Port Washington Premiere

Post by **Skyone** » Wed Feb 22, 2006 5:39 pm

WOAH! That's a heavy file.

I too will do some conversions.

I'll also request some extra bandwith.

loup · Post by **loup** » Wed Feb 22, 2006 5:46 pm

I dunno spike, I'm still seeing quite a bit of artifacting on your second entry, it's not as bad as your first one, and it's probably not terribly noticable on a standard NTCS tv, but even on my laptop it's kind of grainy.

sniper_spike · Post by **sniper_spike** » Wed Feb 22, 2006 5:47 pm

There's no way your little 800kb/s Xvid is any better.

loup · Post by **loup** » Wed Feb 22, 2006 5:50 pm

download it and find out for yourself.

also note, I just said it was a little grainy, I didn't compare it to the one I did, and maybe I should have said it's a little grainy for the file size

sniper_spike · Post by **sniper_spike** » Wed Feb 22, 2006 5:52 pm

I waited, it doesn't want to download.
I gotta do my homework anyway... Later

Metroid fan · Post by **Metroid fan** » Wed Feb 22, 2006 6:07 pm

Bic thats amazing! Those files are tiny compared to bens!!

sniper_spike · Post by **sniper_spike** » Wed Feb 22, 2006 6:11 pm

Welcome to the wonderfull world of compressed video.

Metroid fan · Post by **Metroid fan** » Wed Feb 22, 2006 6:23 pm

I like the wonderful world of compressed video can I have some more?

I might be able to convert it to ipod format so you could have a 100 mb file for anyone who really needs it for their internet... or so you could put it on an ipod I guess

Post by **benheck** » Wed Feb 22, 2006 7:01 pm

Ah, great list Bicostp! That's what I like to see.

Yes, number 3 is good. And an iPod version is a great idea too! But I forgot something. The movie is intended to be matte flat format (1.85:1) In normal editing I have it full frame, but when outputted it's intended to have black bars at the top and bottom. Of the 480 pixel high frame, the top 66 and bottom 66 pixels are cropped.

The advantage of black bars is they compress out to very little, thus saving even more space since only the middle of the screen contains information.

Bicostp, can you reformat an example of #3 and the iPod version using this cropping? Also which program did you recompress with?

I like the iPod idea because it could be called a Podcast, plus it'd be good for low speed internet people.

From these examples, I like the idea of a 1 gig version (#3) and the 540 meg iPod version. I assume that's like for a Video iPod? Why not have one and be trendy?

Also note versions #3 and iPod video were the only ones with the correct ratio, the rest looked squished.

Quicktime format is pretty universal, unlike the WARZ realm of Divx.

sniper_spike · Post by **sniper_spike** » Wed Feb 22, 2006 7:08 pm

Arg! Quicktime Alternative won't even play those funky files (and I'm not letting Apple software touch my computer!). Plus my video was Xvid, probably more in the "warez realm" than DivX know a days.

Post by **bicostp** » Wed Feb 22, 2006 7:09 pm

So, crop the top and bottom 66 pixels?

I know a few look squished; I forgot to set the dimensions on the export window and it decided to stretch the video instead of making it letterbox or the proper ratio.

I used Quicktime Pro 7.

@ sniper: I couldn't play either oif your files with anything. (VLC, QuickTime, WMP)

loup · Post by **loup** » Wed Feb 22, 2006 7:11 pm

you can get a codec that will play mp4 files through media player classic. the only problem is I don't know of a free one that will do it, just a commercial one. so your choices are a bit limited if you're not willing to install quicktime or itunes

sniper_spike · Post by **sniper_spike** » Wed Feb 22, 2006 7:29 pm

What!? VLC Played them fine for me.

(even on a computer without any codecs!)<- read that loup.

Edit: The QT files work... amazingly VLC plays them! (Stupid Media Player Classic)

loup · Post by **loup** » Wed Feb 22, 2006 7:33 pm

he might not have one or both of the codecs that you used, I know I don't have the audio codec you used, but I was just watching the video, so that didn't matter to me

sniper_spike · Post by **sniper_spike** » Wed Feb 22, 2006 7:44 pm

Have a look at the bold, loup.

Looking at Bic's QT encoded video, I can say that it indeed has little artifacting. But I hope all of you realise that the lack of artifacts is because QT uses a smoothening method when encoding video. It gets rid of most artifacting, but drops some details as a result. 'Still looks pretty good though, it's really personal taste (detail or smoothness).
Have a look yourselves.