Jump to content


How about my website


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 gregorscheer

gregorscheer
  • Guests

Posted 01 December 2005 - 10:42 PM

http://www.vinestreetworks.com

I'm specially interested to know how well the clips play on computers with different connections and configurations but also comments about layout and content

Thanks for jumping in and for your feedback
  • 0

#2 Grainy

Grainy
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 65 posts
  • Director

Posted 02 December 2005 - 11:40 AM

hi there!
Here's a few things to consider.

Good stuff
1 - good idea using animation for cristo download page
2 - downloads were smooth as glass even on my ultra-secure corp web connection.
3 - whole site loads nice n' fast on my machine (I've got a good connection, though)
4 - attractive images

To consider:

Files:
no file size in free downloads! You should let people know what they're in for. Run time doesn't count.

Layout
1 - nice placement of back button at the bottom of the memory cards page, but it doesn't take you "back", it takes you to a licensing page!

2 - on my screen (pretty standard 1024x) the lines end exactly on the bottom of the screen ("the fold") and unless you happen to notice the scrollbar, it seems like the site is one screen in size instead of a large scrolling screen. You might want to either stretch out your image so you can tell it's cut off at the bottom a bit, or bump up the lower images. Also on the downloads page, same deal except there is no more content below the fold. I'd try and see if I could get rid of the scroll bar.

3 - Not sure about the "mini" size (optimized for 800x, I'm guessing) but who does anyone use this size anymore? I don't know. Nothing wrong with it, though.

4 - home page: if you really want to list these things in chron order, I'd make the date row bigger (where it says releases 2005, work in progress, etc.) and I'd take them out of the graph type format and have them sit on their own. As they are, they seem crowded to me and don't pop enough to notice.

5 - you've buried put your proposal for partnership and etc. at the dead bottom of your home page. I'd put it at the top, and space out the three bullets with some more breathing room between characters/lines. Generally, the text feels a bit crowded but when I focused on it, it was good, so it'd be worth getting that sharper. Could be just font choice.
Also, the font against the gray is a bit smudgy on my screen (I'm running XP pro using IE)
  • 0

#3 Dickson Sorensen

Dickson Sorensen
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 131 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 02 December 2005 - 11:55 AM

http://www.vinestreetworks.com

I'm specially interested to know how well the clips play on computers with different connections and configurations but also comments about layout and content

Thanks for jumping in and for your feedback

I downloaded kids explore science running windows xp on a dsl line. It took about 2 minutes to down load and opened in real player, the video was in black and white, and the voice over sounded like she was speaking through a pipe.
  • 0

#4 Matt Irwin

Matt Irwin
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 389 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 02 December 2005 - 12:00 PM

I'm on a 3 meg cable modem.

Your pages loaded within 2 seconds. Good, clean site. Here's what I noticed:

-My monitor res is set at 1600x1200, so when I view your pages, there is a considerable amount of white space around the sides. Maybe it's just me, but the white is a little distracting. Maybe change it to black or a darker shade of grey than your page background.

-Also I think it would look better if the page was centered on the browser window. Right now it has a left-side bias. Centering would look much better on monitors/browser windows set at high resolutions.

-Video: While Real Media is a decent-enough delivery format for the web, it might be a better idea to go with a Quicktime or (hate to say it...) Windows Media codec. Or both. Those formats are much more common than Real Media, and will run problem-free on more computers. (I know people who refuse to look at .rm files because it gives them too much trouble on their computers). The new Quicktime h.264 codec is an awesome delivery codec. Far better compression with better quality AV than .rm or .wmv. If you do use h.264, make sure you link to a QT7 download because all previous QT versions won't play it.

Hope this is helpful,

Edited by Matt Irwin, 02 December 2005 - 12:04 PM.

  • 0

#5 gregorscheer

gregorscheer
  • Guests

Posted 02 December 2005 - 02:16 PM

hi there!
Here's a few things to consider.

Good stuff
1 - good idea using animation for cristo download page
2 - downloads were smooth as glass even on my ultra-secure corp web connection.
3 - whole site loads nice n' fast on my machine (I've got a good connection, though)
4 - attractive images

- Thanks -

To consider:

Files:
no file size in free downloads! You should let people know what they're in for. Run time doesn't count.

- Good Idea will do -

Layout
1 - nice placement of back button at the bottom of the memory cards page, but it doesn't take you "back", it takes you to a licensing page!

- It takes you to the page where you came from in most cases unless you use the Sitemap. Frankly I do not know how to attach the browsers "back" command to a button in flash.

2 - on my screen (pretty standard 1024x) the lines end exactly on the bottom of the screen ("the fold") and unless you happen to notice the scrollbar, it seems like the site is one screen in size instead of a large scrolling screen. You might want to either stretch out your image so you can tell it's cut off at the bottom a bit, or bump up the lower images. Also on the downloads page, same deal except there is no more content below the fold. I'd try and see if I could get rid of the scroll bar.

- Great observation, this is why I love this forum, another pair of fresh eyes just sees things you do not notice -

3 - Not sure about the "mini" size (optimized for 800x, I'm guessing) but who does anyone use this size anymore? I don't know. Nothing wrong with it, though.

- You are right I used to have a Labtop with this resolution but even my kids do not play with it any more the rule to make websites in this resoluition is probably antiquated by now -

4 - home page: if you really want to list these things in chron order, I'd make the date row bigger (where it says releases 2005, work in progress, etc.) and I'd take them out of the graph type format and have them sit on their own. As they are, they seem crowded to me and don't pop enough to notice.

- Ok I might try another color -

5 - you've buried put your proposal for partnership and etc. at the dead bottom of your home page. I'd put it at the top, and space out the three bullets with some more breathing room between characters/lines. Generally, the text feels a bit crowded but when I focused on it, it was good, so it'd be worth getting that sharper. Could be just font choice.

- agreed, I was cheating in order to stay consistent with the other pages -

Also, the font against the gray is a bit smudgy on my screen (I'm running XP pro using IE)

Thats often a question of calibration of screens - unfortunately one is usually surprised when seeing work on other peoples screens-

Thank You so much for taking the time and the thorough look at this and for all those useful comments
  • 0

#6 gregorscheer

gregorscheer
  • Guests

Posted 02 December 2005 - 02:43 PM

I'm on a 3 meg cable modem.

Your pages loaded within 2 seconds. Good, clean site. Here's what I noticed:

-My monitor res is set at 1600x1200, so when I view your pages, there is a considerable amount of white space around the sides. Maybe it's just me, but the white is a little distracting. Maybe change it to black or a darker shade of grey than your page background.

-Also I think it would look better if the page was centered on the browser window. Right now it has a left-side bias. Centering would look much better on monitors/browser windows set at high resolutions.

Great Idea will do, also I understand that the 800pixel width is a litle antiquated and I could go to 1076

-Video: While Real Media is a decent-enough delivery format for the web, it might be a better idea to go with a Quicktime or (hate to say it...) Windows Media codec. Or both. Those formats are much more common than Real Media, and will run problem-free on more computers. (I know people who refuse to look at .rm files because it gives them too much trouble on their computers). The new Quicktime h.264 codec is an awesome delivery codec. Far better compression with better quality AV than .rm or .wmv. If you do use h.264, make sure you link to a QT7 download because all previous QT versions won't play it.

Now this is interesting. Do you use a mac? I had the worst results with Quicktime compression . At the same file size there where much more artefacts and pixelating than in RM or even WMV. What do I have to do to get that good codec available. Do I have to pay for Quicktime Pro? or do I have to download it and reinstall my editing software? (By the way I'm happyly using Screenblast Movie Studio maybe thats the problem) ??? I can understand the aversion against rm files as they seem to be locked for edit. I can render them but not import them.

Hope this is helpful,


Very usefull Thanks a lot


I downloaded kids explore science running windows xp on a dsl line. It took about 2 minutes to down load and opened in real player, the video was in black and white, and the voice over sounded like she was speaking through a pipe.


Black and white ??? surprising fist time I hear this, I tell you there is nothing logic in Computers :rolleyes: . On the other hand I know about the sound problem. the separate sound recording failed as a dat tape got stuck in the recorder and I had to use the on camera sound and filter the huge amount of background noise. The low low budjet shot had to live with the Mickey Mouse voice. Download time sounds good Many thanks for your observations and let me know when I can help
  • 0

#7 Matt Irwin

Matt Irwin
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 389 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 02 December 2005 - 11:06 PM

Now this is interesting. Do you use a mac? I had the worst results with Quicktime compression . At the same file size there where much more artefacts and pixelating than in RM or even WMV. What do I have to do to get that good codec available. Do I have to pay for Quicktime Pro? or do I have to download it and reinstall my editing software? (By the way I'm happyly using Screenblast Movie Studio maybe thats the problem) ??? I can understand the aversion against rm files as they seem to be locked for edit. I can render them but not import them.


Yes, I'm on a mac. You don't have to pay for QT7 Pro to support h.264. The support is part of the upgrade. I'm not entirely sure how quicktime works on windows machines-- Quicktime is engrained into the mac OS so when you update on a mac, that's it- all your QT-based apps are updated. I have never used Screenblast before, so if there are issues with that program I am unaware.

I am by no means a codec expert, but from what I have seen, h.264 absolutely trounces WMV. Sorensen 3 is not bad either. I usually do all my compressing with Final Cut via Compressor, so I don't really do personal work in the Windows-oriented avi or wmv formats. I think to be compatible with anyone who might view a site, I would offer clips in both WinMedia and QT based codecs. You'll have to decide how much you're willing to compress the clips, but from what I've seen h.264 has the cleanest image-to-file-size trade off.

Edited by Matt Irwin, 02 December 2005 - 11:08 PM.

  • 0

#8 Charlie Seper

Charlie Seper
  • Guests

Posted 06 December 2005 - 11:10 AM

"I am by no means a codec expert, but from what I have seen, h.264 absolutely trounces WMV."

Boy, I don't know. You'd be the first person I've ever heard suggest that. I've yet to get a quicktime video to look anywhere near as good as a wmv video of approximately the same size. In fact I've yet to find anything that could beat wmv on a PC. We were talking about that in one of the other forums a couple of weeks back. I wonder though if maybe Quicktime might not actually look better on a MAC for some reason than wmv files and vise-versa? I don't know why but I guess that's a possibility.

Anyhow, I streamed all the trailers for the "bucket building" video using my nephew's PC. He's on cable but a lower grade connection (I think 256k) and they all started streaming in less than 30-seconds. The Windows 4.3 looked the best followed by the Real Media 3.7

The Windows 1.3 was still reasonably good but the Quicktime 2.4 was nearly unwatchable. Now bear in mind that my nephew has poor eyesite so he's got his 17" monitor set-up for a 600 x 800 screen resolution, so nothing looks as good as it could. But you said you wanted to know about the look of the video's on various screen set-ups so that's why I thought I'd mention this one. Hope it was helpful.

PS, I don't know if you could use anymore footage but I noticed that you have some of a hot-air balloon ride. I've got several minutes of pretty good miniDV footage (shot in 16 x 9) from the annual Forest Park Ballon Race in St. Louis a couple of months ago. (See my post in this forum). If you think you can use any of it you're welcome to it. Looks like you're probably done though.

Edited by Charlie Seper, 06 December 2005 - 11:12 AM.

  • 0


CineLab

Aerial Filmworks

Opal

Wooden Camera

Ritter Battery

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineTape

rebotnix Technologies

Rig Wheels Passport

Metropolis Post

Willys Widgets

FJS International, LLC

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

The Slider

Paralinx LLC

Technodolly

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Visual Products

Tai Audio

Glidecam

Abel Cine

Visual Products

CineLab

Tai Audio

Abel Cine

Glidecam

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Aerial Filmworks

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

FJS International, LLC

Technodolly

Rig Wheels Passport

CineTape

Willys Widgets

Wooden Camera

Paralinx LLC

rebotnix Technologies

The Slider

Opal

Metropolis Post

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Ritter Battery