The New Supersized videos (a la Jamie & Luke)

[bigdave]

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?

[Vid Dude]

We just can't win.

[bigdave]

Sorry Vid Dude,

I think the quality of your video's are excellent. It's just that you seem to be working against us in the encoding....

I work with online video's day in & day out for numerous international clients, mainly supplying video's for their intranets. My main job is to introduce the best technology for their needs.

The main points that I want to stress are :

MPEG-4 really is a way that you should be seriously looking at going very soon.

If you do decide to stay with MPEG-1, then to get the best out of the encoding algorithms, you should a) resize the video's to 320x240, and b) to give us an 'broadband' version, increase the data rate of the stream, NOT the image size - that should be increased at playback. Have a try - it really does work!

If you need any professional advice, email me....

Sorry if I sounded negative before, I had just waited ages for the download.....

[Vid Dude]

I tried MPEG-4, though it wasn't easy to figure out how to. It didn't appear to make a damned bit of difference in quality or filesize as far as I could see. Looked identical. I must've done something wrong.

Anyway, just discovered today that we have to pay royalties for MPEG-4, but none for MPEG-1.

And let me reiterate - there is no ideal situation. No matter what we choose, someone will not be happy. What we want is for nobody to ever say "why won't my video play" and if we have to tell them to download XviD, or have some other piece of special software to play it, then that is not a step forward.

[cracker]

OK, I'll be the one to walk on fire, I think that both of you are right.
Vid Dude's mpgs are good and will work on damn near every computer. I still dought that you will get 100% compatability, good luck with that! There's always going to be someone to complain first and then try to get there player working. I use to be one of them
As soon as you go to mpeg4 there will something better, and so on....
On the other hand i checked out some m4's and the video is friggin awsome and the file size very low.
Vid, I know its a lot of work so please dont let us get you discouraged, c

[Vid Dude]

If you are an expert in file compression, or have the time to really figure it out, or have a brain the size of a planet, I'm sure you could make amazing steps forward in compression.

I am none of these, unfortunately. It's a much more complex business than you might imagine. And every time I do make a change, someone turns into Harry Enfield and says "Ooh, you don't want to do it like that, you want to do it like this!"

[Roops]

Video format, your problem solved

Mr V Dude
Top Geek
abbywinters.com
Australia

Dear Mr Dude

Over the past few weeks, I have read with alarm at the exasperation you are feeling with regards to the current video conundrum. I feel your pain. Whichever way you turn there always seems to be someone who is either criticising or suggesting a better route to take.

I have given this matter much thought and after careful and detailed consideration I am pleased to offer you a low tech solution that will be mutually beneficial to all.

My plan is this; in future, any correspondent who offers advice, criticism or counselling with regards to video format should be personally visited at home, lined up against a wall and shot.

Now I fully understand that your propreitor may be a little concerned at my proposal, after all one doesn't like to waste a paying customer but the beauty of my plan is that this will in fact generate extra income and stem a profit leak caused by the excessive man-hours currently expended on the video problem. How ? I'll explain later.

I suggest that initialy you sub-contract the task of shooting your customers to CC Kill (Props. Ronnie & Reggie Roops) but knowing the fragrant one's hatred of using third party contractors, aw.com could probably take over the task themselves by sending a model to shoot the offending forum member. The shooting could be photographed by the Sainted One for a new web site, ishotyoumyself.com (ISYM - "girls to die for"). I am sure this will be well received by some of your forum members who have asked for something a little bit more extreme.

I do not expect thanks for my idea as I know you will be speechless at the simplicity of it all.

I look forward to a new style of aw.com - "muff and snuff"

Regards

R R Roops

[Vid Dude]

BigDave, here's our situation.

We like to present our customers with the least amount of complication in order to see everything we've got to show. In regards to video, we don't want people to need to download additional software, and we don't assume that they know how to enlarge their mediaplayer to get a larger image. If we have them download a 60Mb 5 minute video, they want something obvious to show for the effort, and that's large dimensions at the least.

I just tested your suggestion that I reduce the dimensions but increase the quality, and you are absolutely right, the image is better, and the interlacing issue is eliminated. But the 100% size is small onscreen.

You know and I know that enlarging the mediaplayer will cause a fairly clear (though not sharp), low-artifact image, but too many others will see tiny dimensions and no obvious reason why it was such a high filesize.

But adjusting the dimensions doesn't seem to remove the darn interlacing unless it's under 360x288.

Any help you can offer with this?

[cracker]

Alright Dave, its time to put up or shut up, show us a link to yours

[bigdave]

No problems. Just let me get back from skiing, then I hunt out a non-commercial source file, and I'll pop some on the web for all to see....

As for the MPEG-4 licencing - I'm afraid it's true. You have to pay a one off fee when you buy the software / hardware, then pay per hour of video encoded. At the moment it's $0.02 per hour, so I really don't think it will break the bank.... you publish about that per month!

If you stick to raw MPEG-4 - all players should play it fine - it's would cause a problem if you chose a particular version of it - Windows Media, Real, DivX etc all have their own idea of how to improve the standard, all different. All play raw MPEG-4 files fine though.

You said that you didn't have too much success with the MPEG-4 trials you did. Common setting for Broadband are
Standard Quality - 15FPS, Keyframe every 75, 28.8KB/s data rate, 320x240
Enhanced Quality - 25FPS, Keyframe every 90, 82.029KB/s data rate, 320x240
Audio should be set to AAC - this is better than MP3, and yet gives smaller files.

I am a bit lost to your process for creating the video's - I know you edit in Adobe Premier, but you say you encode in TMPGEnc, which converts AVI's to MPG's - do you encode to that first? You also say you have a capture card... do you not firewire (IEEE-1394) the footage straight in?

You also mentioned that you had de-interlaced turned on for each step of making a video. De-interlacing is a one step proceedure. Once it's done, it's done. This most common step to do it is at the encoding stage, as this allows files to still be made into DVD's etc, which still require the interlacing intact.

I hope this helps - I didn't mean to upset you the other day.

bigDave
p.s. If I am going to be shot - could you send over Jamie & Elizabeth please. What a way to go!!!

[Roops]

Big Dave - What a Star ! Dontcha just love him ? ! British as well !

[sweatyfox]

Yep, good to see another Londoner here as well!

Big Dave, how's about shooting this scene in the Alps or in Colorado? You skiing, chased by Jamie Bond on skis and sidekick Elizabeth on snowboard.

Abby can shoot pics from the observation tower or side of the piste, whilst Vidman shoots video 'extreme sports' style, from a rented snowmobile.

[Vid Dude]

You didn't so much upset me, as prove a fear I had, i.e. we will never please everyone. We try and try (which is more than some websites do), and still someone has to say "Not good enough! I shall not be content until you change the way you do things!" I can pretty much guarantee that as soon as (if) we adopt MPEG-4, someone will say "I can't play it! You should use Vivo Video / REAL / 3ivX / Sorenson4 / WMV / Bink !!!"

Next week I'll try those settings you have provided (and see where I went wrong with the MPEG-4, which I cannot recall now where I DL'd it from, so it may have been the wrong stuff. I'll check).

Here's the procedure - I capture the video with my Canopus DVStorm, I edit and brand in Premiere and output to raw AVI (it's the only way I can use the proprietary realtime effects), then I process into MPEG using TMPGEnc.

I used to output to AVI and MPEG using Premiere, but it was suggested to me that TMPGEnc is so much better, which if you know what you're doing it is. I needed to be handheld, and was given a pre-created settings file.

Today I made sure I deinterlaced at the AVI stage only, but it still made no difference. Mind you, my computer did mysteriously crash yesterday. It might not have saved the settings properly...

Stupid computers.

[bigdave]

Ah Bink! Now that should rule the world! An Elizabeth could be Queen!

[Love-Dr.]

Video Dude,

perhaps you erred on a setting?

Maybe this may help?

[Vid Dude]

I've looked at that link before. Not really any information there I can use to my benefit. Indeed most sites either tell you stuff like that ("wow, aren't we impressive?") or assume you want to rip DVDs ("swap DVDs over fileshare!").

I can't really find anywhere that deals with 4 minute clips with lots of moving leaves in the background.

[pjay]

we don't assume that they know how to enlarge their mediaplayer to get a larger image.

In principal, 'assume nothing' is a good policy, but to my mind, not assuming that users can enlarge the image in their mediaplayers is almost on a level with not assuming that users know how to use a hyperlink!

On the other hand, my job is primarily acting as an expert on my employer's proprietary computer system - not the technical details, merely the front-end user interface, so I do appreciate that some people's ineptitude with / fear of computers is boundless

[Vid Dude]

In principal, 'assume nothing' is a good policy, but to my mind, not assuming that users can enlarge the image in their mediaplayers is almost on a level with not assuming that users know how to use a hyperlink!

You'd think so, wouldn't you? It constantly amazes us how many people don't grasp basic concepts, even when we explain them clearly. We try so hard to make things like our signup process, our videos, our file zipping, everything as clear and as understandable as possible, but we still get people emailing us all confused.

When you realise that many people do not read the text provided on things like error messages or instructions, the quandary is: do you explain things more with more detail, or do you simplify things somehow? Can you simplify things more than "click here" which some people still don't do?

[vmsmith]

I feel your pain.

As a network administrator by day, the hardest thing people can ask me to do is to explain something to them. It's like explaining the color blue to a blind person. Sometimes, if they ask me a question, I just use a lot of computer jargon until their eyes get foggy and I quietly slip away.

On the video issue, I know we all appreciate your efforts. And although you can't satisfy everyone all the time, you are certainly satisfying most of the people most of the time.

[bigdave]

Vid Dude,

Just a quick message to say I'm off skiing now, so won't be able to post some MPG samples up for another week or so....

Keep up the good work, and i'll keep imagining Elizabeth on a snowboard beside me!

I know you probably have done it already, but there are a few good tutorial sites out there for TMPGenc... I did a search in Google for 'tmpgenc settings' and 'tmpgenc tutorials'....

Digital Video Information looked good.....

One other thing to check on the de-interlacing is which field you camera records first... it will be odd or even (probably in the teccie stuff at the back of the manual).

When de-interlacing, this is the setting that will need to be set. If you don't get a choice when you do it, wait until you get a chance to... TMPGEnc has a setting for de-interlacing and a choice of which field 1st.. (it lists them as Top and Bottom). For DV camera source, it recommends Bottom field first.

It goes through what each of the settings does, and gives recommendations based on what the end result is (not just VCD or DVD!!!).

On the re-scaling front, I have viewed some of your video's on a low end pc - they play fine at full screen 1024x768!!!

At that size, Jamie's 'artifacts' look really, really good!! (Like she really, really loves that dolphin!)

[Love-Dr.]

You'd think so, wouldn't you? It constantly amazes us how many people don't grasp basic concepts, even when we explain them clearly. We try so hard to make things like our signup process, our videos, our file zipping, everything as clear and as understandable as possible, but we still get people emailing us all confused.

When you realise that many people do not read the text provided on things like error messages or instructions, the quandary is: do you explain things more with more detail, or do you simplify things somehow? Can you simplify things more than "click here" which some people still don't do?

Me (and v_m_smith) sympathise.

I think you have to find a happy middle ground. Have a pointer on each page that has a FAQ list of how to do video, and if U get questions on video trouble, email back that page too.
"you cant keep all of the people happy all of the time".

Although I make my living with computers, the sad truth is they are the MOST unreliable product in the world. I guess that is why I have a job! :-)

THANKS MICROSOFT! ;-)

[squeelookle]

Anyway, just discovered today that we have to pay royalties for MPEG-4, but none for MPEG-1.

Yes, this sucks - and is why MPEG4 just won't catch on. royalties and proprietry stuff seldom does (except for that OS that has the majority of the desktop market share atm).

And let me reiterate - there is no ideal situation. No matter what we choose, someone will not be happy. What we want is for nobody to ever say "why won't my video play" and if we have to tell them to download XviD, or have some other piece of special software to play it, then that is not a step forward.

agreed - it's hard. but if xvid comes in at only a meg or a few hundred kb, then it's a *lot* smaller than any of the vids - so people shouldn't really complain.... and there's always the option of having xvid and mpeg around... but never ideal....

[inquiring]

Video Tools

bigdave or others, anyone use the Microsoft Windows Media Encoder 9?

I use it for screen captures to demonstrate software usage.

Would it help or hinder Vid Dude?

Is Windows Media Format only available on Windows?

Thanks

[MrVideo]

Is Windows Media Format only available on Windows?

Yes, I believe it is a WindBlows only format. I'm sure it will be playable under MacOS and Linux soon, if not already, as long as DRM isn't turned on.

[MrVideo]

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.

If you have VidDude reduce the image size to 320x240, deinterlacing is a waste, as a field is dropped anyway, when creating MPEG-1 at that size.

I prefer the full sized video, in order to have the full vertical and horizontal resolution.

If you play a DVD on your computer and your source is video, you will see the interlace there has well. So fucking what. It is a fact of life with video. I prefer not to have the vertical resolution compromised.

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....

VidDude will have to correct me on this statement, but I believe the videos are shot in PAL, which is 720x576 in DV land. To keep square pixels and also keep the vertical resolution, the width needs to be changed to 768.

I create MPEG-1 VCD compatible videos for my website using Adobe Premiere and the Panasonic MPEG-1 encoder plugin. So I can go from the DV file to the MPEG-1 file directly from Premiere. Unfortunately, it looks like the product is no longer available, as the official website has vanished. Do a Google on "panasonic mpeg1 encoder".

The Panasonic encoder can output 64x64 -> 1024x1024 (in multples of 16x16). To create true square pixel videos at 640x480, the 720 needs to be cropped to 704 (the real active picture area) and vertically reduced to 480 during the output.

Working with video can be a real pain.

[Vid Dude]

It's true that there is a distortion when we make the videos at 352x288, they are slightly squished horizontally. This is because when we first started doing the videos we used a cheap home editor app from Pinnacle, which only had three options for sizes, each of which distorted the PAL image. I have no idea why, probably because it was an NTSC product originally and they didn't care about the rest of the world.

I've stuck with the same dimensions ever since, for tradition's sake, and nobody seems to notice the distortion or at least has never remarked on it. It is very slight.

BTW for some reason since Millie started editing, her computer outputs the MPEGs at exactly the same size using exactly the same version of exactly the same application (TMPGEnc) and yet Mac users get a 320x240 video instead. Can't figure that one out, it makes no sense to me.

[awqwerty]

Yes, I believe it is a WindBlows only format. I'm sure it will be playable under MacOS and Linux soon, if not already, as long as DRM isn't turned on.

I've been able to play every format that I've ever tried using Xine on my Linux box. It can use masses of different codecs, including all that windows proprietary stuff. There are packages that include the non-free codecs that you can download. Just stick 'em in a directory, point Xine at them, and there you go

Personally, I prefer to use the Theora format

[SevenT]

I'm new here, but I just have to chime in... as Vid Dude has mentioned, most information is about ripping and processing DVD's, not processing raw DV. But if you really want to learn MPEG-4 right, you should start at http://doom9.net. In particular, the forums are the place to ask questions about encoding. (The Guides are.... so/so IMHO).

I won't give any other advice (unless you want it ), but I will say that Doom9 is, in my opinion, an authoritative source for video encoding information. If you DO want my advice, PM me... I've encoded nearly every kind of video imagineable, so perhaps I could be of some assistance.