Well I don't know about anyone else, but for the extra time I had to wait for the video too download, the increase in quality wasn't worth it. It's a great video - don't get me wrong - anything with Jamie in is great with me!
Why didn't I like it?
For a start it wasn't De-Interlaced (Vid Dude I would have thought you would have known better!!!). For those who haven't got a clue what I am talking about, it's effect is those stripes on motion - have a look at the start when Jamie is waving her arms about.
Secondly it's distorted. The standard MPEG size for this would have been 640x480 (not 640x512). Slight confusion with Square / Rectangular Pixels??? Ok, so this does make Jamie slimmer, and Luke a bit 'longer'....
Thirdly, you are using MPEG-1. This is a scalable video format. Increasing the frame size has little to do with increasing the quality of the playback. MPEG-1 is designed for playback at smaller sizes - 352x240 or smaller. 320x240 is the standard for computer playback (none of your videos match this!). Doubling the data rate, and keeping the image size the same would have had a much better effect. You could set it's default playback size as double....
Fourthly, you are still using MPEG-1. Why??? If you are trying to give us better quality video, then why oh why not use MPEG-4. In it's standard for can be played back by Windows Media Player, Real One, QuickTime..... the list goes on! It's a modern standard, it's quality is far superior to MPEG-1 whilst having far smaller file sizes.
Do you really enjoy paying extra for bandwidth? Or rather, do you enjoy watching us members pay for you requiring the extra bandwidth?
Why didn't I like it?
For a start it wasn't De-Interlaced (Vid Dude I would have thought you would have known better!!!). For those who haven't got a clue what I am talking about, it's effect is those stripes on motion - have a look at the start when Jamie is waving her arms about.
Secondly it's distorted. The standard MPEG size for this would have been 640x480 (not 640x512). Slight confusion with Square / Rectangular Pixels??? Ok, so this does make Jamie slimmer, and Luke a bit 'longer'....
Thirdly, you are using MPEG-1. This is a scalable video format. Increasing the frame size has little to do with increasing the quality of the playback. MPEG-1 is designed for playback at smaller sizes - 352x240 or smaller. 320x240 is the standard for computer playback (none of your videos match this!). Doubling the data rate, and keeping the image size the same would have had a much better effect. You could set it's default playback size as double....
Fourthly, you are still using MPEG-1. Why??? If you are trying to give us better quality video, then why oh why not use MPEG-4. In it's standard for can be played back by Windows Media Player, Real One, QuickTime..... the list goes on! It's a modern standard, it's quality is far superior to MPEG-1 whilst having far smaller file sizes.
Do you really enjoy paying extra for bandwidth? Or rather, do you enjoy watching us members pay for you requiring the extra bandwidth?
Comment