This content has been marked as final. Show 48 replies
Sorenson Squeeze...2 pass VBR.
It's a beautiful thing.
To what format Christian? Straight to FLV, or an intermediate codec?
I'm with Christian - Squeeze's Flash OnVP6 2-pass VBR!
I have an older Sorenson Squeeze Compression Suite -- 3.0. No longer supported--and I'm having no luck with it. What version are you using? Same question as KingLeonard -- Straight to FLV? Jeff, is that what you're talking about?
Version 4.5.7. Yes, straight to FLV. Squeeze includes a dedicated FLV player, which is really useful.
What about Premiere's built-in Youtube preset?
> What about Premiere's built-in Youtube preset?
I paid for Squeeze and I'm by-gosh gonna use it!
:) ;) B)
When I encode to FLV in version 3.0, I get a file that no computer recognizes - at least the two computers I tested. What's up with that? Will I get the same results with Version 4.5.7?
In addition to my question about why FLV files squeezed in 3.0 aren't playing on various computers....I'd like to know if you're using the compression suite or just Sorenson Flash. If I have Compression Suite 3.0, is there a compelling reason to upgrade to 4.5?
Likelihood is it's a FLV without a FLV player. Without a FLV player it won't be recognised.
I'd say the biggest step up from 3 to 4 would be the inclusion of the version 8 On2VP6 codec rather than just the older version 7 Sorenson Spark codec.
I agree with KL - plus 4.5 is supposed to be significantly faster.
The h.264 support in 4.5 is better, too. That's significant if you plan on encoding to HiDef using h.264.
Sorry, been out of this one the rest of the day...
Yeah, straight to VP6. DEFINITELY go up to Squeeze v4.5, because of the VP6 codec.
Using the encoder in PPro is not nearly as useful...too limited, and no multi pass OR variable encoding. Both of those features will give you very crisp videos.
Haven't uploaded to YouTube in a while...yes, they do Flash, but they used to not have any FLV recommendations. They kind of expected people to upload MPEG-4 videos instead. I always found, however, that my VP6 videos encoded with the same general parameters as the recommendations (minus the MPEG-4 codec) yielded high-quality results with very fast turnaround...just a minute or two. What that tells me is that there was NO reprocessing of the video...it was acceptable format at the get go.
BTW - please note that the Flash VP6 codec is ONLY available with the Sorenson Squeeze Power Pack or Flash (standalone). See here for more info: http://www.sorensonmedia.com/pages/?pageID=99
v4.5 is very fast...way faster than the previous version(s) and WAAAY faster than using the PPro Flash export.
Just render a DV AVI out of PPro and put it into Sorenson...you can deinterlace (or just render progressive) out of PPro, or you can maintain interlacing (my choice most of the time) and let Sorenson do the deinterlacing. I think Sorenson does a much better job at that.
>Using the encoder in PPro is not nearly as useful
Aharon Rabinowitz from Creative Cow uses a pretty good analogy that encoding video with your editing platform is like using a shoe to hammer in a nail. You can do it, but it's not the best tool, is likely to do a less-than-perfect job and lacks the added functionality of a hammer.
Now that to me is just weird. Theoretically, the NLE is the BEST place to do your encoding, as it requires no additional render steps which often introduce some degree of degradation.
If it doesn't work out that way in practice, then the NLE needs to get it's encoding act together. I think Premiere took a step in this direction by allowing a direct timeline transfer to Encore without exporting.
Look at it this way. You have a project that requires multi-layer compositions with masks and motion tracking. Do you use Premiere, or use a program that is purpose built for the task like After Effects?
Video encoding software is designed with better, more thorough encoding processes because that's all it has to worry about. Besides, any video encoding platform worth its salt will be tied to the editor in some way so as to make use of the source material rather than an intermediate render.
You can also frameserve out of PPro into Sorenson. I've done that before, it worked fine, too. The results were noticeably better, but for web video, both options were well above the typical quality on YouTube.
You can have 80% awesome or 90% awesome. Different strokes for different folks.
I guess I don't really understand what the YouTube discussion is all about. YouTube videos are just bad, and that's about it.
You can save in plain old .wmv format and upload that, YouTube then converts this for flash for you, so there really is no need to spend extra time converting to this or that format, as Youtube does it for you when you upload.
I've seen nothing but bad quality videos on youtube, but that's why it works so well, people want fast downloading times.
Am I missing something here ? hmm, perhaps, and I'm willing to learn why somebody would go out of their way to find different formats to upload with, when all you need is a simple wmv file.
The reason I like wmv, is that it is small. Why would one want to upload a huge file which takes longer, when all Youtube will do is convert it down to a tiny fraction of the quality it originally was ?
P.S. - when I say "bad quality videos" I mean this:
I mean bad quality, as in nothing compared to the quality that was originally uploaded...., but not so bad like it was shot from a telephone camera. YouTube videos are NOT the place to "highlight" a video that you spend amazing amounts of time doing I guess, the quality is just not anything to write home about is what I'm saying.
Sure, I understand that the better quality you have to begin with, the better it can be when uploaded to YouTube, but there is a cutoff point where it's not worth the time. I'm not going to upload a 100 meg file to Youtube when I can upload a 20 meg file for a 2 minute clip.
It's an interesting topic, and I hope this sparks some new posts, as I could very wrong with what I'm saying. However I've never seen YouTube indicating exactly what type of file we should be uplaoding, in terms of codec, etc etc, so that the video is better than what one would normally upload.
When I say YouTube, I'm simply referring to the Flash format YouTube uses. I have a client that needs a video to appear on a candidate/election forum. The host forum specified Flash (or as they said, "YouTube") format. I'm under the impression that I have to deliver a Flash file...they don't encode. I have a second client that needs a Flash video on their home page.
This brings up a question -- what is the "normal" size of a 2 minute Flash video? How many megabytes?
>You have a project that requires multi-layer compositions with masks and motion tracking. Do you use Premiere, or use a program that is purpose built for the task like After Effects?
Ideally, the NLE will have that capability built-in. Adobe's work around is Dynamic Link.
>any video encoding platform worth its salt will be tied to the editor in some way so as to make use of the source material rather than an intermediate render.
How many of them can do that? There is also the issue of added cost, which is never a good thing.
Now if Adobe made the AME a separate program, and much more powerful in what it could encode, that would be a viable work around.
Wanted to address something real quick...I think it would be great if the AME was a standalone program, accessible from all the different applications. My 2 cents.
On the format choice, your selection of "plain" and "old" are good words to describe WMVs. FLVs can often be smaller than WMVs at the same bit rate and size, and are also often much higher quality. Plus, by exporting FLV, you don't have the recompression ugliness that the YouTube re-encoding can introduce - especially if you're uploading low bitrate or low resolution content.
There are so many different ways to skin this cat, it's hard to make generalizations. But, as I mentioned, I've had great quality from YouTube by simply uploading FLVs at 386k and 640x480. Long ago I had uploaded a WMV with similar specs (customer provided a WMV, no choice for me) and it didn't come close to comparing to my procedure.
It does make a difference. The reason it all matters is because it can be SO EASY to make money off of YouTube if you can offer a little better quality. There are some clients who might want to get their stuff on YouTube, but they know it "looks bad." So they ask for your help, you get paid. It's also handy for doing one-offs for client review or other similar intermediary things. Of course, having your own ability to put the clients content online (say, on your own website) is better, but some people haven't figured out how easy and affordable that can be just yet...
On the numbers front...I think the last FLV I uploaded was 9.5 minutes (YouTube has a limit of 10 minutes) and was only 27 MB in size (of course, YouTube also limits file size to 100MB, but even at the max duration I didn't come close to max file size). That kind of makes your 20 MB = 2 minute clip look huge. At your rate (0.167 MB per second, 10 MB per minute) you would hit the max on both size and minutes. Theoretically, if there were only a file size limitation, I could upload nearly an entire hour-long TV drama - minus commercials. That is significant.
As it applies to a non-YouTube environment...well, somebody ends up paying for server storage space and bandwidth, so the more quality you can retain while minimizing bandwidth and storage, more money saved.
Here's a good example why making the extra effort on encoding can be worth it when going for YouTube...this compression looks awfully good, wonder what they did?
Last thing...people don't JUST want fast downloading times (YouTube could be faster, after all). They want interesting content, and they are willing to sacrifice quality if it means interesting content. It's important to talk about the issues related to quality, but at the end of the day, your content can very easily be more important that the quality.
Long post = my apologies.
Back to my FLV not playing because of no embedded player. I thought Flash had its own embedded player. How can I play my Flash (FLV) file encoded in Squeeze 3.0? Does 4.5 now encode with the player? How does this work?
Years ago (Macromedia Flash 4.0 days), anytime I created a Flash file, the player was automatic. Click it and it played. Pure and simple.
So if I am understanding correctly, by simply uploading your video in .flv format to YOuTube, your video will be better quality than if uploaded in .wmv ?
Interesting stuff. Thanks for the info !
>How can I play my Flash (FLV) file encoded in Squeeze 3.0?
Normally, you bring this into a Flash authoring program to create the .swf.
Hey David - yeah, that's the deal. Well, unless they've changed something...I haven't uploaded anything to YouTube in over half a year.
Makes sense though, right? You use their specs for FLV, then they don't re-encode it. If they don't re-encode, then you don't have to worry about uploading a nice looking video and watching it turn to garbage.
For jonereb - FLV is relatively new...only since Flash v7.0 (not the player, the development application). What you're thinking about is exporting the SWF file.
Your FLV file can be included in a SWF file/player. By design, it is content only, just like a WMV requires a player (Windows Media Player) and QuickTime media requires a QuickTime player. However, the confusion here is that yes, you probably have a "Flash Player" installed on your computer, but it's associated with playing back SWF files - which is content+player/controls.
Sorenson has options to let you export a SWF with player, but you either need to get your own player and load it in there, or use one of the included player designs (which are...um, ugly). Otherwise, just drop your VP6 FLV into Flash 8.0 or CS3 and build out your player there.
There is also a FLV player available...type "FLV player" into google or go to download.com. You'll see it.
I encoded a FLV and SWF (using Sorenson 3.0) and neither will play on their own. How do I associate it with a SWF player -- so I can play it and see if it looks okay? Also, how is it associated with a player once uploaded to a website?
Last time I tried to upload a flash file, it failed.
And I do not see on youtube this is a supported upload format.
So, am I doing something wrong?
Usually the player is built-in to the .swf file when it's created. Embed the .swf into an HTML page, and it should work.
I was able to make my SWF file play in a web browser by creating a hyperlink. But the browser stretched the 320 X 240 file to fill the screen. I there a way to constrain this? Is there a way to add play, pause, etc. buttons?
> I was able to make my SWF file play in a web browser by creating a hyperlink. But the browser stretched the 320 X 240 file to fill the screen. I there a way to constrain this? Is there a way to add play, pause, etc. buttons?
I asked about this at Microsoft FrontPage forum to see if there is HTML code to constrain size. They said talk to Sorenson. My version of Squeeze is no longer supported, so I can't ask. Anyone have words of wisdom? other than upgrade.
My embeded .swf media play at the same resolution they're created in. Not sure why yours didn't.
Player controls are part of the .swf file, and get added during authoring.
Jim or anyone, could my stretched SWF be due to my older version of Sorenson? Did Sorenson perhaps build a better mousetrap that now constrains?
jonereb - stretching of SWF's when opened with a web browser is expected behavior for SWF files. The correct way to use the SWF's is to have an HTML page that constrains the proportions allowed for the SWF file so that it remains the authored size regardless of the size of the browser window. Dreamweaver, Flash Pro, etc. will author a HTML page like this for you - Premiere Pro does not.
Bottom line - if you open your swf by right clicking on the SWF file and then select open with IE expect the SWF to be stretched to the size of the window no matter what program created the SWF.
In addition to my previous question, what about the player having buttons: pause, play, etc. Does Squeeze 4.x do this?
> jonereb - stretching of SWF's when opened with a web browser is expected behavior for SWF files. The correct way to use the SWF's is to have an HTML page that constrains the proportions allowed for the SWF file so that it remains the authored size regardless of the size of the browser window. Dreamweaver, Flash Pro, etc. will author a HTML page like this for you - Premiere Pro does not.
>Bottom line - if you open your swf by right clicking on the SWF file and then select open with IE expect the SWF to be stretched to the size of the window no matter what program created the SWF.
I played the SWF file via a web page link, as normal. It opened in a browser. What is proper procedure for making the HTML page constrain?
I don't know about Squeeze but these button are easily added in Dreamweaver or Flash Pro.
> The correct way to use the SWF's is to have an HTML page that constrains the proportions allowed for the SWF file so that it remains the authored size regardless of the size of the browser window. Dreamweaver, Flash Pro, etc. will author a HTML page like this for you - Premiere Pro does not.
I'm using FrontPage to link to my SWF. Do I need to add HTML code to constrain? Microsoft says this is a Sorenson problem. Regardless, I'm turning over the SWF to the client. They will add it to their website. I just need to make sure I deliver the proper material. Having said that, I'd like to add the SWF to my site too. So I need to know how this is done.
Sorenson 4.5 has players that you can add to the exported SWF for play/pause controls and such. When you add a SWF profile, there is a spot in the options that lets you choose the player you want to use. Unfortunately, previewing the player is difficult, so you may want to do a sort of trial-and-error run on a small portion of the clip (if you have Sorenson 4.5).
Otherwise, you can use the embed tag to define width and height at the same time you define source (src) properties for the SWF, and that should be a quick fix on the stretching issue. But, as mentioned, if you just click on your SWF and load it into a browser, the browser just stretches it out. Dreamweaver is very good at sort of automating this for you.
At this point, it might be time to go over to the Flash forums to get the real info you need (Microsoft is the LAST place you want to start poking around for help with Flash...they are developing their own competitive technology to Flash video ....called Silverlight). Hopefully by now we've all been helpful in getting the video creation side of things fixed up for you.
Please note, you can view .flv files directly from Adobe Bridge.