"Alternative" workflow for creating flash files? at DVinfo.net

Marcus Schuler · April 20th, 2008, 10:39 PM

I produce a lot videos for the web - mostly in flash. I use different sizes which can vary from 580 to 720 pixels wide.

This is the workflow which was already discussed here and to be found quite useful:

1. Editing in HDV
2. Render out a Cineform avi-File (1280 x 720)
3. Generate a Flash File with Flix Pro (btw: superb programme!)

My question is: What do you thing of this "alternative workflow", do I get a better picture quality, e.g. when using a HD-format (720); do you see any disadvantages or advantages? Would you use another Codec instead?

1. Editing in HDV
2. Render out a m2t-HDV-File (1440 x 1080)
3. Convert into an avi-File by using MPEG Streamclip and then the Apple Motion JpegA Codec (Haven´t heard of that codec before, big loss of picture quality?)
4. 3. Generate a Flash File with Flix Pro

I did a small test and could not figure out any change in the picture quality, small advantage in my opinion for my "alternative workflow"...but very small.

Marcus

Eric Darling · April 20th, 2008, 11:32 PM

With your alternative proposed, you're introducing new opportunities for rounding and concatenation errors, plus you are spending more time in the process. So, I see a few disadvantages.

If your final presentation is never wider than 720 pixels, why mix it up?

Now, if you are dissatisfied with your results, you are probably just seeing the limitations of the On2VP6 codec, and these issues are probably being introduced on the final conversion stage, which is necessary no matter what process you take to get there.

Jeff Harper · April 21st, 2008, 12:10 AM

Eric is correct. Reducing steps should be the goal. Each additional step can only add the potential for loss of quality.

I do not use Premier CS3, but I have it. If I weren't so lazy I would learn how to edit in it, and render videos intended for flash directly into .flv files. It is a great feature of Premier to render directly to flv from the timeline.

I currently render from Vegas into umcompressed .avi then render to .flv with Flash CS3 Encoder. Works just fine. I really prefer the look of wmv files however, much better IMO.

Marcus Schuler · April 21st, 2008, 01:00 AM

Dear Jeff,
Dear Eric,

thanks for your answers. Indeed, your points are convincing.

:-)

Marcus

April 20th, 2008, 10:39 PM	#1
Marcus Schuler Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Munich, Germany Posts: 28	"Alternative" workflow for creating flash files? I produce a lot videos for the web - mostly in flash. I use different sizes which can vary from 580 to 720 pixels wide. This is the workflow which was already discussed here and to be found quite useful: 1. Editing in HDV 2. Render out a Cineform avi-File (1280 x 720) 3. Generate a Flash File with Flix Pro (btw: superb programme!) My question is: What do you thing of this "alternative workflow", do I get a better picture quality, e.g. when using a HD-format (720); do you see any disadvantages or advantages? Would you use another Codec instead? 1. Editing in HDV 2. Render out a m2t-HDV-File (1440 x 1080) 3. Convert into an avi-File by using MPEG Streamclip and then the Apple Motion JpegA Codec (Haven´t heard of that codec before, big loss of picture quality?) 4. 3. Generate a Flash File with Flix Pro I did a small test and could not figure out any change in the picture quality, small advantage in my opinion for my "alternative workflow"...but very small. Marcus

April 20th, 2008, 11:32 PM	#2
Eric Darling Major Player Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Savannah, GA Posts: 463	With your alternative proposed, you're introducing new opportunities for rounding and concatenation errors, plus you are spending more time in the process. So, I see a few disadvantages. If your final presentation is never wider than 720 pixels, why mix it up? Now, if you are dissatisfied with your results, you are probably just seeing the limitations of the On2VP6 codec, and these issues are probably being introduced on the final conversion stage, which is necessary no matter what process you take to get there.

April 21st, 2008, 12:10 AM	#3
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	Eric is correct. Reducing steps should be the goal. Each additional step can only add the potential for loss of quality. I do not use Premier CS3, but I have it. If I weren't so lazy I would learn how to edit in it, and render videos intended for flash directly into .flv files. It is a great feature of Premier to render directly to flv from the timeline. I currently render from Vegas into umcompressed .avi then render to .flv with Flash CS3 Encoder. Works just fine. I really prefer the look of wmv files however, much better IMO.

April 21st, 2008, 01:00 AM	#4
Marcus Schuler Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Munich, Germany Posts: 28	Dear Jeff, Dear Eric, thanks for your answers. Indeed, your points are convincing. :-) Marcus