Best Codec for Rendering for Web?

westside wrote on 4/10/2003, 3:50 PM
Hey all...I have to render some clips between :30 and 2 min. What's the best codec that allows me to keep it a manageable size but still quality. It seems like everyone is using .mov files for this. What's your thoughts? I want the music in the video to sound great.....

So which ones do you use? What size and settings do you reccomend?

Thanks,


West

Comments

Mike M. wrote on 4/10/2003, 9:33 PM
I like QuickTime "mov" over Real and Windows Media. Why? Because it's good for both MAC and PCs, Sorenson is a real good compressor, and you can make a darn sharp movie with great audio that is a small file with low data rate. Anyone needing the plugin or software player can get it free from Apple. Embedding the media is pretty easy and you can do some fancy embedded links and poster movies/audio.

Now, just to play the other card, Windows Media is pretty darn good too. Close to 90% of all the OS's in the world have some sort of Windows Media Player on them that the web surfer doesn't have to download, it's built into XP now as standard. So, that's a plus. Embedding with html text links are only possible with Version 9. The fancy stuff is somewhat harder to do with WM9 too.

Side by side, my tests for a movie with decent audio, show that the Sorenson codec (Quicktime)is still a tad better.

For size, it will be up to you and your audience. Do they have DSL or 56K modems---you have to consider the modems (or not)? That in mind, it will be a trade off between quality and file/data size. The bigger the slower----you know the story.
So-----consider a window of about 160x120 or tops 240x320 using the Qdesign audio. Set the audio at the lowest setting that sounds okay to you. Maybe 22khz mono? You might also try the IMA codec setting for audio.
rextilleon wrote on 4/10/2003, 9:57 PM
I disagree entirely--my tests show that the Windows is better---The only advantage to Quicktime, as you mentioned, is the ability to run it on both a Windows and Mac based machine.
Mike M. wrote on 4/10/2003, 10:07 PM
I'm curious what your file sizes were and the data rate? Not to doubt, but I just did the test and the file/data rate sizes for a video/audio window 160x120 were much higher in Windows Media (compared to QT). It's possible that I didn't compare fair.

Frame Size 160x120
Frame Rate 15 fps
Quality about 50%

Audio 22,050 mono (using IMA in QT)

I could see all kinds of "blockiness" in the WM.

Oh----maybe it's because I used the WM8 codec?
philfort wrote on 4/11/2003, 12:16 AM
For wmv intended for the web, I use the wmv9 codec, with "Best" rendering quality, and choose Bit rate VBR for Mode on the Video tab.

I'm not sure what the different between "Best" and "Good" (the default) is. Anyone know? Just it just spend more time rendering?

I think using a variable bit rate means the rendering is done in two passes (do I have that right?), with a hugely noticeable quality improvement over CBR (which is the default).

Anyway, using that, I've been able to get significantly better quality out of a same size wmv file, compared to mov file. But maybe I just haven't played with quicktime enough...

wish there was a good explanation of all these parameters somewhere...

RixWare wrote on 4/11/2003, 10:42 AM
From Vegas, I use the Windows Media Video 512MBps template. This produces about a 4 MB file per minute of video. These files will stream fine for anyone with a faster-than-dialup connection. For the dialup audience, I provide a download link.

I have tried using the lower MBps templates, but find that the video is really not even worth watching as it is of too low a quality.

You can see a sample on my site:

Frank Lloyd Wright's Willey House or Fenway Park

(These sample videos do not have audio, but that doesn't affect the file size or streaming.)

+
Spirit wrote on 4/11/2003, 11:02 AM
I'd also consider going to progressive download Flash swf files. They are smaller than mov, wmv or mpeg and can be manipulated with much greater ease. Flashplayer installation base is much greater than Quicktime or Mediaplayer. Of course you'll need something to convert your files: Sorrenson Squeeze is the best here followed by Wildform's Flix (much cheaper). In fact I'd look at Sorrenson Squeeze just for crunching to mov or wmv...
gruby wrote on 4/11/2003, 4:05 PM
I'm coming to video from the web, so i have lots of video compression issues for the web behind my back.

First of all you should use mov as it's the only standard supported by all computers (asides from RealPlayer which is crap). Then you shoul have your footage at the higest possible quality encoded with Sorensen. You bring that footage into program called Cleaner (which can convert 1 min of video and make 400kb file!!!). There there is lots of options to such as resizing the footage, taking down the frame count, etc. Properly encoded footage should stream even on Dialup connection. However its best to provide 2 versions as the dialup version will be heavily compresed.

15-20fps should be the standard frame count
320x240 is the "standard" size (anything above won' stream properly on the dialup)
westside wrote on 4/14/2003, 5:09 PM
Good info guys!!!! The last time I did this, I didn't have much luck with cleaner but haven't tried it lately... I will look at Soresen squeeze as well!! Thanks..