Best Quality Web Video
- Thread starter Jet Nine
- Start date
Strobe Media
Well-known member
i really don't think it's the website, it's how they render/compress the video. If you want to design a website, I'd suggest using Adobe Dreamweaver and learn HTML and CSS code.
2wheelfilms
Active member
a chain of dependencies
a chain of dependencies
This tangle of intrigue starts with shooting your raw content and ends with the bandwidth of the viewer. In between there are about 10 steps that affect how your bits look. The quality of the glass in the camera still matters. I think my HVX is better than my DVX. Of course the HVX being native HD (if you choose to use it) is also a HUGE issue. Shooting your original content on a RED cmaera (see Artbeats demo reel) is another step up, imo, for online video quality. Quicktime vs. Flash flv is worth reading up on. QT may be better, but flv with light compression comes pretty close. QT is still not as end-user friendly compared to Flash. Most say 12 fps is good enough but I think 15 fps looks better and 24 fps even more so. And then there is the ongoing codec discussion - H264 vs. this that and the other.
Forget about quality if your host reencodes your stuff. Youtube quality has improved immensely in the last six months, but...they still take your bits and recrunch them despite whatever you may do or not do or ask.
It's still about tradeoffs. Are you even sure that video quality is going to be enough to drive traffic to this proposed site? In our fragmented age, getting people to even be aware of your site, much less discover it, is a VERY worthy task.
Slainte
Jeff
a chain of dependencies
This tangle of intrigue starts with shooting your raw content and ends with the bandwidth of the viewer. In between there are about 10 steps that affect how your bits look. The quality of the glass in the camera still matters. I think my HVX is better than my DVX. Of course the HVX being native HD (if you choose to use it) is also a HUGE issue. Shooting your original content on a RED cmaera (see Artbeats demo reel) is another step up, imo, for online video quality. Quicktime vs. Flash flv is worth reading up on. QT may be better, but flv with light compression comes pretty close. QT is still not as end-user friendly compared to Flash. Most say 12 fps is good enough but I think 15 fps looks better and 24 fps even more so. And then there is the ongoing codec discussion - H264 vs. this that and the other.
Forget about quality if your host reencodes your stuff. Youtube quality has improved immensely in the last six months, but...they still take your bits and recrunch them despite whatever you may do or not do or ask.
It's still about tradeoffs. Are you even sure that video quality is going to be enough to drive traffic to this proposed site? In our fragmented age, getting people to even be aware of your site, much less discover it, is a VERY worthy task.
Slainte
Jeff
Last edited:
bgreenstone
Member
I've never seen anything better than Quicktime with good H.264 settings. Whenever I care about quality over compatibility I go with Quicktime.
-Brian
-Brian
the latest flash player can play h.264 content, so there is no need to use the quicktime container... just serve up h.264 video in flash on your web pages, if you want the best quality.
apple.com uses super high quality source material, and high bitrate encoding, to make their stuff look good... if you throw enough bitrate at any codec, it will look decent.
the best that us common folk can hope for is to use professional encoding tools like sorenson squeeze, and follow the right editing workflow.
apple.com uses super high quality source material, and high bitrate encoding, to make their stuff look good... if you throw enough bitrate at any codec, it will look decent.
the best that us common folk can hope for is to use professional encoding tools like sorenson squeeze, and follow the right editing workflow.
the encoder you use makes a big difference... when sorenson came out with squeeze 5, they added the mainconcept h.264 encoder to the package... you can still use the apple h.264 encoder in squeeze 5, but the mainconcept encoder is better.
on the pc side of the fence, you have squeeze 5 also, but another good option is nero recode, which is part of the nero suite... the nero package was free after rebates at frys a few weeks ago, which was an insane bargain, normally it's around $100 or more... it works for youtube uploading, but i've never tried to play the nero files in a flash environment.
regardless of what encoder you use, look for two-pass encoding, and typically variable bitrate encoding if possible, depending on how you are serving it up... if it's going to youtube(or any service that re-encodes), you don't want them to change the frame size or the frame rate, so take care of that ahead of time, with the master file that you create for the upload.
if you handle things right, the youtube hd quality can be really good.
on the pc side of the fence, you have squeeze 5 also, but another good option is nero recode, which is part of the nero suite... the nero package was free after rebates at frys a few weeks ago, which was an insane bargain, normally it's around $100 or more... it works for youtube uploading, but i've never tried to play the nero files in a flash environment.
regardless of what encoder you use, look for two-pass encoding, and typically variable bitrate encoding if possible, depending on how you are serving it up... if it's going to youtube(or any service that re-encodes), you don't want them to change the frame size or the frame rate, so take care of that ahead of time, with the master file that you create for the upload.
if you handle things right, the youtube hd quality can be really good.