 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> Maybe I am baised. I did try one of these codecs one time. (I really
> can't remember whether it was DivX or Xvid, but it was one or the
> other.) I found that no matter which settings I changed, it was
> absolutely impossible to generate a video that didn't look horribly
> compressed. There seemed to be billions of settings, but none of them
> would improve the image. Everything came out fuzzy and blurry
> (especially anything blue), and there were lots of ugly blocks
> everywhere, and it just looked a mess.
Give me a high-quality mpeg1 video you have, and I will try to convert
it to mpeg4 preserving the same image quality as much as possible. If
I don't succeed in doing that, or if the resulting file size is not
significantly smaller, I will concede that in some cases mpeg4 does not
beat mpeg1.
Preferably live video, which is what mpeg4 is best suited for. (Video
which has very sharp contrast, for example cartoons or certain rendered
animations, can also be compressed well with mpeg4, but it usually requires
a lot more fine-tuning of the parameters.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> I just tried taking my test video and encoding it as MPEG1. On one hand,
> the file shrank from 730 MB to 6 MB. On the other hand, the picture is
> now fuzzy and indistinct. But no matter how much I turn up the bitrate,
> the file size remains the same. *sigh*
I had a strong sense of deja vu when I read this. Probably because
you've had this same conversation here in the past!
So I'll tell you what you were told before: MPEG1 sucks. MPEG2 is
better. If mpeg4 is a headache for you, just do mpeg2.
--
Fax me no questions, I'll Fax you no lies!
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> I have an MPEG1 encoder. I don't have an MPEG4 encoder. You do the math.
> :-P
My friend, let me introduce you to this new invention. Some are
beginning to call it "The Internet".
Can't help you otherwise: I do all my stuff in Linux. mencoder,
transcode and avidemux have worked well for me the few times I've done
this. My distribution automatically installed most of the encoders when
I installed mplayer. Gotta love USE flags...
--
Fax me no questions, I'll Fax you no lies!
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Orchid XP v8" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:490975d6$1@news.povray.org...
> Invisible wrote:
> Still, I needn't have worried. Once I uploaded the video to YouTube, it
> became completely unrecognisible:
>
> http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=_-JbSpGve_c
>
> You now cannot even tell what it *is*! o_O
Just add this to the end of the URL for higher quality:
&fmt=18
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=_-JbSpGve_c&fmt=18
~Steve~
> http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
> http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I have an MPEG1 encoder. I don't have an MPEG4 encoder. You do the
>> math. :-P
>
> So get one. You can get a 15-day trial of the dix-X convertor free, and
> XVid is GNU GPL-licenced software.
In that case... it must have been DivX I tried. (I definitely remember
it being a "trail version"; all the encoded videos had a watermark on them.)
>> (Besides, the video looked OK encoded in MPEG1. Trouble is, YouTube
>> resized it to some much smaller spatial resolution, rendering it
>> unrecognisible.
>
> It's all YouTube's fault.
Well, I guess if I knew exactly what size it resizes them to, I could
render at that resolution in the first place... For the video I was
thinking of uploading, I'd have to crop it though. The interesting parts
are barely visible at the *current* resolution, never mind with
downsampling...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
St. wrote:
> Just add this to the end of the URL for higher quality:
>
> &fmt=18
>
> http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=_-JbSpGve_c&fmt=18
My God... Eddison you're a genius! o_O
Seriously though. I've seen other videos where there's a "watch in high
quality" button, but my video doesn't have that button. And yet, the
link you posted does indeed show it in slightly higher quality. What gives?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gail wrote:
>
> "Orchid XP v8" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
> news:490a1712$1@news.povray.org...
>
>> Since apparently every other user on the planet doesn't have any of
>> these problems, apparently I'm just too stupid to work it out...
>
> Or you haven't read tutorials that they have
...they have tutorials now? ._.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:490ac8c4$1@news.povray.org...
> St. wrote:
>
>> Just add this to the end of the URL for higher quality:
>>
>> &fmt=18
>>
>> http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=_-JbSpGve_c&fmt=18
>
> My God... Eddison you're a genius! o_O
>
> Seriously though. I've seen other videos where there's a "watch in high
> quality" button, but my video doesn't have that button. And yet, the link
> you posted does indeed show it in slightly higher quality. What gives?
Heh... Genius. :)
See this page:
http://help.youtube.com/support/youtube/bin/answer.py?answer=91450&topic=10526
~Steve~
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:490ac8da@news.povray.org...
> Gail wrote:
>>
>> "Orchid XP v8" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
>> news:490a1712$1@news.povray.org...
>>
>>> Since apparently every other user on the planet doesn't have any of
>>> these problems, apparently I'm just too stupid to work it out...
>>
>> Or you haven't read tutorials that they have
>
> ...they have tutorials now? ._.
<sigh> Do you think that everyone else just somehow managed to intuit the
proper settings?
http://www.google.com/search?q=xvid+tutorial
http://www.google.com/search?q=divx+tutorial
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:490ac7f9$1@news.povray.org...
> Well, I guess if I knew exactly what size it resizes them to, I could
> render at that resolution in the first place...
They don't just resize. They also convert into flash and I think compress
more. It's not just a size thing.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
