[videoblogging] Re: comparison of quicktime compression techniques
this is great. thanks for posting it :) doron dvblog.org From: Michael Verdi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Re: comparison of quicktime compression techniques I forgot to send this yesterday. It's not a full on comparrison but I did make a 3ivx dual pass tutorial for Freevlog. The post also links to a regular Apple mpeg 4 and a 3ivx dual pass version of a test clip. Also, in the begining of the tutorial I show a sample frame from those two videos plus one done using the export for iPod feature in QuickTime pro. Check it out here: http://freevlog.org/index.php/2006/04/26/443/ -Verdi SPONSORED LINKS Fireant Individual Typepad Use YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [videoblogging] Re: comparison of quicktime compression techniques
I forgot to send this yesterday. It's not a full on comparrison but I did make a 3ivx dual pass tutorial for Freevlog. The post also links to a regular Apple mpeg 4 and a 3ivx dual pass version of a test clip. Also, in the begining of the tutorial I show a sample frame from those two videos plus one done using the export for iPod feature in QuickTime pro. Check it out here: http://freevlog.org/index.php/2006/04/26/443/-Verdi SPONSORED LINKS Fireant Individual Typepad Use YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: ===SPAM=== [videoblogging] Re: comparison of quicktime compression techniques
around the 25/4/06 Andy Carvin mentioned about ===SPAM=== [videoblogging] Re: comparison of quicktime comp that: Actually, I created a bunch of clips with various bit rates, but when I then reviewed their file size, for some reason I saw little difference in them. For example: september last year I did some comparisons: URL: http://hypertext.rmit.edu.au/vlog/archives/2005/09/02/h264-v-mpeg4-with-3ivx/ -- cheers Adrian Miles this email is bloggable [ ] ask first [ ] private [x] hypertext.RMIT URL:http://hypertext.rmit.edu.au/admin/briefEmail.html SPONSORED LINKS Fireant Individual Typepad Use YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[videoblogging] Re: comparison of quicktime compression techniques
Actually, I created a bunch of clips with various bit rates, but when I then reviewed their file size, for some reason I saw little difference in them. For example: Video set to 50kbps max: http://www.andycarvin.com/video/demo-3ivx50.mov video set to 25 max: http://www.andycarvin.com/video/demo-3ivx25.mov But the difference in file size was marginal: 1.6 vs. 1.4 megs. Meanwhile, if I didn't set a max bit rate, the file was only 1.8 megs. I tried to spend some time figuring out what was behind this, but it started eating up my entire day, so I decided to drop it and post what I'd already figured out (not to mention the fact that I'm supposedly launching a new blog on Thursday and should be working on that). Perhaps the issue is that the files were so small already that setting a max bit rate offers marginal change at best? Maybe I should do this again with larger files so the bit rate difference is more noticeable? thanks andy --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Michael Verdi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey Andy, I just looked at your post quickly and noticed that you didn't seem to limit the bit rate on any of those clips. By limiting the bit rate you can get very similar results at much much lower bit rates. For example - take your smallest clip. You compressed it using 3ivx at 160 X 120 pixels, 15fps but the bit rate is 420kbits/sec - about 8X too big to progressive download over a dialup modem. Here's a video that I did last year as a test to see what what videoblogging would look like on dialup. I used 3ivx, 160 X 120 pixels, 8fps and I limited the bit rate to something like 33 kbits/sec. The result is my 45 sec video comes in at 271K (48.77kbits/sec) while your 5 sec video comes in at 285K (420.28kbits/sec). I think the idea of doing a compression matrix with a single test clip at set bit rates is a great idea. I'd love to help put one together using mpeg4, 3ivx, h.264, windows media 9, and Flash 8 - using single and double pass where available. -Verdi On 4/25/06, Andy Carvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi everyone, One of my vlog viewers asked me for an explanation of various quicktime compression techniques. I've just published my response: http://www.andycarvin.com/archives/2006/04/andys_video_blogging.html In this demonstration, I start with a 10 megabyte video shot in avi format, 30 frames per second, 640x480 pixels, 16 bit stereo. I then produced seven compressed versions of it, including ones that utilize varying frame rates, screen sizes, compression codecs, and audio compression. The most compressed version I created is 97% smaller than the original avi video, and is potentially quite suitable for video blogging in low-bandwidth situations around the world. Some examples: Original uncompressed video (10 megs): http://www.andycarvin.com/video/demo-nocompression.avi Significant compression (1.8 megs, 82% reduction): http://www.andycarvin.com/video/demo-3ivx.mov Extreme compression (292 bits, 97% reduction): http://www.andycarvin.com/video/demo-3ivx8bit160.mov Here's a chart featuring all of the videos and their settings: http://www.andycarvin.com/compressiontable.html Hope this is useful, andy -- -- Andy Carvin acarvin (at) edc . org andycarvin (at) yahoo . com http://www.digitaldivide.net http://www.andycarvin.com -- Yahoo! Groups Links -- Me: http://michaelverdi.com RD: http://evilvlog.com Learn to videoblog: http://freevlog.org Learn to videoblog in person: http://node101.org YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [videoblogging] Re: comparison of quicktime compression techniques
On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 23:35:08 +0200, Andy Carvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually, I created a bunch of clips with various bit rates, but when I then reviewed their file size, for some reason I saw little difference in them. For example: That is because your clip is very short. If the clip is only one second the difference in file size will be equal to the bitrate (ie. with 50kbps and 25kbps the difference in file size will be 25kb or about 3 kilobyte). If the clip is one minute the difference will be larger (375 kilobyte versus 188 kilobyte, a difference of 187 kilobyte). And my examples are fictional of course. There is noticable overhead with really small files. -- Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen URL: http://www.solitude.dk/ Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology. YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[videoblogging] Re: comparison of quicktime compression techniques
That explains it. Part of the problem is that much of my target audience is in the developing world, and starting with a clip much larger than 10 megs if prohibitive for them to access in the first place. I may just have to describe the differences next time rather than demonstrate them. andy --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Andreas Haugstrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 23:35:08 +0200, Andy Carvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually, I created a bunch of clips with various bit rates, but when I then reviewed their file size, for some reason I saw little difference in them. For example: That is because your clip is very short. If the clip is only one second the difference in file size will be equal to the bitrate (ie. with 50kbps and 25kbps the difference in file size will be 25kb or about 3 kilobyte). If the clip is one minute the difference will be larger (375 kilobyte versus 188 kilobyte, a difference of 187 kilobyte). And my examples are fictional of course. There is noticable overhead with really small files. -- Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen URL: http://www.solitude.dk/ Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology. YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[videoblogging] Re: comparison of quicktime compression techniques
I would suggest that the test clip have more movement than Verdi on the toilet (pardon the pun) -- although I thought it was funny as hell and laughed all he way through it -- or the aquarium. I was doing similar tests for a vlog about horses, and reluctantly settled on H.264 until I found out that Flash 8 gave me the quality and the bitrate I needed at the 30 fps for the horses in motion. You can see a sample of Flash MX and Flash 8 comparison tests here: http://hestakaup.typepad.com/hestablog/2006/02/flash_test.html I just point this out because until I used the motion clip and tested it with Flash 8, I would have been so unhappy with the compression that I may not have even vlogged this subject thinking the technology was not there! Stan Hirson http://hestablog.com http://hestakaup.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Michael Verdi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey Andy, . I think the idea of doing a compression matrix with a single test clip at set bit rates is a great idea. I'd love to help put one together using mpeg4, 3ivx, h.264, windows media 9, and Flash 8 - using single and double pass where available. -Verdi YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [videoblogging] Re: comparison of quicktime compression techniques
On 4/25/06, Andreas Haugstrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That is because your clip is very short. If the clip is only one secondthe difference in file size will be equal to the bitrate (ie. with 50kbpsand 25kbps the difference in file size will be 25kb or about 3 kilobyte). If the clip is one minute the difference will be larger (375 kilobyteversus 188 kilobyte, a difference of 187 kilobyte).And my examples are fictional of course. There is noticable overhead withreally small files. Exactly. The thing to do is to test the same 30 sec clip at various bit rates.Maybe total Video Audio rates of:600kbits/sec400kbits/sec200kbits/sec50kbits/sec-Verdi SPONSORED LINKS Fireant Individual Use YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [videoblogging] Re: comparison of quicktime compression techniques
On 4/25/06, Stan Hirson, Sarah Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would suggest that the test clip have more movement than Verdi on thetoilet (pardon the pun) -- although I thought it was funny as hell andlaughed all he way through it -- or the aquarium. I agree -Verdi SPONSORED LINKS Fireant Individual Use YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
