Well the data rate & settings should be the same on Windows as on OS X. The problem is if your video editing package doesnt have the right encoder built in, and you have to go to an intermediate format that is then loaded into an encoder. Ther are potential problems where either quality is lost at this step due to the settings & codec user for the intermediate format, or if your encoding software makes a bad job of reading that file.
You know this already, Im just reiterating. So what format avi are you getting out of vegas? For anybody looking for absolute best possible quality, quicktime is not the best h264 encoder. With the right settings, x264 (which may also be referred to as ffmpeg or mencoder) is probably the best, but working out the right settings, getting the right app that uses this encoder and makes things easy, are issues. The best quality is also not usually the most compatible. I presume the 720p sample that I linked to yesterday, wont play using quciktime, itunes or on various apple hardware. It probably uses h264 High profile, which has various extra encoding features which can give better quality at a given bitrate, at the expense of compatibility. The h264 playback in latest flash will handle this profile, as will certain games consoles and alternative h264 decoders for WIndows & Mac. But I assume the lack of quicktime etc compatibility will be enough to put people off? I shall be persuing this anyway, as filesize & quality are important to people, and I still consume most video through the browser. Pants, it seems that Adobe managed to break the benefits to cpu load that their hardware fullscreen mode offered. In the beta version I got noticable drop of CPU when using fullscreen mode, and Im not getting the same benefit with the release version. There are some grumblings about this on the net, but Ive not seen anything totally conclusive yet. Right now I am looking to find the best settings to create 960x540 h264 video with hopefully the best possible balance between bitrate, resolution, and compression artifacts. I will post some findings later. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Heath" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > that is the trick though, finding the right data rate, now for Macs > there are all kinds of good advice on that but for PC's....it's hard > to find....it's something I am playing with a lot right now, trying > to find a good data rate and size for PC's. > > I have for a while been exporting as an avi out of vegas then using > Quicktime pro to export to Ipod, but I started to notice some > interesting things about that process on a few of my more "involved" > videos, long transistions, ovlays, etc....what I noticed is, that the > avi file that was coming out of vegas did not "look" as crisp when > playing in quicktime and that was affecting the encoding to mp4, I > was getting a LOT of artifact movement, and I mean a lot, it was > unwatchable...so I have been playing around a lot....trying to see > what settings work the best... > > I'm also looking at what "size" 320x240, 640x480, and that widescreen > setting recomended by Ryanne, I am messing around with all these > trying to see what looks good "onsite"...and what is good to view on > an Ipod, etc... > > For me, it was always, just "set it and forget it" kinda, I would > just do it and if it looke good, great, if it looked ok, that was > great too...but I am finding as I do more and more, that I want it to > look as good as it can and in that, it's taking some time for me to > get the right set of paramaters to achive that. That was one of the > reasons for asking, Cause I have been thinking do I create a really > nice version, maybe a little bigger in file size than normal to > view "onsite" with faststart, etc and then in conjunction with what > other options do I offer....I've just been thinking a lot about all > this is all > > Good points about lengths, and stuff have been brought up, but like I > said to Verdi, what I think I am really interested in "how" people > are watching vids, onstite of off...fun stuff, no? ;) > > Heath > > professional http://heathparks.com > personal http://batmangeek.com > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Cammack" > <billcammack@> wrote: > > > > I don't think file *size* is as important as data rate. > > > > Like Verdi's saying, you want people to be able to view your videos > > without them constantly stopping to buffer. The better quality you > > can get at lower data rates, the more likely you are for people to > > watch your show and not get frustrated and eject. Therefore, the > > *size* of the file would depend on the length of your program. > > > > Bill > > http://BillCammack.com > > > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Verdi" > > <michaelverdi@> wrote: > > > > > > Let me see if I can give you a useful answer... > > > > > > In the US, at least at the moment, most people have broadband > > > connections without monthly dowmload limits. So the size of the > file > > > is less of a concern especially if people are using aggregators > like > > > iTunes or Miro to download video. Where it becomes a concern is > when > > > they are trying to watch it on your website. Those export for IPod > > > 1600kbps videos don't often play without a significant amount of > > > waiting. To make up for that (and plugin uncertainty) many people > > > offer a lower bit rate flash version from blip or youtube. > > > > > > Outside the US many broadband connections come with a monthly > download > > > cap (maybe 10GB ?? I'm unsure). Anything downloaded over that > limit > > > incurs an extra charge. TimeWarner is now experimenting with a > service > > > like this in Texas. > > > > > > Of course there is still a large section of the world that don't > have > > > broadband connections at all. > > > > > > So, should you quit making big videos? Probably not. Should you > give > > > people options? Sure! That's reason #63 why I like vPIP - you can > give > > > visitors to your site a range of choices for viewing and > subscribing > > > to you videos. > > > > > > - Verdi > > > > > > On 2/4/08, Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen <solitude@> wrote: > > > > Unless you only care about rich people in large urban metro > areas, > > then > > > > yes, file sizes do matter. > > > > > > > > - Andreas > > > > > > > > Den 04.02.2008 kl. 09:44 skrev Heath <heathparks@>: > > > > > > > > > I was just curious what people thought about the file sizes > of their > > > > > video's or the video's that they subscribe too, download, > etc. > > Do you > > > > > look at the file size often, does it matter if it's big or > not? > > by big > > > > > I say over 50 mb. I know some of the size of your video file > is > > > > > dependent on how long your video is, but as we as vloggers > start > > making > > > > > longer and bigger projects, larger and larger file sizes are > > going to > > > > > be a natural by product right? I mean using the Ipod > settings at > > > > > 640X480 in itself can still create a rather large file > depending > > on the > > > > > length of the video. > > > > > > > > > > It seemed in the begining, shorter and smaller was better, but > > is that > > > > > changing at all? I mean with the push towards HD, with being > > able to > > > > > view content on the TV, etc, it just seems like its all a part > > of the > > > > > evolution...or is it? > > > > > > > > > > I was just curious as to what you all thought. > > > > > > > > > > Heath > > > > > personal http://batmangeek.com > > > > > professional http://heathparks.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen > > > > http://www.solitude.dk/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > http://michaelverdi.com > > > http://freevlog.org > > > http://nscape.tv > > > > > >
