dick balaska <dic### [at] buckosoftcom> wrote:
> On 07/05/2018 05:45 PM, Chuck wrote:
> >
> > The animation was rendered at high res which caused buffering pauses with slower
> > internets feeds. It was replaced with lower res (link below), probably not
> > descernable after gallery compression.
> >
> > https://elevenmilephotography.smugmug.com/Experiments/i-xjk2QXx/A
> >
> > Thanks for the comment Dick.
> >
> > Chuck
> >
> >
> >
>
> I had no issues with buffering, but I thought it was, um choppy?  Like a
> very low frame rate or odd codec.

Impressive video! But I see 'choppiness' as well, in all five of the streaming
video-resolutions (even at 320 X 180-- and I have a fast broadband connection.)
>
> Oh, you squeezed a 2 minute 1080p video into 60KB.  That's pretty
> impressive.  What did you use to encode that?
>
>
> Name DuetPS9StdRes.mp4
> Size 1920 x 1080
> File Size 60.16 KB
> Advanced
> Duration 0:02:18
> Audio Codec mp4a
> Video Codec avc1
>

How did you find that info? In Firefox, I have an add-on called VideoConverter,
but the only things it shows are the various 'streaming' bitrates, not the file
size(s). (And in this case, VC can't download it as a 'file', as far as I can
tell.) If the 1920 X 1080 video is indeed only 60+ KB in size, that's...
extraordinary!! (I have my doubts-- but if true, maybe it's because the video
frames show mostly a pure black background, which is easy to encode.)

In another post, Chuck mentioned that the video was saved as an .avi file; in
your own data above, the Video Codec seems to be avc1. That would be a
variant(?) of h.264 I believe (or maybe the same thing?) I wonder if
avc1-encoded video-- but wrapped in an old-style.avi container-- might be a bad
mix? Just a conjecture-- I'm thinking about the choppiness.

Post a reply to this message