Best video file codec for Internet video?

What file type are they using to encode video files for the Internet these days? Is there a decent quality, LOW bandwidth file type that I can export with FCP quick time conversion? Every time I export a 45 second file it's a huge 20 megs and the image looks all watery and distorted, whereas I can download movie files off IMDB and Yahoo that look and sound great and don't take up much bandwidth. What do they use to encode with on YouTube (although they're video quality is lesser)?

man, this topic is second only to the ongoing HDV debate in frequency of appearance.

probably the best thing you'll find within FCP>export using QT is h.264.

sorenson works as well as does flv but both of those are done much better in 3rd party compression tools. AND flv requires a web development to to actually deploy.

45 seconds as 20megs??? thats insane! what res are you exporting to? keep in mind that the general conversational res for web video isnt the same as your video - probably no wider than 300ish to 400ish wide.

youtube is all sfw (flash) and there are a number of ways to achieve better quality there

keep in mind. a lot of the commercial web video (as in retail dvds as well) is done with very expensive software and by experienced compressionists. simply choosing a codec and hitting process isnt going to achieve that same quality.

<<<What do they use to encode with on YouTube (although they're video quality is lesser)?>>>

YouTube uses Flash. You have to be careful what you send them because if your compressor conflicts with their comressor, you may end up with a mess.

<<<don't take up much bandwidth. >>>

Try not to confuse bandwidth with filesize. Bandwidth affects primarily speed of live playback. If you post the same movie at the same frame size, but one is 30 FPS and the other is 24 FPS. One might play and one might not even though the bandwidth of the internet connection is the same. The movie filesizes, however are different.

As probably was the case when you last looked, the Apple movie trailors are the current champ for internet presentation. They're stunning, they're fast-start (not streaming), they're H.264, they take QuickTime 7 to play them back (others need not apply) and they take Javascript Programming to get them to run at all.

There is a version that will run in Windows Media Player, but guess what? WMV uses MPEG4--a cousin to H.264. And Apple posts two different versions, one for each computer.

This is a good way to start a long discussion thread because everybody has their favorite spell to cast. You need to pay particular attention to each person's assumption as to who their audience is. Many people, us included, assume the target audience has downloaded QuickTime Player. If your clients don't have it together enough to do that, you will have to make other arrangements.

Koz

here is an h.264 (exported from FCP using QT conversion) 55sec, 4.6meg, 402x223

[understandinc.com]

<<<here is an h.264 (exported from FCP using QT conversion) 55sec, 4.6meg, 402x223 >>>

Excellent video, but.

Mostly black frames do compress really well.

Koz

i thought you'd say that (and Koz, youve probably seen both of these before)

here is another - same codec. 35seconds, 511x286 10.7meg
[understandinc.com]

well, I hadn't seen it before. That's a great looking web clip - though it didn't stream that well for me

Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm sure I am), but I would have thought that all that black (or any siginificant block of EXACTLY the same colour) would make any compression easier? As in, next pixel is the same as last pixel, move on? I should do a test....but ya know...

h.264 IMO is about as good as it gets for quality vs file size atm.

Justin.

both those clips are set for "fast start" so they should begin play relative to your connection speed.
fast start means that its not a TRUE stream (as very little of the video you see on the web is indeed TRUE streaming) but ts a progressive download, and as soon as enough downloads to begin playback the movie begins playing. if your connection is slower or fluctuates for whatever reason during the download/playing stage, the "streaming" wont appear to be as brisk.

and no. youre not wrong. just as koz said "Mostly black frames do compress really well." and like you said - "any siginificant block of EXACTLY the same colour" will compress more efficiently. and thats never a bad thing.

There's a FAQ of sorts on this here : How can I compress for the web?

Wayne's assessment that this topic is second to the HDV debate in this forums is correct - I predict it will soon be first. The reason both questions get asked so often is that in both cases (HDV and Streaming) we're all desparately trying to get something for nothing. In the case of internet "streaming" we really need to get our video to look good, yet get it to play through a connection that is quite inadequate for what we're trying to do.

The answer to your question, like so many others is "It Depends". Each encoding system has advantages and disadvantages - some video material looks better on one system, and not as good on others. - But there are other issues to deal with. Some of the players work well on slower computers, others don't. Some are better at lower bandwidths and not as good at higher ones. Then there's the "compatibility" - do you need to show your material to Linux users?

Good questions to ask before picking a system are:

(1) Do I want to require my viewers to download a special player? All MS-Windows machines (About 85 percent of those on the internet) come with Windows Media Player pre-installed. All Macs (7 to 12 percent) come with Quicktime (H.264) Pre-Installed. Though Adobe Flash doesn't come with most machines, it is claimed that the Flash player is installed on a greater percentage Internet Browsers than either Windows Media or Quicktime. Flash also has additional features that, used cleverly, can greatly improve the viewer's perception of the quality of video.

(2) Do I want to specialize on one sector of the internet audience? I sometimes do work for an automotive manufacturer that makes both luxury and economy vehicles. It was decided that the "luxury" market was also much more likely to have high speed internet connections - so their website had lots of high-bandwidth videos, page layouts that looked better on large screens, etc. The "Economy" car division used low-bandwidth video, and much less of it.

(3) How much action is in the video? If you have slow scenic shots, your streaming requirements are much different than if your presenting high-action scenes. Some of the best quality "video" on the web isn't video at all, rather it's a slideshow presentation of still scenes, using Flash to pan and zoom.

(4) How much time do you have to prepare your internet presentation? The more time you have to experiment and prepare each video, the better it's going to look. If you have a team of people who work full time to do this stuff, it's going to look much better.

My experiments with the 3 leading "streaming" codecs are posted here: www.hd-vo.com/stream/

For my own work, I've determined that it's best to encode in both Windows Media and Quicktime, and let the viewer choose which one to use. I've also decided that anyone who doesn't have a good high-speed connection and a reasonably fast computer with a good screen size (at least 1024 wide) is not part of my inteded audience. My latest presentation using that system is here: www.votalent.com/filmoc/

Travis
VoiceOver Guy and Entertainment Technology Enthusiast
[www.VOTalent.com]

I put videos on Google Video which compresses them into Flash format.
My programs typically run 30 to 60 minutes. I use to create an uncompressed version and run that through Sorenson Squeeze but once Youtube and other sites caught on, the goal became compressing your video the best way for it to look after it is again compressed in flash. All of the tutorials I find on the best way to do this are for less than ten minute videos. If I follow their suggestions (or even the ones suggested by Google Video) I end up with a huge file that takes forever to upload and often doesn?t show up after uploading. There is no tutorial I have found that says ?this is the best method to use ... apply these settings in _____ format? and none of the methods I have tried look all that great on-line (or as good as some of the other videos I have seen on these sites).
I would be eternally greatful if anyone would share the format and settings they have found to create good looking videos on sites like video.google.com. I am using FCP 5.
TNX, Jeffrey

The reason the tutorials are for ten minutes or less is that Google specifically states that videos must be less than 10 minutes long. Are you managing to post 30 and 60 minutes ones? Can you point us to a couple? I'd love to see what the new h.264 google compressor does to them.

Google Video says they have no limit on file size or length of video. I have several up that are longer than ten minutes but here is even a longer one (nearly 2 hours) that looks good to me:

Sorry - I meant YouTube has a ten minute cutoff. I would call the quality on that clip pretty awful, but if it's OK by you then you could probably compress the bejezuz out of your file and get away with it.

>>There is no tutorial I have found that says ?this is the best method to use ... apply these settings in _____ format?<<

That's because it's really really not possible to say that. Every file is different - it depends on the length, the size, the amount of movement in the shots, the number of colours, the original format and a bunch of other stuff. We can't guess what you need.

Really. People ask this all the time and there just isn't an answer that will work for every person, or even for every clip from an individual.

Your best bet is to learn more about compression by buying a guide to compression and then you'll be able to make the individual decisions you need to for every movie.

I am also looking for the best way to deliver HD content on the web. I have taken an HD file, Approx 500 megs and compressed down to MPEG-4, then converting to flash and a file size of 11 megs.

I have lowered the to 1200, anything faster would stop. anything lower looks less than acceptable. I am using Sorenson Squeeze 5.0 beta. The end user has the option to expand to full screen size. Any suggestions as to what the best combination of data bit rate/screen size works best?

H.264

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.