This content has been marked as final. Show 21 replies
What size did you have in mind? My guess is that you could deinterlace befoire scaling it down and not have a huge loss of quality. WM9 is one way, Flash is another, and if you want to spend the money on Sorenson Squeeze, Quicktime is a good option.
> I'm wondering what format people are using to export their HDV footage for
> online consumption.
It took me a while to learn how to use PPro CS3 Media Encoder, but it
performs quite well. I've been using Flash because it is so ubiquitous, but
WMV and Quicktime also work well.
pardon my ignorance
what is 30f?
It's not that things don't work. I don't get the quality I'm looking for :).
I find that (at least for my stuff) that quality is inversely proportional to dimensions. That is the smaller the dimensions the worse the result looks. Viewing my footage at full resolution looks best.
The audio part I can control by selecting the correct bitrate. However the video part is....well I don't seem to have it figured out :)
Dimensions that will be effective (for online purposes, assuming the visitor has a high bandwidth connection).
I believe 1/4 the original size of HDV will be a good starting place. So that's 480x 270 (or is it 360x270).
That's the other thing, I see some HDV online that seem wider than others. Is that because they were shot using 24f?
I've tried the various formats the media encoder allows for. I'm not really happy with the resulting quality of any of the formats. As mentioned to Christopher, the smaller I make the dimensions the worse the quality gets.
The Quicktime format in particular sucks (at least with encoded using PP CS3). The resulting video looks completely washed out and artificial). I have seen other people post their footage using quicktime and it looks great (no color correction).
The other question is: Seing that the main intent is for online purposes, should I shoot at 720p instead?
That was meant to be 30p :)
>I find that (at least for my stuff) that quality is inversely proportional to dimensions.
That's true for all video. One of the biggest determining factors of picture quality is the resolution. Decrease that, quality goes down. It's unavoidable.
> pardon my ignorance
> what is 30f?
The sensors on some Canon HD cameras are not progressive, so they call the
progessive-like modes 24f and 30f rather than 24p and 30p.
Can you put a link to an "hdv file on the web" that you find to be high quality? That will answer a lot of questions.
Here is in that I think is a good quality.
Adobe's own website has some great videos here:
Click on one of the boxes, and then you'll see a link for a video pertinent to that product (kind of). Each of those videos are good quality (IMO).
Here is another one.
I belong to the dvinfo.net groups and people post some incredible footage.
The size I'd like to post on the web is more like 480x270.
Though these examples may well be hdv source, the web presentation could have been done from sd 16:9 source just as easily since the presentation is smaller than sd resolution. Its just a matter of good source and appropriate export settings.
One was flash, one was QT. What format do you want to export to?
What I find is that QT seems to give me a washed out look and dulls the colors.
WMV is pretty good but still dulls the colors.
FLV, the color is good (as in no different from the raw footage) but you get these (I'm not sure what to call them) it's like shiny things if moving or if the camera is moving tend to look wierd. Even edges of things in the video seem to look strange. The effect is similar to if you resize an image in Flash/Flex. The image is not resampled or something. It's like if you resize in image (male it smaller) in Photoshop but don't hit the enter key (where in it then resamples for the nex size).
So as the original post mentions, I'm wondering, what format to use.
I've found the bitrate makes the most difference in quality. So a smaller size but larger bitrate looks acceptable.
The question is, is there an acceptable bitrate for online consumption?
It depends on who your viewers are. I regularly download 500MB files if I feel that they are going to be of value or interesting enough. But under 10MB is more common.
You may wish to put Low, Medium and High quality versions on your site.
> What I find is that QT seems to give me a washed out look and dulls the
Likely cause is difference in gamma.
So far I have not been color correcting (or any other modifications) my videos, but simply encoding them to various formats to see what they would look like.
I have done various kinds of corrections to see what I can acheive and I playing with levels and Gamma correction does make things better, but then I'd have to have different settings depending on what my output format (for online purposes) would be.
Is this normal? I mean I know differences will be required for HDTV/DVD etc. but didn't expect to have different color correction settings to online purposes :)
Yes, I was thinking the same thing (multiple versions).
A format that gives me consistent results :)
At the moment I'm open. I do like the flv option, only because the rest of the website will be done in Flex/Flash.
did you finally manage to get the result, I am having same issue, i tried diff setting, but so far no luck, mine is sony fx 7 and am shooting in 1080i 60 shutter, less than 6 db if its dark.
I'm using Flash video as the format due to it's support for cue points (which I think I may use within a website)
Essentially do use the following settings:
1. Video Bitrate - 5000
2. Audio Bitrate - 192
3. Dimensions to suite (I do find that odd dimensions produce a slightly inferior quality video). By odd I don't mean the correct aspect ratio, but any size other than full, half, quater.
The video (link below) uses the above settings with dimensions of 480x270.
Hope that helps.
Thanks Shiv, I did some test and it worked really well. Only thing is when I upload the file to the web, the file got cropped, basically enlarged, nothing to do with PPro, its some web site issue.