UWOL#2 How to make it better

Chris Barcellos · February 6th, 2007, 01:56 PM

I wonder what our winner on UWOL #1 used, PC or MAC, and what his encoding secrets might be....Per, what about it ?

Chris Barcellos · February 6th, 2007, 01:59 PM

Just checked PER's feedback, and he used Sorenson squeeze, whatever that is. Investigation beginning for me....

Meryem Ersoz · February 6th, 2007, 01:59 PM

ask him at this thread...

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=85385

i think he already talked about his compression at this thread. you might want to have a look....

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=83805

Chris Barcellos · February 6th, 2007, 02:04 PM

<Gulp,,,> Sorenson Squeeze is what Per used, at $500.00 ....

Nick Ambrose · February 6th, 2007, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Horrigan

I believe so. I don't own a Mac at the moment but I know that VLC can play just about anything, and it is available for the Mac and PC. As well as many other OS'...

BTW, VLC doesn't hold a candle to WMP on my machine. I just downloaded it and played a few clips. They always looked worse when using VLC.

Not really the point here though...

I have VLC for Mac (PPC) and it does indeed play almost anything.
The only CODEC i found so far that it will not play is that Intel Indeo5 thingy that was never ported to mac?

The downside is that VLC on my mac at least is pretty unstable.

Gordon Hoffman · February 6th, 2007, 07:43 PM

My experience with this first challenge with the exception of a problem of getting the aspect ratio to come out right went smoothly. It took a few tries to get the file size right but with a short video that is not a big deal. I would be concerned with to large of a file to download. If this takes off and alot of entries are submitted as hoped it could make it a challenge just to watch them all.

Gordon Hoffman

Dale Guthormsen · February 6th, 2007, 10:35 PM

Good evening,

I had never uploaded video in the past and Ifound making a mov file and downloading it as easy as could be.

The only inprovement would be the increase in resolution.

When I went to the site my pc would run every clip in simple click and play, and down load times were relatively fast.

I agree with Meryem that all entrants should be judged in the same quality.

I also think it is great to look at them in higher resolution after the contest is over.

I eagerly wait for the next contest!!

Brendan Marnell · February 7th, 2007, 04:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Barcellos

Just checked PER's feedback, and he used Sorenson squeeze, whatever that is. Investigation beginning for me....

On Per's advice I bought S.S.v4.3.

It offers filters to begin with, then the following number of/range of settings per format:
MPEG4 : 30
Flash Movie : 24
Flash Video : 20
Quicktime : 25
Windows : 22
Real Media : 18
MPEG 1/2 : 21
MP3 Audio : 7

Within each setting there is some scope to tweak. It's easy to practise and test out different settings, which means it's easy to learn ... it must be, i got it after looking at HELP for 10 minutes, twice.

Paul Wags · February 7th, 2007, 07:38 AM

Just reading abit on this thread and I think FLASH video is the way to go but costly for folks who have no FLASH encoder.

Flash just plays on a MAC or PC no problems as everyone has the FLASH player installed now days.

I used EDIUS 4 to cut mine up. Rendering out FLASH or QT or WMV is very easy straight from the timline in a simple few clicks.

Gabriel Yeager · February 7th, 2007, 12:03 PM

(IMHO:) I'm going to jump in here and suggest that we use DivX. it works on both PC and mac (plus a bit of new dvd players). It looks decent, and everyone can get it for free and it only takes but a few minutes to download.

Or, even youtube, your video can be up to 100MB, and everyones video would have to be the same size. Plus, its a cake-walk to upload. And I am sure someone here on dvinfo knows the best settings to get the most of your video on youtube. And then you can just link each site to the uwolchallenge website by everyone emailing the link to their video to the web master like we do for the DVC.

Just my two cents.
~Gabriel

Jim Michael · February 7th, 2007, 01:12 PM

Prior to Flash 8, Macromedia was using Sorenson as the video codec. Starting with Flash 8 they switched over to On2 Technologies VP6. Checking On2's website I see they have a product that converts video files to Flash 8 (presumably using VP6) and the price isn't bad starting at $39. Not sure if this is of interest for UWOL, but here is the link http://www.on2.com/consumer/flixstandard/

Meryem Ersoz · February 7th, 2007, 01:21 PM

i suggested DivX originally, and the idea wasn't met very enthusiastically. people simply don't want to be required to download software to play. moreover, that limits your viewing audience to DivX viewers, so if i wanted to, say, find a sponsor to get us better prizes, i would have to request that they download the player--people really seem to hate chewing up their memory on dedicated software. it's not efficient or universal. it sure is nice-looking, though!

youtube got the ax because its artifact-y compression looks a lot worse than what we put together on our dedicated website.

if we can change the uploader to accept larger files, we will. i don't think we are going to radically change anything--bump up file size, if we can, and bump up aspect ratio sizes, if we can enlarge the file size, and i think we'll be in business. we'll work on that.

Mat Thompson · February 7th, 2007, 06:19 PM

Hi people :)

Hey Meryem. Well my take on the file size is if we have the bandwidth we may as well use it and make the viewing experience better. I myself would have benefited greatly from a larger image size with my Starling footage....As far as the uploader goes, I think myself and Kevin are going to take a look around and If we have to pay to get something reliable and that can cope with larger file demand then we will as it makes a great, easy interface for people to upload to!

As far as file types, it does make things tidy to keep to one format and yes the format should be a free one. Personally I think we got it fairly well shaped for this first challenge and I don't think we should deviate too far from this format.

One question maybe Kevin can answer, how long will we be able to store all these films in the database before we really start having huge storage issues. At 100mb and say 30 Entries thats 3Gig per comp......thats gonna stack up pretty quickly.....Just a thought for the future.

I chuffed everyones so into this thing we've brought to life...I can see we could really have A LOT of entries for the next one with some of the press this is already getting :)

Meryem Ersoz · February 7th, 2007, 07:45 PM

as of yesterday, i think the limitations on bandwidth will be a non-issue, but i think we still want an uploader which can upload large files. mat, check your e-mail...

Mat Thompson · February 8th, 2007, 06:05 AM

I'm not talking bandwidth....Really, but storage space for a archive of films.

Meryem....yeah I will get back to you guys shortly on email :)

February 6th, 2007, 01:56 PM	#16
Chris Barcellos Inner Circle Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Elk Grove CA Posts: 6,838	I wonder what our winner on UWOL #1 used, PC or MAC, and what his encoding secrets might be....Per, what about it ? __________________ Chris J. Barcellos

February 6th, 2007, 01:59 PM	#17
Chris Barcellos Inner Circle Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Elk Grove CA Posts: 6,838	Just checked PER's feedback, and he used Sorenson squeeze, whatever that is. Investigation beginning for me.... __________________ Chris J. Barcellos

February 6th, 2007, 02:04 PM	#19
Chris Barcellos Inner Circle Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Elk Grove CA Posts: 6,838	<Gulp,,,> Sorenson Squeeze is what Per used, at $500.00 .... __________________ Chris J. Barcellos

February 6th, 2007, 10:35 PM	#22
Dale Guthormsen Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Saskatchewan Posts: 3,048	Good evening, I had never uploaded video in the past and Ifound making a mov file and downloading it as easy as could be. The only inprovement would be the increase in resolution. When I went to the site my pc would run every clip in simple click and play, and down load times were relatively fast. I agree with Meryem that all entrants should be judged in the same quality. I also think it is great to look at them in higher resolution after the contest is over. I eagerly wait for the next contest!! __________________ DATS ALL FOLKS Dale W. Guthormsen

February 7th, 2007, 12:03 PM	#25
Gabriel Yeager Major Player Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Washington, NorthWest USA Posts: 788	(IMHO:) I'm going to jump in here and suggest that we use DivX. it works on both PC and mac (plus a bit of new dvd players). It looks decent, and everyone can get it for free and it only takes but a few minutes to download. Or, even youtube, your video can be up to 100MB, and everyones video would have to be the same size. Plus, its a cake-walk to upload. And I am sure someone here on dvinfo knows the best settings to get the most of your video on youtube. And then you can just link each site to the uwolchallenge website by everyone emailing the link to their video to the web master like we do for the DVC. Just my two cents. ~Gabriel __________________ Gabriel Photography

February 6th, 2007, 01:59 PM	#18
Meryem Ersoz Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 3,015	ask him at this thread... http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=85385 i think he already talked about his compression at this thread. you might want to have a look.... http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=83805

February 6th, 2007, 07:43 PM	#21
Gordon Hoffman Major Player Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Pincher Creek, Alberta Canada Posts: 619	My experience with this first challenge with the exception of a problem of getting the aspect ratio to come out right went smoothly. It took a few tries to get the file size right but with a short video that is not a big deal. I would be concerned with to large of a file to download. If this takes off and alot of entries are submitted as hoped it could make it a challenge just to watch them all. Gordon Hoffman

February 7th, 2007, 07:38 AM	#24
Paul Wags Ruler of the DownUnder UnderWorld Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Cairns- Queensland - Australia Posts: 248	Just reading abit on this thread and I think FLASH video is the way to go but costly for folks who have no FLASH encoder. Flash just plays on a MAC or PC no problems as everyone has the FLASH player installed now days. I used EDIUS 4 to cut mine up. Rendering out FLASH or QT or WMV is very easy straight from the timline in a simple few clicks.

February 7th, 2007, 01:12 PM	#26
Jim Michael Major Player Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 895	Prior to Flash 8, Macromedia was using Sorenson as the video codec. Starting with Flash 8 they switched over to On2 Technologies VP6. Checking On2's website I see they have a product that converts video files to Flash 8 (presumably using VP6) and the price isn't bad starting at $39. Not sure if this is of interest for UWOL, but here is the link http://www.on2.com/consumer/flixstandard/

February 7th, 2007, 01:21 PM	#27
Meryem Ersoz Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 3,015	i suggested DivX originally, and the idea wasn't met very enthusiastically. people simply don't want to be required to download software to play. moreover, that limits your viewing audience to DivX viewers, so if i wanted to, say, find a sponsor to get us better prizes, i would have to request that they download the player--people really seem to hate chewing up their memory on dedicated software. it's not efficient or universal. it sure is nice-looking, though! youtube got the ax because its artifact-y compression looks a lot worse than what we put together on our dedicated website. if we can change the uploader to accept larger files, we will. i don't think we are going to radically change anything--bump up file size, if we can, and bump up aspect ratio sizes, if we can enlarge the file size, and i think we'll be in business. we'll work on that.

February 7th, 2007, 06:19 PM	#28
Mat Thompson Trustee Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Kent UK Posts: 1,397	Hi people :) Hey Meryem. Well my take on the file size is if we have the bandwidth we may as well use it and make the viewing experience better. I myself would have benefited greatly from a larger image size with my Starling footage....As far as the uploader goes, I think myself and Kevin are going to take a look around and If we have to pay to get something reliable and that can cope with larger file demand then we will as it makes a great, easy interface for people to upload to! As far as file types, it does make things tidy to keep to one format and yes the format should be a free one. Personally I think we got it fairly well shaped for this first challenge and I don't think we should deviate too far from this format. One question maybe Kevin can answer, how long will we be able to store all these films in the database before we really start having huge storage issues. At 100mb and say 30 Entries thats 3Gig per comp......thats gonna stack up pretty quickly.....Just a thought for the future. I chuffed everyones so into this thing we've brought to life...I can see we could really have A LOT of entries for the next one with some of the press this is already getting :)

February 7th, 2007, 07:45 PM	#29
Meryem Ersoz Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 3,015	as of yesterday, i think the limitations on bandwidth will be a non-issue, but i think we still want an uploader which can upload large files. mat, check your e-mail...

February 8th, 2007, 06:05 AM	#30
Mat Thompson Trustee Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Kent UK Posts: 1,397	I'm not talking bandwidth....Really, but storage space for a archive of films. Meryem....yeah I will get back to you guys shortly on email :)