Video Compression Question...

[robbalvey]

Hey everyone,

 

So lately I've been thinking about putting a lot of our videos into different downloadable formats. Even prior to doing the Liseberg one I looked more at DIVX, WMV, etc. The reason I have stuck with MPG1 for so long is:

 

1. Compatibility - I get very, very few people who cannot play them, and nowadays, just about every viewer will play the file without having to download a codec.

 

2. Filesize, with more than 40 full-length video segments on our site eating up nearly a terrabyte of bandwidth per month, I need to keep them as small as possible.

 

The biggest "con" of MPEG1 of course is quality. And lately I think I need to try to have at least a "higher quality" option.

 

What do you all reccomend? Especially those of you who have videos on your sites? What formats do you have the most/least problems with? And what video compression software and settings do you use?

 

Or should I just stick with what has worked fine for us over the past 5 years?

 

Thanks for your help!

 

--Robb

[benzo41190]

I think what you have now is fine.

 

But with some dial-up users, it can take up to 3 hours to download something. 3 hours and 35 mins for the Hades video.

[robbalvey]

^ Well, dial up is one problem that I can't solve. I mean there really isn't a good solution with any kind of video that won't take a long time to download with dial up. Unless I want to make the videos really short and the size of a postage stamp!

 

--Robb

[benzo41190]

I hate having dial-up. Our area does not support DSL until 2007 and our cable company doesnt not have cable internet.

 

I dont mind paying 7.95 a month on Dial-Up, but downloading stuff sucks.

 

I dont really know what format it is but I downloaded a video from a site and only took up 15 MB. The quality was good but the video window was only like 2 inches. When i did full screen, you had to stand like in the other room for it to be clear. BTW the video was 3 mins long.

[ShoubraStreet74]

I would recommend divx or xvid, but that probably won't be a possibility because of noncompatibility. However, you can always stick a "Can't play it? download the codec here" thing under the video downloads or something. I have found that XviD does the best job of quality/size. If that's not an option, WMV is definitely better than MPG1.

 

It would be great to see these awesome videos in high-quality versions

[Jew]

Quicktime H.264!!!

 

This is what they are using for the next generation of DVD (HD-DVD and Blu Ray DVD's), since it is extremely scaleable without sacrificing quality.

 

You could probably cut your video file sizes in half without sacrificing any quality (might even turn out better) using this codec, but the downside would be everyone would have to be using quicktime 7 to play it (it is a free download).

[Wes]

^ I just tried re-compressing one of the movies (the SF Texas one) in H264 and I shaved off 5 megs (15 vs. 20.6) and the quality is still very high. I don't actually see a noticable difference in video quality.

 

It would be interesting to compress to H264 from the source video and see if the quality is even better.

[robbalvey]

^ Hmm...interesting. I do worry about using a format that would require people to download stuff, though. I want to go for the lowest common denominator, and MPG1 seems to be it, at least so far.

 

What do you think the 2nd lowest common denominator is? Xvid?

 

--Robb

[Wes]

^ AVI or Quicktime MOV. Those are pretty universal formats.

[Teddymonster]

Robb, I know it sucks that some people don't have access to broadband, but for those who do...the movies that you have uploaded are really quick downloads for me. Format-wise, MPEG is always a good bet.

[AllisonY2K]

speaking of video compression: is there a codec for the video interview you did in Italy? that's the only video I can't seem to open. I've tried with DivX, QuickTime, Real and Media Player. nothing but error messages.

 

(not trying to hijack the thread)

[Meteornotes]

A lot of people on the various computer graphics/3D sites I hang out on are raving about the new Quicktime codec, so you might want to look into that one...

 

dt

[SLUSHIE]

AVC would be great to make smaller files. The only problem is you need to have the purchased verion of quicktime to play them.

 

I would go with divix or xvid. I'm sure a lot of people on here already have those codecs installed.

[DenDen]

Robb,

 

Just look at your web site stats. Betcha about 90% of the viewers here use Windows. Using Windows media would be the LEAST amount of people having to download something. And the quality isn't bad at higher bit rates that would match the same file size as mpg. (My #1 for internet media!)

 

I'm fully against Quicktime, for the simple fact that their player is becoming a monstrosity. (You cannot download the player alone anymore, you have to download itunes as well.) Not to mention, QT players were made for Apple, then ported to Windows, which means sucky performance.

 

Using DivX would eliminate discrimination of operating systems, since everyone would have to download something. Quality is great if you register the codec. (My #2 for internet media.)

 

And I'm sure you've realized that Real1 is totally out of the question. (They're a privacy nightmare!) Stay away from Intel! (Indeo, The codec player isn't free anymore!)

 

IMHO!

[Teddymonster]

Robb,

 

I'm fully against Quicktime, for the simple fact that their player is becoming a monstrosity. (You cannot download the player alone anymore, you have to download itunes as well.) Not to mention, QT players were made for Apple, then ported to Windows, which means sucky performance.

 

 

Yeah I agree. I can't stand QT.

[CoasterFanatic]

I do the videos on my site as 300kps WMV and I have never had one problem or question. With Windows Media Installed, it works great on both Mac and PC.

 

Lately, I have been toying with the idea of offering a DivX version as a download. The quality is killer!

 

I would almost bet that if you offered the videos in Divx and Mpeg that you would have more downloads while also lowering your bandwidth usage. People with Divx would download the Divx versions for it's superior quality while others could always get the Mpeg version.

[WillMontu]

I've never been a big fan of Quicktime, but WMV would be a decent choice since most of us are Windows users, and thanks to Microsoft, the codec gets installed whether we like it or not.

Divx is good quality, but I've been having problems playing some of the videos (in many cases, I will get audio, but no video)

 

Anything but Real Video would work for me.

[chauncey]

If quality is all you're looking for the only option is the new Quicktime. It is so far ahead of everything else in terms of quality there shouldn't even be a debate!

 

However, if you want to upgrade your codec to something more modern than, but just as standard as, MPEG1, go with MPEG4.

 

Please, whatever you do, don't go with Windows Media, or Divx. For Macintosh users they have the same problems as Quicktime does for Windows users, and the quality is nowhere near the new Quicktime codec. So, really, it's a lose-lose.