 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Clearly uploading uncompressed video is infeasible.
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*
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
Clearly I am wasting my time here...
Don't ask me why, but I was expecting better. Oh well, I guess I should
just give up on this as a bad job. Even if I could figure out how to
upload my movie, if it's going to become unrecognisible like this then
there's really no point to it.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> Don't ask me why, but I was expecting better. Oh well, I guess I should
> just give up on this as a bad job. Even if I could figure out how to
> upload my movie, if it's going to become unrecognisible like this then
> there's really no point to it.
You seem to have certain compulsive obsession about many things. One of
them is that you won't touch DivX or Xvid, no matter what, even though those
are the codecs which most people use to create video (including those which
go to youtube). It feels like you would jump through a thousands hoops just
in order to not to use those mpeg4 codecs. Well, your loss.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> Don't ask me why, but I was expecting better. Oh well, I guess I should
>> just give up on this as a bad job. Even if I could figure out how to
>> upload my movie, if it's going to become unrecognisible like this then
>> there's really no point to it.
>
> You seem to have certain compulsive obsession about many things. One of
> them is that you won't touch DivX or Xvid, no matter what, even though those
> are the codecs which most people use to create video (including those which
> go to youtube). It feels like you would jump through a thousands hoops just
> in order to not to use those mpeg4 codecs. Well, your loss.
I have an MPEG1 encoder. I don't have an MPEG4 encoder. You do the math. :-P
(Besides, the video looked OK encoded in MPEG1. Trouble is, YouTube
resized it to some much smaller spatial resolution, rendering it
unrecognisible. The actual compression isn't *that* bad, but the
resizing means that half the image is invisible...)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Orchid XP v8" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:490a00a8@news.povray.org...
> 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.
> (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.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> > You seem to have certain compulsive obsession about many things. One of
> > them is that you won't touch DivX or Xvid, no matter what, even though those
> > are the codecs which most people use to create video (including those which
> > go to youtube). It feels like you would jump through a thousands hoops just
> > in order to not to use those mpeg4 codecs. Well, your loss.
> I have an MPEG1 encoder. I don't have an MPEG4 encoder. You do the math. :-P
Did you know that Xvid is completely free? Also x264 is completely free
if you want something even fancier.
> (Besides, the video looked OK encoded in MPEG1.
It's not so much about image quality as about quality/size ratio.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
>> I have an MPEG1 encoder. I don't have an MPEG4 encoder. You do the math. :-P
>
> Did you know that Xvid is completely free? Also x264 is completely free
> if you want something even fancier.
>
>> (Besides, the video looked OK encoded in MPEG1.
>
> It's not so much about image quality as about quality/size ratio.
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.
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...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"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
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
