Carlos Padilla · December 15th, 2008, 01:54 PM

Dominique I had done the 50>25p conversion with and without using Compressor's Frame Controls Retiming and obtained better results with this option without dubt.

Quote:

Which upscale? Do you mean full-screen-mode?

sorry, you are right. I'm refer to the full screen mode (in my monitors 1920x1080), and the not option to view 720 footage in his size.

Dominik Seibold · December 15th, 2008, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carlos Padilla

Dominique I had done the 50>25p conversion with and without using Compressor's Frame Controls Retiming and obtained better results with this option without dubt.

There are two possibilities:
1. You did a mistake (did choose frame-blending instead of optical flow or didn't do a 50p->25p-conversion but something else)
2. placebo-effect

Can you post examples? I just tried it myself and the results are 100% identical like expected (I subtracted the frames in AFX to be sure there's no difference).

Carlos Padilla · December 15th, 2008, 02:23 PM

Dominique I delete the video without optical flow because the movements were jerky. The conversion with optical flow is the video you can see above. The difference is not little.
1- I choose optical flow in the second one and not in the first.
2- Placebo effect... ok, I was finding a solution and this seems work to me. If anyone that view the video has the same placebo effect that me, are fine.

If you obtains the same results don't do it. Its easy, but believe me, in my case the difference isn't a little interpretation, is fluid movements vs jerky movements.

Dominik Seibold · December 15th, 2008, 02:44 PM

I'm pretty sure there's a mistake around here. But without comparing both of your results I won't be able to tell.

December 14th, 2008, 07:54 PM	#18
Mitchell Lewis Trustee Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Kennewick, WA Posts: 1,124	Having "choppy video" on Flash video playback may be caused by the speed of your CPU. I know that on my previous MacBookPro (single processor G5) it would have to work really hard just to play a Flash video without dropping frames. One thing to check (if you're on a Mac) is to launch the Activity Monitor and then Window>CPU History. This will show you how hard your CPU is running when viewing a Flash movie. If the graph is showing that your CPU is maxed out, that may be why you're dropping frames. On the other hand, if you're NOT having trouble viewing other people's Flash videos, then forget everything I just wrote above. :) __________________ Sony EX3, Canon 5D MkII, Chrosziel Matte Box, Sachtler tripod, Steadicam Flyer, Mac Pro, Apple/Adobe software - 20 years as a local videographer/editor

December 15th, 2008, 08:41 AM	#20
Paul Cronin Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Rhode Island Posts: 4,048	Mitchell for me it is not CPU with dual quad core 3.0 and 16GB of ram the machine is not even working when it views the footage. It is a Vimeo problem. Evan I do upload to a hidden page but letting them download is not an option since most of the footage is right protected from a few TV shows. That is what intrigued me with Vimeo Plus you could have it play on your site only and no download. For me high quality is a must and their footage is not there yet. __________________ Paul Cronin www.paulcroninstudios.com

December 14th, 2008, 03:05 PM	#16
Craig Seeman Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Brooklyn, NY, USA Posts: 3,841	You might need to try using Compressor's Frame Controls Retiming feature which uses Optical Flow technology. The first step is to check results on the computer. It should play back 25p smoothly on your computer before uploading.

December 14th, 2008, 05:13 PM	#17
Dominik Seibold Major Player Join Date: May 2008 Location: Nuremberg, Germany Posts: 285	To convert 50p to 25p there's nothing more to do then to drop every second frame. You don't need advanced techiques like optical flow for that. 50p to 24p conversion for vimeo of course will benefit a lot from optical flow, but it will take a lot of render time.

December 14th, 2008, 07:58 PM	#19
Evan Meades Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Melbourne Posts: 68	Hey just a thought but why not upload to your own site and let them download it or play it there? I encoded a few versions of a 5 min production to mp4 and it worked well coming from a EX3 1080I source. I encoded in compressor (Mac) converting to progressive frames (25fps). If you have your own site or ftp isn't this easier? Evan

December 15th, 2008, 11:32 AM	#22
Carlos Padilla Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Barcelona, Spain Posts: 33	Craig, I do it like you said and the results are far better. No perfect but not bad. I upload a clip to Vimeo and though that 25p>24p don't would be very agressive but it was a disaster. Now I'm uploading to expossure room. In an hour or less I post the link

December 15th, 2008, 11:59 AM	#23
Craig Seeman Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Brooklyn, NY, USA Posts: 3,841	Carlos, looking forward to the ExposureRoom link. Other experiments might be: once you convert 50p to 25p, do a speed change to 24p and use that as your source to upload. Another might be go directly from 50p to 24p using optical flow. Of course you could try uploading your 50p to YouTube and see how that handles it. At the very least YouTube should handle 25p better than Vimeo since it doesn't do any frame conversion at all.

December 15th, 2008, 12:45 PM	#24
Carlos Padilla Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Barcelona, Spain Posts: 33	Because with optical flow the 50>25p conversion was better I'll try that you said, directly to 24p. You now if youtube will allow in the futures view 720 footage without upscale to 1080? The video in expossure room. It's the better I find at the moment. Let me know if you find it jerky or something. I think is so good vs vimeo Carlos Padilla On ExposureRoom Password: Patr

December 15th, 2008, 02:23 PM	#28
Carlos Padilla Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Barcelona, Spain Posts: 33	Dominique I delete the video without optical flow because the movements were jerky. The conversion with optical flow is the video you can see above. The difference is not little. 1- I choose optical flow in the second one and not in the first. 2- Placebo effect... ok, I was finding a solution and this seems work to me. If anyone that view the video has the same placebo effect that me, are fine. If you obtains the same results don't do it. Its easy, but believe me, in my case the difference isn't a little interpretation, is fluid movements vs jerky movements.

December 15th, 2008, 02:44 PM	#29
Dominik Seibold Major Player Join Date: May 2008 Location: Nuremberg, Germany Posts: 285	I'm pretty sure there's a mistake around here. But without comparing both of your results I won't be able to tell.