STREAMING HDV FOR WEB

I have a .mov file that I exported from FCP 5 and when I play the file, it plays fine. However, when I attempt to compress it in Squeeze 4.5 (in 1080, 720, MPEG4 or mov) I get lost frames and the video does not play correctly?

1. What is the best codec to export an HDV file from FCP 5 so it can be further compressed and then streamed on the web.

2. What is the best codec to compress this file (whether DV, MPEG4 etc) in Squeeze 4.5. I would like to do it in flash.

Please advise.

I'm going with you can't. If you post any version of HDV on the web, that would mean that anybody who downloaded it would have to "know" what HDV was. There's a lot of machines out there that don't--starting with half of the Macs in our shop.

You *could* export an uncompressed version of the show and then subject it to H.264 which does a much better job of HiDef compression than HDV's MPEG2 compression.

Raw HDV isn't 16x9 wide screen and it's barely HiDef. The fact that it looks that way to you is all in the player.

Koz

You are beginning with a compressed format. Namely HDV is 4:2:0 color space or MPEG-2.

Anything that will recompress this again will be of worse playback quality that the original MPEG-2.

Here are some examples of HDV compressed with the encoder provided with Flash 8.
http://www.hd-tv.us

Here are some comparisons between the top 3 encoding systems:
http://www.hd-vo.com/stream

Here is some video edited encoded through FCP, standard MPEG-4 h.264:
http://www.hd-vo.com/HDV

If you have trouble playing the above files, either your internet bandwidth is not high enough or your computer is not fast enough, or your monitor does not have enough pixels to display the material propely.

As you can see, MPEG-4 h.264 which comes with FCP does an excellent job. Also, Flash 8 (encoders available inexpensively from www.on2.com ) , and .wmv with Flip4Mac (www.flip4mac.com ).

If you intend to show HDV-quality video over the web you need to factor in:
(1) The viewer's connection speed.
(2) The viewer's computer quality.

Today, a good number of your potential audience members will have the computer and internet resources to play online HD material, however MOST will not.

If you intended audience does not have adequate resources, it would be necessary to encode to a smaller picture size.

Good luck,

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

nobody's "streamimg" mpeg at 1080 or 720 across the web. its simply not feasible with currrent technology. sure it CAN be done, but its SLOW and id say that 80% of the public dont have monitors big enough to see it.

youre going to have to scale it down to another more reasonable size.

also, unless your web host actually has STREAMING stofware installed on their server (and you encode it specifically as "streaming" which based on your question, id bet youre not) its not true streaming, but a progressive download.

the most prominent delivery codecs are. wmv, flash and mov (h.264) any of which are fine choices, and with itunes now prevalent on windows machines all are pretty well even as far a player penetration goes...

what exactly is it youre trying to do?

<<<the most prominent delivery codecs are. wmv, flash and mov (h.264) >>>

And a fine example of the H.264 is from Apple:

[www.apple.com]

There are a number of tricks to that over and above *just* H.264, but you can do HiDef very nicely that way.

Koz

That TMNT trailer deserves a "WOW". Nice encode - holy @$#&!

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

<<<Nice encode - holy @$#&!>>>

Yes. They did very well with those. You can, too. You just need a good JavaScript Programmer, fast server, and an audience with Quicktime 7--in addition to a good touch with H.264 export and the proper embedded color/gamma profile.

Koz

Sure it is. 1080i uses horizontal compression, but 720p is a true 16:9, square pixel, format.

<<<Sure it is. 1080i uses horizontal compression, but 720p is a true 16:9, square pixel, format.>>>

*HDV* 1080 uses horizontal compression.

Koz

So does DVCPRO HD. It's 1280x1080.

<<<So does DVCPRO HD. It's 1280x1080.>>>

This is me writing that down.

Koz

Hello Kozikowski
Hate to summon you back to this forum like this. Still i didn't find any usefull information regarding my problem.
Do you know an efficient way to compress 1080i60 movies to mpeg4 without loosing loosing the 16>9 proportions... Even if by the use of a letterbox, i just havent find a way thaat poots my 6 minutes movie under 100mb limit.
Thanks for the help.

Diego,
I use MPEG Streamclip to compress for You Tube. Mostly because it's so easy to use. All the videos on my You Tube site started out 1080i50 or 1080i60:

[www.youtube.com]

Not the greatest but easy to do.

You know why you haven't found anything in 8 months? Because what you are asking for is quite unreasonable (6 minutes of 1080i60 under 100 MB). H.264 (mpeg4) has been suggested. Also try Sorenson. You are going to have to do A TON OF TEST ENCODES until you are happy with the result.

FWIW...YouTube (IMHO - may get slammed for this) is the worst example of compression available to the human eye...still can't figure why people (especially pros) consent to butcher their beautiful projects just to post them in public. When someone writes that they post their movies on YouTube and follows it with "Not the greatest", I would pass on that technology immediately. Any compression where you can practically count the pixels on the screen is horrid and should be abolished or limited to home movies (remember Cinepak?? ) I take great pride in the color/ contrast / FX / subtle gradients & blends embedded in my projects and youtube brutally strips that away.

SUGGESTION: If you are concerned about the QUALITY of displaying your productions to the public...get some server space, start your own website and post your projects that are encoded at cleaner (tolerable) levels. If you don't care about QUALITY and just want moving pictures on the internet, youtube is da bomb.

Mini-rant over

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

First of all- Joey- all of my projects air first on broadcast HD. The network I work for does not yet broadcast in the US, however, so I post them to You Tube so my friends and family can get a look at what it is I'm doing when I get a late night call and have to be in Mexico or Argentina or Ames, Iowa the next day.

Second, you can save your beer commercials or whatever YOU do for the big screen in your basement or wherever you get maximum wood out of them. I don't need to please you, luckily.

Third, my opinion of my own work has been proven out over many years by being continuously employed so putting it up on You Tube troubles me not one bit. It's not my only outlet but even if it was, what's it to you? The guy asked if it could be done. I answered "yes, and here's what it looks like." I'm sure he didn't expect Lawrence of Arabia at the Arc Light.

timjbd,

1. Like I said...if quality is not important (friends & famliy viewing), youtube is da bomb (please read the entire post). My issue is that some folks use youtube for approvals (yikes).

2. I enjoyed some of your clips on youtube. I did not attack the type of work you do so why would you go there? Totally inappropriate.

3. Opinions are posted here (FWIW & IMHO are abbreviations for "for what it's worth" and "in my humble opinion". I use them in opinion situations to show that this is simply my take on the subject. They should not be taken personally. No offense meant.

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

Hi Tim

Thank you very much for your reply, i also had a lot of fun with the beer commercial comments for those who simply can't separate themselves from a simple question. I hope the guy is posting Lawerence of Arabia in some raw format right now, just to proof us wrong. As a matter of fact aproval for the video did came personally (not that its of any interest to Joey are anyobne else) Some guy in the right level will put the video on his web page with the codec he or she favors. However i still wanted to reach some people via youtube. Here is the post of my video compressed in a rather unsharp manner without mpeg streamclip



I'll try using your program later, I can't believe how hard it was to compress a bit of my documentary from HDV to a viewable youtube clip.

Don't know about anybody else, but I think this looks very good for YouTube. But have you thought about putting up a version with English subtitles? Maybe you're only trying to target Spanish speakers, but YouTube is a "firebomb" kind of medium and it seems to me you'd want to make your piece accessible to more people.


www.derekmok.com

Diego,
My Spanish is lacking but I liked the hell out of that (and I thought it looked pretty damn good for You Tube as well). It was mesmerizing. I just PM'ed you about it.

so for the record, what was your compression recipe?


nick

You cats have seen this, [www.vimeo.com] right?
You tube-like but with much better quality.
It's all H264 and there are some recipes there for getting good quality.

ak
Sleeplings, AWAKE!

I'm wading in here a little late but I have a few things to mention which maybe of importance to some of the posts above.

YouTube and MySpace et al are places for your personal videos that you alone have rights to distribute.

If you put up work that has been paid for or commissioned by a broadcaster or private client you need to have the permission to post these in part or their entirety on the web.

If you do not you will be breaching copyright and liable as such.

If you make something for a client then ask them AND get permission IN WRITING from the person(s)/company that holds the copyright.

The first place to check is your contract - if you don't have a written contract, then, as the creator you have certain rights to show your work but check the copyright law in your country first.

~

On another note. - Tim & Diego - please be careful when reacting so vehemently to people's opinions; Joey was merely pointing out a valid arguement on Quality and that you are "trying to achieve a level of quality that is difficult to do within a very tight 100MB limit".

In future if you read something on these forums as being insulting to you then re-read them in a caring voice and see if you have made a mistake, text is not the most effective conveyer of emotions and has no intonation except the one in your head!

I don't like to see unecessary arguments on the forums so please watch your posts as I read Joey's as an 'opinion' and your responses indicated you thought it was an 'affront'. This was not the case and indeed you will find all the moderators (and most of the members!) have the best intentions in their posts and are not here to insult you.

~

To answer the 6min at 100MB issue - my suggestion would be to compress the framerate aswell from 30fps to 24fps this will save you 18 to 20% in the video datarate alone, without losing too much in motion information.

If you are using 24p already then I suggest you start reading up on how to do variable bit-rate compression, compression markers, etc and squeeze every last drop of bandwidth out of each scene/shot.

Also look at making the audio mono 16bit at 32Khz in something like mp3, mpeg-layer2 or IMA 4:1



For instant answers to more than one hundred common FCP questions, check out the LAFCPUG FAQ Wiki here : [www.lafcpug.org]

Ben,
I was done with this, but since you have drug it back up, this is what I took exception to:

still can't figure why people (especially pros) consent to butcher their beautiful projects just to post them in public. When someone writes that they post their movies on YouTube and follows it with "Not the greatest", I would pass on that technology immediately.

To me this implies, not very subtly, that I'm some sort of Richard Simmons who needs to be on TV so badly that he's willing to make an ass of himself if that's what it takes. Hopefully you can extrapolate my objection from that analogy.

Then this:

I take great pride in the color/ contrast / FX / subtle gradients & blends embedded in my projects and youtube brutally strips that away.

The implication here being (and in the context of what was said immediately prior)- in contrast with Joey (who takes such pride in his work that he would NEVER subject it to the degradation of You Tube and the unwashed masses who gather there)- I'm some Rube who cares not at all for the medium in which my work is displayed.

Now, he has since called my having taken umbrage as "inappropriate" and then in the next sentence, "They (opinions) should not be taken personally. No offense meant."

My response to his original post may have assumed something not present in his intent but in responding to his WORDS, I hardly think I was inappropriate. At least no more so than what I was responding to. IMHO.

'course, it's YOUR sandbox.

Furthermore, I don't mean to speak for Diego but his question was a simple one:

Do you know an efficient way to compress 1080i60 movies to mpeg4 without loosing loosing the 16>9 proportions... Even if by the use of a letterbox, i just havent find a way that puts my 6 minutes movie under 100mb limit.

I gave what I thought was a simple, helpful answer (which I have since elaborated upon in PM's) but then Joey's response to that simple question was:

You know why you haven't found anything in 8 months? Because what you are asking for is quite unreasonable.

Quite a contrast.

That said, I'm now satisfied that he MEANT no offense and furthermore, if my having taken offense offended him, I apologise.

Joe has strong opinions...but Tim, you were way out of line with your very personal attacks:

> Second, you can save your beer commercials or whatever YOU do for the big screen in your
> basement or wherever you get maximum wood out of them.

That's simply unacceptable in a public technical discussion like this one. Imagine if Joe's kid were to read this.

I don't disagree with you that YouTube is viable in its own way. But next time, if you disagree strongly, use facts and opinions, not sexual metaphors:

"Joey, I think you are wrong. I don't appreciate the suggestion that I don't value quality, and using YouTube as an exhibition outlet for friends and family has been perfectly legit for me. I have been employed continuously as an editor and I have works that I can show you."

Disagreements are just fine -- I disagree with Joe about the value of very simple credit sequences -- but keep it within the craft and the technical discussions, okay?


www.derekmok.com

Derek (and Ben),
Point taken.

I've never had a problem here with Joey nor anyone else in the past and don't expect to in the future. I hope he feels the same.






As far as You Tube goes, people had better get used to it. Serious Hollywood producers are now doing shows SPECIFICALLY for it and Myspace and the like:

Quarterlife

Optimizing your project for internet delivery is a reality which (some) people continue to deny at their own peril. In my opinion, staying ahead of the You Tube curve should be a hot topic on this forum, not that I'd try to tell you guys what to do.

Hi Tim

I personally like YouTube for fun silly things and the odd gem that would otherwise go unnoticed and yes people are making stuff especially for it. Although I don't enjoy the quality at all and am with Joey on this point. Unless as you say its for a rough viewing.

However until the limits are upped we will have to deal very closely with the quality/length issue and test different recipes out until we are happy with the results.

Dropping the framerate to 24 on your pre-upload YouTube post as I suggested might help those of you working in 60i or 30fps save some valuable bandwidth for image/sound quality.

Let us know how you get on and if a certain recipe works best. It is indeed a topic that will continue to run and evolve very quickly.

I don't think anyone using LAFCPUG would deny the reality of it or they'd be verging on hypocrite but its not compulsory to like it!



For instant answers to more than one hundred common FCP questions, check out the LAFCPUG FAQ Wiki here : [www.lafcpug.org]

Quote

You cats have seen this, [www.vimeo.com] right? You tube-like but with much better quality.

Holy f*ckballs, AK!! That is what I'm talkin' about!! HD PAR as well!! GREAT information. H.264 is awesome, ain't it? Thanks for posting that here

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

Hi guys.
Well, thank you for all the answers concerning this simple yet hard for me to answer question.
First of all and as Tim pointed out it was a simple question indeed, and therefor no harm or collateral damage was meant for anyone trying to anwer it. Lets keep in mind that we are not asking robots, nor manuals, we are talking about people that can bring a lot to the table by the richness of their personal experiences. And thank good that includes a little bit of sidetracking metaphores and spice sometimes. Discussing which is the best way to compress and hd movie for youtube was never this entertaining, and believe me i did google the subject.

Yes Derek, English subtitles for this segment are coming soon, and hopefullly a whole documentary by july next year. And i do really apreciate your comments.