Jump to content


Photo

Compression


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 Gareth Munden

Gareth Munden
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 137 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London UK

Posted 14 February 2008 - 11:39 AM

Hi


I'm working on my reel, can anyone tell which is the best compression for web. i.e. smallest file-best picture.




Thanks Gareth Munden
  • 0

#2 David Auner aac

David Auner aac
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1117 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 14 February 2008 - 03:16 PM

I'm working on my reel, can anyone tell which is the best compression for web. i.e. smallest file-best picture.


Hi Gareth,

please post your topics into appropriate sub-forums. This one is for finished reels, not for questions about how to finish yours. ;)

I'd go either with WMV9 or QT with Sorenson or H264 for good quality small file size and retaining the usability for most people. Usually I'd do both, one WMV one QT just to be sure. WMV has it's issues on Macs...

Cheers, Dave
  • 0

#3 John Brawley

John Brawley
  • Sustaining Members
  • 834 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Atlanta Georgia

Posted 14 February 2008 - 03:51 PM

Hi


I'm working on my reel, can anyone tell which is the best compression for web. i.e. smallest file-best picture.



Quicktime h.264 is good. I use Flash (which i think is a variation of window's media )and there are no issues on mac. As long as you have flash installed in your browser as a plug in.

Flash seems pretty efficient, and looks good.

jb
  • 0

#4 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11944 posts
  • Other

Posted 14 February 2008 - 06:28 PM

> Quicktime h.264 is good.

Point of order.


Quicktime h.264 is good only for a certain value of good. It's good for use on the web because it's the easiest player for people to get. As an implementation of h.264, Quicktime is actually pretty ropey - it supports only a small subset of the possible technologies that are rolled into the standard. It's OK, but could have been vastly better.

P
  • 0

#5 Thomas Worth

Thomas Worth
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 372 posts
  • Director
  • Los Angeles

Posted 14 February 2008 - 06:29 PM

I only use two forms of compression for web viewing, H.264 and Flash (On2 VP6).

Almost everyone has Flash because of YouTube. So, Flash is a pretty natural choice. I think YouTube still uses the old Sorenson Spark codec, but I'm not sure. They may be using VP6 now.

The Flash plugin also supports H.264 as of version 9, so you can use the same H.264 compressed file to feed both QuickTime and Flash plugins. You don't need to compress the video twice. The only caveat with this method is that not everyone has the Flash 9 plugin installed.

Google Video uses H.264 for downloaded videos (PSP, iPod). By the way, these are MPEG4 videos (MP4), NOT QuickTime MOV files. You can use Compressor to create an H.264 MOV, but you may have problems playing it on other devices because of the QuickTime wrapper. I recommend using the MP4 format. QuickTime and the QT Plugin will still play it back without trouble.

Everything is pretty much going H.264 now. Apple's HD trailers are compressed with H.264. Blu-ray supports H.264.

You can stream H.264 videos off the web with an iPhone or iPod Touch. I believe they must not exceed level 3, with a max frame size of 640x480. MobileSafari will recognize QuickTime object/embed tags and allow you to open the video in the iPhone/iPod media player.
  • 0

#6 Walter Graff

Walter Graff
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1334 posts
  • Other
  • New York City

Posted 14 February 2008 - 08:36 PM

You tube reccomends:

We recommend the following settings:

  • MPEG4 (Divx, Xvid) format
  • 640x480 resolution (* most updated recommendation)
  • MP3 audio
  • 30 frames per second
Resizing your video to these specifications before uploading will help your videos look better on YouTube.

That said most folks find 1mb WMV is the best scheme to use. It is between WMV and MPEG 4 and the reason to use one over the other has to do with things such as contrast, and saturated colors.


I can not send my windows clients H264 videos as none can ever see it.
  • 0

#7 Thomas Worth

Thomas Worth
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 372 posts
  • Director
  • Los Angeles

Posted 14 February 2008 - 09:19 PM

Quicktime h.264 is good only for a certain value of good. It's good for use on the web because it's the easiest player for people to get. As an implementation of h.264, Quicktime is actually pretty ropey - it supports only a small subset of the possible technologies that are rolled into the standard. It's OK, but could have been vastly better.

I'm not sure what you mean by this, but if you mean wrapping H.264 in a QuickTime wrapper (as a MOV), I agree it's not the best way to do it. There's no guarantee that the same file will be playable in players that don't support QuickTime. The QuickTime Player and the QuickTime browser plugin will both play MP4s exactly the same as real MOVs, so I see no immediate advantage to wrapping it in a MOV.

it supports only a small subset of the possible technologies that are rolled into the standard. It's OK, but could have been vastly better.

Actually Phil, I'll need you to elaborate on this because as far as I can tell, H.264 support in QuickTime is excellent. Playing back 1080p compressed H.264 (for example Apple HD Trailers) works flawlessly as many can attest (as long as your computer is fast enough). I have also compressed 1080p material to H.264/MP4 without the use of QuickTime at all, and QuickTime can play it without any trouble. I can only assume it achieves this through proper standards compliance.
  • 0

#8 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11944 posts
  • Other

Posted 15 February 2008 - 04:30 AM

Quicktime's h.264 does not support pixel aspect ratios other than one, so you can't use it to encode PAL or NTSC material (of either aspect ratio) without resampling. It does not support more than one B-frame in a row, which could improve bandwidth efficiency, or the use of 8x8-pixel motion compensation blocks.

It's not that it isn't compliant, it just doesn't implement some stuff.

Edit: my information may be out of date. It's now a question that it may not support some stuff very well, when it started supporting that stuff, and how much of the Internet userbase has a version which does.
  • 0


Rig Wheels Passport

The Slider

Technodolly

Wooden Camera

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineLab

rebotnix Technologies

Glidecam

FJS International, LLC

Abel Cine

Tai Audio

Paralinx LLC

Opal

Metropolis Post

CineTape

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Visual Products

Aerial Filmworks

Ritter Battery

Willys Widgets

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Glidecam

Ritter Battery

CineTape

rebotnix Technologies

Tai Audio

Abel Cine

Rig Wheels Passport

Visual Products

Opal

Paralinx LLC

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Aerial Filmworks

Metropolis Post

Wooden Camera

CineLab

Technodolly

FJS International, LLC

Willys Widgets

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

The Slider