Cheers :) Apart from how good/efficient the formats you used to use were, there are a couple of other reasons for what you've noticed:
People were more conservative about filesizes in the past, you could force h264 to use a lower bitrate and get results that are smaller without too much loss of detail, depending on what your content consists of, especialy talking heads with static background. Devices that record & encode in realtime will never achieve the same quality/filesize optimisation as multi-pass encoding can. The first pass gives the encoder information about where it can skimp on the bitrate, hence filesize, giving an advantage.Realtime recording devices dont have that luxury. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert <rup...@...> wrote: > > great posts, mr elbows. i agree about naming files .mp4 rather than > mov or m4v. > > yeah, i was very happy with 3ivx so it took me a while to get excited > about h264 for videoblogging. Looking back at my posts from 2005 > recently, I saw that I seemed to get insanely low file sizes with > 3ivx. admittedly they were 320x240 but there wasn't much noticeable > pixellation or loss of detail. > > and looking at my workingformydad.com wmv files that i made with my > webcam back in 2003, they were mostly 200-800kb for 30 seconds to 1 > minute. not much different in quality to my nokia mp4 files, really, > but about 10 times smaller. wmv ftw. >
