posted
Hey everyone, Is there anyone out there who is pretty good with video editing software and can make sense out of what are some good video exporting formats and settings for web use? I had to change my video program from my old computer to using the Adobe Premiere CS 3 that I had bundled with my Adobe Collection as it runs on Windows 7 (old PC was on XP).
Anyhow, I've found some settings, but they produce massive files that are about 100 MB per 2 minutes. I've cut back what I "thought" would help, but then they look blochy as hell.
So, does anyone have any advice or know any good sites that can make sense of all the bitrates, buffering, blah, blah, blah stuff for me? Obviously video is NOT my expertise, but I did dab in it a little back in college.
posted
Dig around Export Presets in Premiere or After FX. Create some custom ones, and then create a 30 second clip encode a to "targets" via export.
If you're on Windows Media VC-1 or Windows Media 9.2 Advanced (2 PASS VBR) is a good Idea CS3 can handle it, but it will run 'single threaded' so it will take forever.
The other option is to download MS Expressions Encoder V3 or V4 (free).
The CS3 Flash Video Encoder is a P.O.S. it comes only with On2 VP6 FLV support (avoid it).
Also try out more universal output options like MP4 (however CS4 and above are good for that).
I would not use any quicktime or avi containers.
On windows I'd update to Windows media player 11 and pull down MS-Expressions encoder either way.
5,000Kbps to 10,000Kbps is a good bitrate for video encoding if using "Constant Bitrate" CBR, if you go below that 1500Kbps it should be in "SD" also make sure you're doing progressive (vs. interlaced) You can use "interpret footage" function in CS3 to de-interlace.
While I know a little bit about video rendering, I focused more on print/graphic/web design. What I was looking for assistance with is what formats are best and at what settings for the web. I am also starting to be torn, especially after buying my iPad last week, with Windows Media format not being something everything recognizes.
posted
Okay well for web delivery in "pseudo HD" you can do 960x540 (16:9) in H.264 MPEG-4 - Main Profile, 3000Kbps Video VBR, 128Kbps AAC Audio CBR.
That plays on iPad, at least on off website it does.
But I'm using Apple Compressor, as I mainly post in Final Cut Pro and for Windows I render into ProRes422 and use Expression Encoder 3 for 1080p VC-1 "download" only delivery.
CS3 may not support what I'm suggesting I don't recall CS3 shipping with a dedicated video encoder (I think Device Central may have something) but CS4 or Higher is more "self-explanatory" for that with presets.
So your edited output should be in the Premieres Native Codec, and that "FAT FILE" fed to a compression program for delivery.
I have a copy of CS4 installed so I cannot verify the features in CS3 any longer ;-(.
posted
WMV is no longer as popular as it once was. I stopped using it years ago along with HDV tapes when better technology came along.
If your camera shoots AVCHD which uses the MPEG-4 Advanced Video Codec/H.264 standard, then it doesn't really make much sense to convert to WMV, or bother with intermediate codecs.
You'd be loosing a bit of image quality and looking at longer workflows. It's higher quality to simply straight output mp4.
The difference is particularly noticeable a lower bit rates where the wmv falls apart and the mp4 still looks good.
quote:Originally posted by goodguyneighbor: If your camera shoots AVCHD which uses the MPEG-4 Advanced Video Codec/H.264 standard, then it doesn't really make much sense to convert to WMV, or bother with intermediate codecs.
Hey there! I don't mean to pick this apart (honestly) - nor side track - actually I'm curious if you could share more of your workflow.
The brevety of the statement did not make sense to me on the initial read. I've not seen any of your videos at any resolution nor do I know your workflow but I am intrigued. So I'm curious as to what AVCHD camera you're using and what Edit and Compression software.
Typically I've found a trans-code to a loss-less codec to be mandatory together with either 3:2 pulldown removal or de-interlacing when dealing with AVCHD material shot onto prosumer cameras, due to most of them using 17Mbps 4:2:0 Main Profile @ 1080i with max framerates of 23.98 (24 fps), I see GH2 supports 24Mbps High Profile AVCHD now, and 24p/30p/60i.
And what you're describing is an edit in native AVCHD TS at 4:2:0, then a transcode into MPEG-4/H.264 combined with a scaler/pulldown remover/de-interlacer for lesser that 1080p resolutions.
My workflow currently involves ingest to a "lossless" codec from AVC together with 4:2:0 to 4:2:2 interpolation AVID DNAxHD, ProRes 422 HQ or Cineform.
quote: You'd be loosing a bit of image quality and looking at longer workflows. It's higher quality to simply straight output mp4.
You're absolutely right, I've found only one package that deals with AVC normally for speed EDIUS and AVID News Cutter. But they all work at broadcast spec, so 3:2 telecine like pull-down or 60i signal is included.
quote: The difference is particularly noticeable a lower bit rates where the wmv falls apart and the mp4 still looks good.
This is the part I'm most interested in, I've run many a test with different payloads to MP4, WMV(VC-1), XVID and DivX (all H.264 derivatives) for main and low profile. Are you doing some FFMPEG or MPEG-Streamclip or VLC magic that could be worthwhile to research?
posted
That's quite unnecessarily complicated for Internet videos, unless you're doing broadcast tv.
All computer monitors and modern HDTVs are progressive scan, so there's no reason to be shooting interlaced.
1080i (1440 resolution) is pretty much obsolete now anyway. Newer cameras are all at least 1080p (1920x1080), even the iphone.
Programs like Vegas Pro 10 feature native GPU accelerated AVC rendering. Fast and simple. No more need for converting to intermediate codecs that take up massive storage space.
posted
I'm still in P2 CARD land in terms of video shooting. Aside from the GH1/GH2.
I own 2 HPX170's (obviously not just to have my feet shot). Native 24Mbps 1080p AVC edit sounds like a good bypass.
goodguy, I did not mean someone "should" source in interlaced, it just that for backwards compatibility for some reason most $1,000 range camera with HDMI connectors on them wrap whatever it is they do shoot into an interlaced codec, so they could be connected to a TV and the family can watch the birthday video etc.
AVC-Intra (HPX300, H-100) has options to skip that, I've not looked at video gear in a while so must have skipped the whole true progressive AVC cameras. What were you using?
posted
All this went way over my head. My issue is, I'm not shooting no where near the high quality as Goodguy, but I also don't want a video to take minutes to even start up (as the link above did). I am on cable internet and I know people will complain if things take too long to load up - quality or not. So I was looking for a happy medium as I am still not convinced someone doing a 2 minute jack job doesn't want to wait longer than that for the content to pop up.
posted
See, 640x480 just seems too small. These are all the items I am trying to figure out. I need to invest in a killer camera, but I don't have the funds right now since I got this kick ass computer. But I want to have clips that are in the 1280x720 (720p setting) that have a balance of quality and file size.
posted
You cannot have both. Either your users are going to download them for a while and stutter on play or they'll stream out real quick.
You solve that problem by encoding to multiple targets. Youtube does this 240p, 320p all the way to 1080p. Vimeo as well via their HD/SD players etc.. No way around it, someone in the world will be on a slow enough connection not to be able to play your video 100% guaranteed. Even my site has HD/SD. (2 separate streams encoded at different settings)
There is no defined balance. Just like there will always be someone with 2 27" screens saying your pictures are too small and someone on a laptop or mobile saying the pictures load too long. At some point technology catches up and you have to re-size the entire inventory again.
If you're looking for what the average at the present moment its between 640x480 and 960x540.
You can "cheat" by not using square pixel aspect and encode 960x720p and have the player stretch it.
FYI: Things shot in 1080, 2k and higher still compress better will less noise into 640x480. So some material will look stunning in SD (like most of the widescreen movies people watch) some will be to noisy and compress badly.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Cry]](cry.gif)
