Quicktime v. WMP

Of course,

when combing the video and audio, my data rates are approaching 180kbps...... but the individual setting on the video datarate in the compression option is set to 130 kbps......

Are you running yours off PC? I think that we are both receiving different levels of service depending upon what platform we choose to use.....

Going to back to a post from Migeul, which you just reminded about Wagsy, I really don't want anyone to blow my videos up to full screen..... at all...... ever..... no way...... Harking back to my days of having to endure my flatmate's sitting through the X-files' every episode, I "trust no-one".......

It's FAR to easy to nick stuff nowadays and all they need to do is crop a pic a little to make it more than good enough for "other uses"......

Lets get back to the original point at hand anyway.

Quicktime is better. Lets all agree on that one (which we seem to be doing) and pursuade the world's less-well-informed PC users to move over to it yeah?

PLEEEEASE!!!

Hey guys,

Been doing a lot of practice since Wags posted some values to play with. Able to replicate the .wmv settings but not at the same quality...strange. Also, couldn't get Premiere to do anything close to the .mov size you achieved...again strang. I am back on my older PC for a bit with Premiere to see what can be achieved...since my Final Cut can't do .wmv yet.

Shawn

Going to back to a post from Migeul, which you just reminded about Wagsy, I really don't want anyone to blow my videos up to full screen..... at all...... ever..... no way...... Harking back to my days of having to endure my flatmate's sitting through the X-files' every episode, I "trust no-one".......

 

It's FAR to easy to nick stuff nowadays and all they need to do is crop a pic a little to make it more than good enough for "other uses"...

Excuse me Waterworks, but I don´t understand what you mean with this. Is it that you don´t want that anyone use your pictures without permision? (something that I am complety agreed..of course). Did you have a situation similar?. Or you are using this compresion to avoid that someone get your pictures with not enough quality for another intentions...I understand that you use a small compresion, good enough to see at 320*240 size, but once we make bigger screen , you notice that pixels..much more..

Your integrate videos, as mine, are able to download very easy...( I think you know that), but with that compresion the quality is not good enough to see then full screen..this we know..

In my previus post, I just try to say that with wmp you have the opcion to look a bigger screen even that is integrated at the page,,nothing more...comparing with QT player. Of course , with that compresion it doesn´t matter if is wmv o mp4, once you use bigger screen both show pixels...

Greetings...

Mac? isn't that a truck?

Mike you are correct, there is a truck brand called MAC, but there is also a company called APPLE who make a computer called MAC.

Now you know

Ooooooooh Wagsy, my son, and there's me thinking that if PCs were compters, then a Mac must be a God-send!

Sorry to confuse you, Miguel.

1. Yes, I want to avoid theft. (Yes someone was veeeeery cheeky before.)

2. I want people who would like to see my images full-screen or on the big screen to pay for a DVD or preferably to pay for me to fly to their destination and shoot their iimages for them directly.

I am sure that you know this already - so please forgive me if I sound patronising in ANY way, it's not my intention. Quicktime (Pro, which we are all using, as we're talking about exporting etc here) goes full screen also.......

OK I'm a little off the mark, of course one needs the standalone file in order to go full screen but, hey, if someone's waited for it to download for integrated viewing then saving it to the HD takes a split second (ish)............. then opening it up and viewing full screen is as simple as saying "Apple and Quicktime are better than PC and Windoze"....... ;)

Sorry Wagsy, a little thing I just read in the pinned post RE the Phenom; Why doesn't the world go PAL? I agree entirely, N.ever T.he S.ame C.olour is a bain of the industry, but isn't it all something to do with different electrical currents in the national girds of different countries? Different alternating currents mean that the gun in the TVs can't sync up, I think?

Another thing - is it still taking a day to render and eating 700Gigs of your harddrive to create the HD DVDs from the FX1?

Cheers guys, and come join me in my Mactopia as soon as possible, you're all welcome.....

This is a really interesting look at all of the current codecs, although they use Quicktime 6.5 instead of 7:

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1546480,00.asp

Extremetech is always objective, and I trust their reviews.

I've seen fantastic H.264 encoded by friends who are experts (one in particular, who works for Apple and is sort of an evangelist for Quicktime streaming media over there).

But I find WMV9 to be better, and so does he. But he hates that WMV9 is microsoft-proprietary (and I agree with that, as well).

Please stop with the Mac vs. PC stuff in this thread. It's not useful, and is not what the thread is about. What IS relevant is that different toolsets exist for different platforms.

For example, I use Sony Vegas, and out of the box its Quicktime export really sucks, while its WMV9 export is excellent. Obviously, this will affect my export options until I figure out a way to export decent H.264. I've experimented with an older version of MainConcept's H.264 encoder, but it's extremely complicated and doesn't produce results as good as DIVX or WMV9.

Another issue is that 97% of the world are non-Mac users. If you are a video downloader, you'll notice that the fast majority of distributed video is DIVX or XVID. These are meant to be high quality as a full download, and aren't mean to be streamed. This is obviously a big shortcoming of the format, but doesn't change the fact that the files are very small, high quality, and that most people can play them back.

Still learning,

Eric

Eric, sorry but I can't take any guy who uses a Keanu Reeves Avatar seriously.

Actually the Apple MP4 codec works better with DV than MP2. Still the H264 QT codec is THE codec for movie trailers, where higher bitrates are common. QT has made enough inroads to be taken seriously as a format for computers, and QT 7 H264 codec is very nice, fast encoding and clean, even for busy baitball action.

The only thing lacking in QT is DVD/VCD players playing WMV9. The ipod phenomena however quaint is not going to make QT any more popular. But for web distribution, QT is a big force. The quick encoding, compact files and good quality (DIV6.0 is better but at the cost of a bigger file and long encoding) makes it quite a nice package.

As for web content, anyone who is willing to d/l 20mb video files can d/l 20mb QT or whatever other codec there is. Apple is copying MS in that they are trying to push itunes but a little searching will find QT standalone install. Also QT pro is another 29 bucks so it's not really free.

Also to truly get the best out of QT, you need a good encoder like Autodesk Cleaner. Compressor and Quicktime Pro are decent but nothing like the powerful Cleaner. There's a windows version too with similar capabilities. It's expensive but well worth it.

This is a really interesting look at all of the current codecs, although they use Quicktime 6.5 instead of 7:

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1546480,00.asp

Extremetech is always objective, and I trust their reviews.

I've seen fantastic H.264 encoded by friends who are experts (one in particular, who works for Apple and is sort of an evangelist for Quicktime streaming media over there). 

But I find WMV9 to be better, and so does he.  But he hates that WMV9 is microsoft-proprietary (and I agree with that, as well).

Please stop with the Mac vs. PC stuff in this thread. It's not useful, and is not what the thread is about.  What IS relevant is that different toolsets exist for different platforms. 

For example, I use Sony Vegas, and out of the box its Quicktime export really sucks, while its WMV9 export is excellent.  Obviously, this will affect my export options until I figure out a way to export decent H.264.  I've experimented with an older version of MainConcept's H.264 encoder, but it's extremely complicated and doesn't produce results as good as DIVX or WMV9.

Still learning,

Eric

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I looked at both Wags videos, both in WMV and QT on my G5 Mac.....the picture quality was far superior in QT, BUT.....the image rendered in a web window at about 50% smaller in screen dimensions, not sure why, but perhaps that would account for things.....

I liked the Dido background music Wags...

Thats real strange as when I play them my end there is not really much difference but they both break down when the small fish come on.

See the pics 1.1

Yes Dido is nice.

Big 80 meg one HERE

Here is what I get on a Mac

wagsqt.tiff

I really need to figure out how you did the photos inline rather than as attachments.

Wags, the 80 mb file downloaded to the point of streaming within just 2 minutes or so.....incredible video.....makes me glad I got an FX1!

The rockfish shot was really steady...was that a +2 diopter on the closeup of the same fish species, same goes for the red striped shrimp?

Did you use some sort of tripod for the steady shots?

Wagswmv.tiff

Got the Mac tif but the wmv tiff could not open

To add pics just look uptop of the window when you reply to a post, use the IMG and put in the URL where the image is etc....

Hey you must have a good conection your end, I have to wait abit this end. Yes that red cod was a close up with the #2 diopter in, it lets you zoom right in.

I had the housing on the sand and zoomed back with the varie wheel thingy bob.

Shrimps were with the macro as well. You have 100% zoom through still with it flicked up still so you can pull from right in tight from a few feet to full wide open.

The only thing I colour corrected on the computer was the Floppy Whale Sharks, rest as I shot it, using the MWB, looks like you can get one from Amphibco now for $35 bucks. Maybe they will give you a free one since you just gave them all that money. You loose the ND thingy but I just spin the shutter up if it gets to much light.