--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > If I may suggest. > > I am no expert on video encoding techniques, but I would consider > myself an expert on playback and user experience. For exmaple I would > recommend flash playback for in the browser if possible, and MP4 as > your primary video format for compatibility with the most computers, > software, and hardware like the iPod, and PSP. > > That said I have also recommended in the past and recommend now... > that if you encode your videos at 320x240 that you present them on > your blog by embedding them in the page at approximately 375x500 > allowing for considerations due your page layout. Some people have a > wider main column, and some people have a slightly narrower main > column.
I agree with your assessment as far as H.264's concerned. I'm very impressed with the scalability of a 320x180 (widescreen) H.264 video all the way to MacBook Pro full-screen (1680x1050). I'm not saying it looks GOOD at that size, but for the size it starts out, it does a great job. Josh may want to just edit his blog entries and increase the playing size of his 320x240 videos as you mentioned below. The problem with doing this vs making videos with larger frame sizes is when you have text in your video, like a lower 3rd, or a credit roll. Blow those up and they look like garbage... ESPECIALLY if they're moving. If that's not an issue for whomever's posting the videos, then playing larger than you posted it is a good idea. > Don't actually encode the videos at an alternative larger size. It's > really just a waste of time, server space and bandwidth. This doesn't make any sense. :) Frame size has no effect on server space or bandwidth. Data Rate is what you're talking about. You can make videos with larger frame sizes and the exact same data rate, and it's all the same to the computer. > Speaking of which, this reminds me blip.tv even updated their cite > about a month back to present all videos at 500 pixels... precisely > what I recommended. > > i.e. http://blip.tv/file/122903/ > > The above example is a video encoded at 320x240 and presented at > 500x375 as are virtually all the videos on blip.tv. ????? no it isn't. If you download the source file for that video (http://blip.tv/file/get/ Bestdamntech-MickipediaPutsTheGeekInChic783.wmv) it's 768x480. It's also horribly compressed in the original source file, so it may actually be 320x240 footage expanded to 768x480 then contracted to 500x375. Also, how do the videos on blip become 500x375? Is that an encoding option? Does that happen only if you encode videos @ 320x240? I haven't seen that on blip's upload page OR in their upperblip application. -- Bill C. http://ems.blip.tv > Virtually all the major video sharing services encode their videos at > 320x240 but present the videos at 400 pixels, 500 pixels wide or more. > > Consider this too... it's a great way to enhance your viewing > experience and it's absolutely *free*. It takes no more extra time, > server space or bandwidth. Just specify. <embed > stc="http://urltoyourvideo.mov"; width=500 height=375> the next time > you embed your video. Or in whatever web side playback tool you use. > > > Keep rocking Josh. > > Peace, > > -Mike > mefeedia.com > mmeiser.com/blog > > On 1/8/07, Josh Leo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I would love to offer a slightly larger size video on my West Michigan blog, > > but often when i go any larger than 320x240, I get interlacing lines in my > > video... I want to keep my horizontal dimension no larger than 420 how do i > > go about doing this.. and what are good dimensions? I use either 3ivx or > > h264 for my quicktime compression... > > > > -- > > Josh Leo > > > > www.JoshLeo.com > > www.WanderingWestMichigan.com > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > >
