How do they do this? Compression Question

D

darwinandpaine

Well-known member
I just watched the QuickTime trailer for "300" (http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/300/hd/) in full 1080p resolution. It's 1:46 long and looks absolutely gorgeous at 129MB. Does anyone know how they do this? I can never get my stuff to look this good at these resolutions. The same is true if you go and watch the Quick Tours for "Aperture" (http://www.apple.com/aperture/quicktours/). I mean, I know they're h.264, but what kind of settings are they using and can we do stuff like this with Compressor? I'd really love to know. And if you can tell me, I'll be your best friend.

P.S.: Sorry if this isn't posted in the right place. I just figured HVX people would be more likely to know since they're working in these bigger resolutions.
 
Press Control-I (or whatever the equivalent on the Mac is) to see the file properties. You should be able to get equivalent quality using equivalent settings.

The most frequent problem I see is that people select a codec for the video, but not the audio. They thus wind up with uncompressed audio, which greatly inflates the final file size. Swithing to AAC or IMA audio can cut the file size of typical 640x360 videos intended for the web to 1/3.
 
Most imprtantly, the images are well posted before compression. And my guess is that sourcematerial is not 1/3" DVCPRO HD camera.

Gunleik
(Who really likes his 1/3" DVCPRO HD camera)
 
There starting with much higher quality footage wether they have shot it on film or Hd using 1inch chips. Great quality in and you get very good looking compressed results.
 
Okay, so basically none of you know.

C'mon!!!! I've generally gotta slide mine down to 12fps, make it small, etc... And yes, I get the "compressing the audio" thing (I alway set mine to AAC 32K). But damn, this thing is huge, 1:46 long, moves smoothly, and looks great. And my 720p HVX images look gorgeous in the FCP canvas at 100% --- hell, they look great at 125%! Can someone throw me a frickin' bone here? Really.

And, for the record, it's h.264, 23.975 frame rate, AAC audio at 1920 x 1080 (actually, I think it's 720 vertically because it's anamorphic --- 2.35:1).

I'm not talking about how gorgeous the source material is. I'm just talkin' about getting something that big, and that smooth down to that file size without looking like complete crap. If you know how, lead the way.
 
I dl'ed the clip prior to reply, and I think we're all on to something here -;)

This is why I use my D-200 to make images for web instead of my sony ericsson 2 mp mobilphone.

With a better image in I get a better result.
This is the exact argument for something like the Dalsa or Red @ 4k

Better startingpoint, a well done (uncompressed) post by someone who knows what the end format (like h.264 or jpeg) handles well or bad - gives great results.

I too like my HVX, but that is not to say that I do not see that if I push the images some, I see tons of unpleasantries in the images. The art is how to treat them and find ways to make them none-issues. Still they are there and will most likely be underscored by a transcode (like to h.264)

Also, if you look at the images, they're not too detailed _all over the place_, which gives more headroom for the compressor to work on the detailed parts better at lower bitrates.

Gunleik
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top