Re: [videoblogging] Re: Apple TV vs. iPod/iPhone Recommendations?
> What is the Apple TV h.264 spec? > Is it mainline or baseline only? > Where is it on the Apple site? > Excuse my ignorance. from their website: http://www.apple.com/appletv/specs.html * H.264 and protected H.264 (from iTunes Store): Up to 5 Mbps, Progressive Main Profile (CAVLC) with AAC-LC audio up to 160 Kbps (maximum resolution: 1280 by 720 pixels at 24 fps, 960 by 540 pixels at 30 fps) in .m4v, .mp4, and .mov file formats * MPEG-4: Up to 3 Mbps, Simple Profile with AAC-LC audio up to 160 Kbps (maximum resolution: 720 by 432 pixels at 30 fps) in .m4v, .mp4, and .mov file formats Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Apple TV vs. iPod/iPhone Recommendations?
What is the Apple TV h.264 spec? Is it mainline or baseline only? Where is it on the Apple site? Excuse my ignorance. Thanks joly >> >> But also bear in mind that the tone of that email suggests Apple is >> desperate to get people >> to move beyond 320x240 more, as that low a res starts to look bad >> on the Apple TV. So >> they are mostly targetting people to move their res up, not down. >> > --- WWWhatsup NYC http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com ---
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Apple TV vs. iPod/iPhone Recommendations?
thanks cammack done! K On Feb 22, 2008, at 2:44 PM, Bill Cammack wrote: > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Kathryn Jones > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > revisiting the great apple tv debate once more.. > > > > I have spend the past few days experimenting with recompressing my > > "35" files- tricky because they are large files with a lot of > > movement and not a ton of light (I know! I know! lets not go > > there!)... what seems to work best for me is compressing a high > > quality .mov , importing into itunes and then recompressing again > via > > the advanced tab (thats also the best way for me to include my > > higher quality thumbnails) but... > > > > itunes provides me with two options, a larger "convert for apple tv" > > file, a smaller "convert for ipod" file if I compress all my > > files to the larger apple tv specs... are they viewable on an ipod? > > I would assume the answer is of course, so what are the downsides > > (besides download time). > > AppleTV files are *NOT* viewable on an iPod. The data rate is way > too high, and, > depending on how you make the AppleTV file, the frame size is too > large as well. > > If you want something compatible with both, you have to make a > really good quality "for > iPod" file, or do it the way they recommend @ http://freevlog.org . > > Bill > http://BillCammack.com > > > appreciate the input > > > > Kathryn > > http://www.synchronis.tv > > On Feb 19, 2008, at 7:57 PM, Steve Watkins wrote: > > > > > 640x360 is a good compromise resolution, not a bad balance between > > > res, bitrate & > > > filesize, and device compatibility. > > > > > > It will be passable to many people on a larger screen via Apple > TV, > > > but your 720p version > > > should be noticably better. > > > > > > There are still some users & devices that will struggle with h264 > > > in general, but most will > > > be ok with 640xwhatever videos. 1280x720 or higher, some will > > > struggle with cpu use, > > > and such high resolutions are likely a hinderance rather than a > > > help to portable device > > > users. > > > > > > But also bear in mind that the tone of that email suggests > Apple is > > > desperate to get people > > > to move beyond 320x240 more, as that low a res starts to look bad > > > on the Apple TV. So > > > they are mostly targetting people to move their res up, not down. > > > > > > Jay that Apple video loks like quicktime, at a guess they have > > > hidden the quicktime plugin > > > controls and used javascript to make nicer looking controls. > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > Steve Elbows > > > \ > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Jay dedman" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > From the Apple TV e-mail, it looks like 640x360 is what > they're > > > > > recommending for the widescreen aspect for both Apple TV and > > > > > iPods/iPhones, but... won't that look less clear than the full > > > 720? > > > > > Or is it possible that with the right settings, 640x360 > would look > > > > > passably good on the widest range of devices. > > > > > And do these settings create specific headaches for non-Apple > > > users? > > > > > Or, at this point, can most users play with these MPEG-4 > files? > > > > > > > > apple hasnt always thought about the larger web community > when they > > > > come up with apple standards. > > > > its always good to be the king. > > > > > > > > I thought this was an interesting video they included in their > > > email: > > > > what is a podcast= http://www.apple.com/itunes/tutorials/ > #podcasts > > > > (is this flash or a weir new QT player?) > > > > > > > > Jay > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > http://jaydedman.com > > > > 917 371 6790 > > > > Professional: http://ryanishungry.com > > > > Personal: http://momentshowing.net > > > > Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/ > > > > Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman > > > > RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Apple TV vs. iPod/iPhone Recommendations?
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Kathryn Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > revisiting the great apple tv debate once more.. > > I have spend the past few days experimenting with recompressing my > "35" files- tricky because they are large files with a lot of > movement and not a ton of light (I know! I know! lets not go > there!)... what seems to work best for me is compressing a high > quality .mov , importing into itunes and then recompressing again via > the advanced tab (thats also the best way for me to include my > higher quality thumbnails) but... > > itunes provides me with two options, a larger "convert for apple tv" > file, a smaller "convert for ipod" file if I compress all my > files to the larger apple tv specs... are they viewable on an ipod? > I would assume the answer is of course, so what are the downsides > (besides download time). AppleTV files are *NOT* viewable on an iPod. The data rate is way too high, and, depending on how you make the AppleTV file, the frame size is too large as well. If you want something compatible with both, you have to make a really good quality "for iPod" file, or do it the way they recommend @ http://freevlog.org . Bill http://BillCammack.com > appreciate the input > > Kathryn > http://www.synchronis.tv > On Feb 19, 2008, at 7:57 PM, Steve Watkins wrote: > > > 640x360 is a good compromise resolution, not a bad balance between > > res, bitrate & > > filesize, and device compatibility. > > > > It will be passable to many people on a larger screen via Apple TV, > > but your 720p version > > should be noticably better. > > > > There are still some users & devices that will struggle with h264 > > in general, but most will > > be ok with 640xwhatever videos. 1280x720 or higher, some will > > struggle with cpu use, > > and such high resolutions are likely a hinderance rather than a > > help to portable device > > users. > > > > But also bear in mind that the tone of that email suggests Apple is > > desperate to get people > > to move beyond 320x240 more, as that low a res starts to look bad > > on the Apple TV. So > > they are mostly targetting people to move their res up, not down. > > > > Jay that Apple video loks like quicktime, at a guess they have > > hidden the quicktime plugin > > controls and used javascript to make nicer looking controls. > > > > Cheers > > > > Steve Elbows > > \ > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Jay dedman" > > wrote: > > > > > > > From the Apple TV e-mail, it looks like 640x360 is what they're > > > > recommending for the widescreen aspect for both Apple TV and > > > > iPods/iPhones, but... won't that look less clear than the full > > 720? > > > > Or is it possible that with the right settings, 640x360 would look > > > > passably good on the widest range of devices. > > > > And do these settings create specific headaches for non-Apple > > users? > > > > Or, at this point, can most users play with these MPEG-4 files? > > > > > > apple hasnt always thought about the larger web community when they > > > come up with apple standards. > > > its always good to be the king. > > > > > > I thought this was an interesting video they included in their > > email: > > > what is a podcast= http://www.apple.com/itunes/tutorials/#podcasts > > > (is this flash or a weir new QT player?) > > > > > > Jay > > > > > > > > > -- > > > http://jaydedman.com > > > 917 371 6790 > > > Professional: http://ryanishungry.com > > > Personal: http://momentshowing.net > > > Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/ > > > Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman > > > RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9 > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Apple TV vs. iPod/iPhone Recommendations?
revisiting the great apple tv debate once more.. I have spend the past few days experimenting with recompressing my "35" files- tricky because they are large files with a lot of movement and not a ton of light (I know! I know! lets not go there!)... what seems to work best for me is compressing a high quality .mov , importing into itunes and then recompressing again via the advanced tab (thats also the best way for me to include my higher quality thumbnails) but... itunes provides me with two options, a larger "convert for apple tv" file, a smaller "convert for ipod" file if I compress all my files to the larger apple tv specs... are they viewable on an ipod? I would assume the answer is of course, so what are the downsides (besides download time). appreciate the input Kathryn http://www.synchronis.tv On Feb 19, 2008, at 7:57 PM, Steve Watkins wrote: > 640x360 is a good compromise resolution, not a bad balance between > res, bitrate & > filesize, and device compatibility. > > It will be passable to many people on a larger screen via Apple TV, > but your 720p version > should be noticably better. > > There are still some users & devices that will struggle with h264 > in general, but most will > be ok with 640xwhatever videos. 1280x720 or higher, some will > struggle with cpu use, > and such high resolutions are likely a hinderance rather than a > help to portable device > users. > > But also bear in mind that the tone of that email suggests Apple is > desperate to get people > to move beyond 320x240 more, as that low a res starts to look bad > on the Apple TV. So > they are mostly targetting people to move their res up, not down. > > Jay that Apple video loks like quicktime, at a guess they have > hidden the quicktime plugin > controls and used javascript to make nicer looking controls. > > Cheers > > Steve Elbows > \ > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Jay dedman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > From the Apple TV e-mail, it looks like 640x360 is what they're > > > recommending for the widescreen aspect for both Apple TV and > > > iPods/iPhones, but... won't that look less clear than the full > 720? > > > Or is it possible that with the right settings, 640x360 would look > > > passably good on the widest range of devices. > > > And do these settings create specific headaches for non-Apple > users? > > > Or, at this point, can most users play with these MPEG-4 files? > > > > apple hasnt always thought about the larger web community when they > > come up with apple standards. > > its always good to be the king. > > > > I thought this was an interesting video they included in their > email: > > what is a podcast= http://www.apple.com/itunes/tutorials/#podcasts > > (is this flash or a weir new QT player?) > > > > Jay > > > > > > -- > > http://jaydedman.com > > 917 371 6790 > > Professional: http://ryanishungry.com > > Personal: http://momentshowing.net > > Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/ > > Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman > > RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9 > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Apple TV vs. iPod/iPhone Recommendations?
Thanks, Markus, for your kind words. I'm glad my videos are providing
some entertainment! I've yet to get up the nerve to do mostly
narrated, camera-pointed-at-myself vlog posts, and still stick with
simple montages. And I appreciate your note that it looks good on
your monitor. Because I am using Apple TV specific settings for my
enclosures right now, I have no idea how things are for those just
watching on their computers like you.
Steve, thanks for your comments. I did a test with 640x360, and while
it ain't bad, it looks like most "good" videoblogs. The 1280x720 files
I'm posting do look noticably better. Well, from a technical
standpoint. My HD700 struggles in low light and I have a shaky hand. I
didn't think about CPU load, though. I know "HD" Flash players can
strain a machine, but do you get the same effect in QuickTime player
or iTunes (specific to the video size)?
And Jay, you're right, Apple is pushing specs in its own interests,
not the creative community as a whole. I'm one of those vloggers who
pushes my videos to a whole heap of video hosting sites in various
formats in the hopes of reaching the most people. My question was
specific to my feed enclosures, though, and whether I'm alienating too
many folks with the 1280x720, 24fps MPEG-4 files I'm using now.
Since I do post different versions of the same video, I'm wondering if
it's worth the trouble to run a second feed ("Apple TV HD" and
"iPod/iPhone"). Sounds like a lot of work, but no more work than
uploading everything to a dozen different places!
Ryan
HawaiiVog
http://www.hawaiivog.com
[videoblogging] Re: Apple TV vs. iPod/iPhone Recommendations?
640x360 is a good compromise resolution, not a bad balance between res, bitrate & filesize, and device compatibility. It will be passable to many people on a larger screen via Apple TV, but your 720p version should be noticably better. There are still some users & devices that will struggle with h264 in general, but most will be ok with 640xwhatever videos. 1280x720 or higher, some will struggle with cpu use, and such high resolutions are likely a hinderance rather than a help to portable device users. But also bear in mind that the tone of that email suggests Apple is desperate to get people to move beyond 320x240 more, as that low a res starts to look bad on the Apple TV. So they are mostly targetting people to move their res up, not down. Jay that Apple video loks like quicktime, at a guess they have hidden the quicktime plugin controls and used javascript to make nicer looking controls. Cheers Steve Elbows \ --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Jay dedman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > From the Apple TV e-mail, it looks like 640x360 is what they're > > recommending for the widescreen aspect for both Apple TV and > > iPods/iPhones, but... won't that look less clear than the full 720? > > Or is it possible that with the right settings, 640x360 would look > > passably good on the widest range of devices. > > And do these settings create specific headaches for non-Apple users? > > Or, at this point, can most users play with these MPEG-4 files? > > apple hasnt always thought about the larger web community when they > come up with apple standards. > its always good to be the king. > > I thought this was an interesting video they included in their email: > what is a podcast= http://www.apple.com/itunes/tutorials/#podcasts > (is this flash or a weir new QT player?) > > Jay > > > -- > http://jaydedman.com > 917 371 6790 > Professional: http://ryanishungry.com > Personal: http://momentshowing.net > Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/ > Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman > RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9 >
