Encoding for the web/workflow. It works, better way?

I really need some help from the pros. And believe me, I appreciate all your help. Please bear with me as I summarize my workflow. I produce a very popular football highlite show for the local cable operation. ( 19 years now). It airs from a a DVD ( ouch ). But, I have recently taken it to the web using iWeb and it actually works fairly well. Here is my workflow, please see if you see any flaws or if there is a better way. My timeline is XDCAM HD. ( renders are ProRes) I export out a ref movie for each quarter of the game. Each export seems to take longer than I would think since it is only a reference file. Then, I use the iPhone preset in QuickTime Pro to shrink it down. (480 x 270 ) Finally, I export again as a hinted movie so I can stream it. (It would be great if I could increase the dimensions a bit as well), Any flaws or suggestions? You can view the program at northcoastgameoftheweek.com Thanks in advance for any input.
Best, Tom

I imagine your encode time is the killer plus the export. I can't help you with the export part but the encode time I might be able to.
We've started using the Elgato turbo.264 HD usb-encoder and have been fairly happy with it. The colors get a little washed out and there are some artifacts (more than I'd like) but the time savings is immense. You can also use it from within Compressor.

Similar Messages

Is there a way to stop colors flattening when encoding for the web and DVD

Hi. I am in post prod on my first feature film, which has some great horror dream sequences, lit red and green in the Mario Bava tradition. They really do look stunning in the original footage, with highly saturated crisp colors (We had a really great cinematographer) But when I try to create clips for the web, the colors flatten a lot. They look better on my i-phone than my Lcd computer monitor. doing DVD outputs also looses something, but less so. It depends on the playback equip. My plasma TV and upscaling dvd player make them look fairly good. The footage is progressive scan 25 frames per sec HD. (16:9 cropped to 2:35:1) Does anyone know the optimum settings for web encoding have just used 310x710 pixels using H264 compressor at 3000 kbts per sec

Hi
YEs you can read the ALE model data.
    CALL FUNCTION 'OWN_LOGICAL_SYSTEM_GET'
      IMPORTING
        own_logical_system             = sending_system
      EXCEPTIONS
        own_logical_system_not_defined = 01.
    SELECT   * FROM tbd05 INTO TABLE i_tbd05
    WHERE    sndsystem = sending_system
    AND      mestyp     = message_type.
Regards,
Vijay V

What are BEST settings for the WEB?

Hello, I have a short in RED Hd 1920/1080 finished on FCP 6. I made a QT and then used compressor to make a 800mbps Quicktime for the web, deinterlaced and checked BETTER tab, others stayed with regular.
I also made one through FCP into a QT in 640/480 which is size I need.
On the web it looks clear and plays fine. Problem is when there is motion or
lots of movement, it stops and goes, jitters like ****, not smooth all.
What settings are best to make it SMOOOTH, just like when watching it on computer or as best. I know you got much bigger things to talk about but if you know please let me know.
H.264, Mpeg4 or Sorenson ect...just looking for smooth as can get it for playing on web.
THANKS.

800mbps Quicktime for the web,< </div>
The compression is reducing the number of pixels being shown in order to maintain the bitrate. So rapid motion, which requires nearly all of the pixels to be redrawn, causes things to stutter.
Compression is really, really hard to do. Really.
bogiesan

Best way to encode Quicktime file for the web?

Hello all and thanks in advance for your help with this problem.
I need to know the best way to encode a quicktime clip for the web.
This was my first try:
http://www.denmothers.net/trailer-big.htm
It works fine in safari, firefox, and ie for mac, provided they have quicktime 6 or later but it seems not to work on pc browsers. The file is encoded as an .mp4 using compressor and played with the browser's quicktime plugin. I've read that encoding files as a .mov provides greater compatibility but when i compress it as a .mov using the mpeg4 codec the file sizes are huge and when i use the photo-jpeg codec the quality is poor. h.264 looks great and has low file sizes but then my viewers have to have quicktime 7 which i think is too limiting because many will have older computers.
How should I encode my file such that it works best across browsers and platforms and has the highest quality at the lowest size?
Best,
Keegan

If you open an .mp4 file in quicktime pro you can then select File->Save-As and you are presented with two options:
Save as self-contained: This will create a .mov that is the same size as your .mp4 but is playable on any system w/ QuickTime 6 and the Mpeg-4 codec. (PC's included).
Save as reference: This will create a small (>500kb) file that will simply reference the .mp4. If they're in the same folder the .mov created will open the .mp4. Without the .mp4 the .mov in this case is useless.
For what you're trying to do I suggest going with self-contained.

Encode Quicktime file for the web

I want to Encode a Quicktime file for the web and put it up on my .mac account web site - I have Sorenson Squeeze and Compressor 2....whats the best way and setting for this?

Really no simple answer. I'd go for one of the H.264 (Quicktime 7) formats. Experiment to suit. Compressor has a few options for this to suit different bandwidths.
Depends on who you want to be able to watch it, in which case a generic mpeg4 might be better or mpg1 for ensured compatibility.

The save for the web function has stopped working in my copy of photoshop elements 12. I get this message, " The operation could not be completed. The system cannot find the path specified" Resetting preferences did not fix.

The save for the web function has stopped working in my copy of photoshop elements 12. I get this message, “ The operation could not be completed. The system cannot find the path specified” Resetting preferences did not fix.

my os is windows 7. elements 12 worked fine for many months then save for the web stopped working

Elements 12 save for the web not working

The save for the web function has stopped working in my copy of photoshop elements 12. I get this message, “ The operation could not be completed. The system cannot find the path specified” Resetting preferences did not fix. Windows 7 64 bit is the os

my os is windows 7. elements 12 worked fine for many months then save for the web stopped working

Save for the web keyboard command no longer works

I have Photoshop CC on Mac OS 10.9.2.
For some reason I can't figure out, Shift-Option-Command-S no longer opens "save for the web" dialog. It does nothing at all.
I can open the dialog from the menu itself, no problem; it's just the shortcut that has failed.
The shortcut is still visible in the menu as the appropriate command, but it does not work.
Any thoughts?

I've found that once you start using custom shortcuts it can get you into trouble with some of the standard shortcuts. My experience was using the Arrange Documents shortcuts from the Michael Ninness Power Shortcuts workshop, which overwrote Free Transform step & repeat. Even though I had my custom shortcuts saved in my dual monitor workspace, it was overwriting the Essentuals workspace.
If I reset Preferences I'd be OK again, but as soon as I switched to my dual monitor workspace, it would overwrite Essentuals again. The fix was to reset Preferences again, and save a new version of Essentuals I called 'Essentuals 2' with keyboard shortcuts and menus checked. That lets me use the dual monitor workspace for the most part, and switch to the Essentuals 2 workspace if I need to use FT Step & Repeat.

HD video compressed for the web

I was doing some testing trying to figure out the best way to compress the HD video I get from the Sony XDCAM HD for the web (streaming). I shoot in HD (1080/30P) because it's needed for our videos. The web streaming is secondary.
I would prefer to make the web videos .flv because it works best and most easily cross-platform. In the real world, the majority of users have Windows PCs, which made me hesitant to use h.264 (.m4v) because it probably would require the average user to download things they may not wan to. Nonetheless, it has to be viewable on all computers in all browers.
So, I took three 10 second clips of steady camera video with audio from the camera that I used in all tests. I will refer to them by clip number...
Clip 1: 30P 16:9 High quality, 10sec=45mb
Clip 2: 30P 16:9 Low Quality, 10sec=24mb
Clip 3: 60i 16:9 High Quality, 10sec=45mb
First I tested making FLV is Adobe CS3 Encoder using the High Quality (700) setting.
Test 1 used size 848x480 (16:9)
Clip 1: 1.3mb
Clip 2: 1.1mb
Clip 3: 1.2mb
Comments: Looked very crisp, audio was clean, slightly darker image than original on default settings
Test 2 used size 480x270 (16:9)
Clip 1: 1.2mb
Clip 2: 1.1mb
Clip 3: 1.1mb
Comments: Looked very crisp, audio was clean, slightly darker image than original on default settings
Next, I tested making .m4v using the h.264 iPod settings in Compressor.
Test 1 used size 640x370.
Clip 1: 240kb
Clip 2: 1440kb
Clip 3: 204kb
Comments: Image wasn't quite as clean as the Flash files, but still good. Much lighter/brighter than the Flash files also. Low Quality HD video had high file size... why? I don't know, but I don't shoot on LQ for things anyway.
Test 2 used size 320x180.
Clip 1: 160kb
Clip 2: 865kb
Clip 3: 865kb
Comments: Image wasn't quite as clean as the Flash files, but still good. Much lighter/brighter than the Flash files also. Low Quality HD video had high file size... also the 60i file...why? I don't know.
In conclusion, I'm lucky that I shoot 30P since it worked well in all areas. The h264 codec provides a much smaller file size than Flash, with a good image. Amazing considering we started with a 45MB clip. What are the standards for aspect ratios for putting 16:9 video on the web? I haven't heard much set in stone like you have for 4:3 video. Nonetheless, the 640x360 or 480x270 seem to be a nice size for most uses.
I have heard that in Flash 9 you can chance the m4v extension to flv and it will work. IF that is true, that would be great because now my concern is that a base Windows PC cannot play these .m4v images without plugins/codecs. I suppose right now its a tradeoff between smaller file size/less compatibility with h264 or larger file size, great compatibility with Flash.
Any comments or suggestions to help out would be great. I typed this fast so forgive me if I left out any important info.

Hi APPLE27:
One comment from your post that immediately caught my attention was this, "Nonetheless, it has to be viewable on all computers in all browsers."
Unfortunately, it is unrealistic to expect one digital video file to be viewable on "all computers in all browsers" as there are simply too may variations in both hardware and software.
A common approach when offering digital video is to provide two formats to choose from and then within each of those two formats a few versions of the video for different bandwidths.
For example, a web site might offer Video for Windows and QuickTime. For each of these, there would be a low bandwidth Video for Windows file and QuickTime file and a high bandwidth Video for Windows file and QuickTime file (four files total). Of course, there's also Flash Video, Real Video, MPEG1, and so on.
For better or worse, YouTube.com has allowed video content creators the realistic expectation of creating a digital video file that is viewable on "most computers". But, the video is unavoidably tied to that web site.
When it comes to online distribution of video, it's still very open ended.
Also, computers are not all that's out there. Mobile devices are a huge market and you'd be hard pressed to create a single digital video file that will play on all mobile devices (iPhone, iPod Touch, Palm Treo, Sony PSP, etc.) either from local storage or from a mobile browser.
QuickTime offers a solution for creating a referencing movie - one file that links to other digital video files, but it too is imperfect at best when it comes to reaching the broadest audience possible.
With my few comments here, I'm just scratching the surface. But, it all starts where you are right now: caring about the image quality when exporting from your edited master.
-Warren

Recomended configurations for creating video for the web

I'm working on a project creating video segments for the web (no plans for broadcast of DVD) and I'm looking for opinions on the most efficient way to use FCP to do this. We are shooting with an HD camera with a green screen and composting a couple of additional layers of Motion graphics and we found that the render times were really long. I'm looking for ways to mitigate this, on thing we did was switch from shooting in 1080p to 720p. We also tried shooting at 24fps instead of the broadcast 60fps and that cut our render time by a good percentage. Since the final product is going to be 640 by 360 at 15fps it seems like a good trade off but are there any down sides I'm not thinking of.
I was also wondering if there might be an advantage to working at the size of the final product, if the FCP sequence were 640 by 360 would there be any advantages in terms of render times and what might the disadvantages would be.
This is my first semi-professional project, just been a hobbyist up until now so any advice is appreciated.

MoSaT wrote:
We are shooting with an HD camera with a green screen and composting a couple of additional layers of Motion graphics and we found that the render times were really long. I'm looking for ways to mitigate this, on thing we did was switch from shooting in 1080p to 720p. We also tried shooting at 24fps instead of the broadcast 60fps and that cut our render time by a good percentage.
those simple steps reduced the number of pixels in each frame from about a million to 750,00, about 25%; and you reduced the number of frames from 30 or 60 to 24 or 48. So, yeah, your rendering times are going down. If your Motion project has ten HD layers you're saving tons of processing.
MoSaT wrote:
This is my first semi-professional project, just been a hobbyist up until now so any advice is appreciated.
Since the final product is going to be 640 by 360 at 15fps it seems like a good trade off but are there any down sides I'm not thinking of.
Absolutely. But you engaged the project without knowing how you were going to accomplish anything; implies your plans for improving workflow will be similarly incomplete. We all got by with NTSC and plan ol' DV for decades. The web is a low end distribution system, not a theatrical viewing experience. You can force your viewers to download a huge file and watch it on their TVs or you can open it up in weensy teeny window on their iPhones.
MoSaT wrote:
I was also wondering if there might be an advantage to working at the size of the final product, if the FCP sequence were 640 by 360 would there be any advantages in terms of render times and what might the disadvantages would be.
Purists will be correct in telling you better source footage results in better uploads. I will tell you that's true but it's academic. Your realworld needs are based on your web upload, not your plans to archive high def footage for future exploitation.
Here's what I'd do: Work backwards. Figure out what your upload needs are--exactly. Research Compressor and other compression systems to determine how you are going to process your project to get the target output. Now decide what format that software wants to process to create the best results. then figure out how you want to provide that input for the compression application. then figure out what the tradeoffs are for your original footage in terms of your camera resources, your skills with the camera, and your mistaken impression that effects and chromakey should be fast.
bogiesan

Best Video Compression for the web???

I have read a number of discussions about which codec to use to compress video for the web and I’ve done my own tests and bar the longer encode time, which is not a problem to me, H.264 seems to come out as the best. I can get a superb quality, small enough for a quick download EXCEPT… this website needs to be friendly to the PC community.
What do you all suggest I do?
Go with lower quality MPEG-4 or Sorenson 3 and have my work look “not so good” or use awesome H.264 and provide a link to download the codec, which busy PC people will probably not bother to do.
This is my dilemma.
Thanks in advance for any advice.

I love the results I get when using H.264. Even low data rate files look good (even when I display them double size).
But it requires your page visitors have QuickTime 7 installed to view your QT files.
QuickTime 7 is nearly a year old and most of your Mac viewers will have it installed. It is also "bundled" with the iTunes software download that many PC users have installed.
H.264 is the only codec that requires version 7. Any other choice can be played using older versions of QuickTime.
As much as I like H.264 its installed viewer base doesn't reflect the visitors system settings for Web work. If your crowd is savvy to QuickTime they will not mind the download to upgrade. If you use tracking software on your visitors you'll be able to see if they hang around for the download.
MPEG-4 may be a better Web use choice.

Adobe encore the software that's used to decode the media is not available on this system. installing the correct decoders for the file you are working with may help correct the problem

Hi,
I got this message after importing about ten or so H.264 files that I encoded from Adobe media encoder. "adobe encore the software that's used to decode the media is not available on this system. installing the correct decoders for the file you are working with may help correct the problem."
The files we're shot with HD cameras. Edited in Premiere Pro CS3. I installed the update 3.0.1 with still the same error.
I also tried a brand new project and after about ten or so files being imported into a timeline, the system crash. I tried this twice....
    Thanks in Advance

Hi Hunt,
       Here is the skinny. A window base PC. footage shot with HD sony HD cameras, Project imported to Premiere CS3. Once completed sent file to Adobe media encoder and render them as H.264 widescreen high Quality. Imported them to Adobe Encore CS3. After about ten files or so. I got the error message. Did all the basic trouble shoot like restarting the computer, got latest patch. Even build a new test project with the same problem.
    Something else I read in the forums, is the encore will transcoded the project to Mpeg 2 anyway, after looking at my project I realized those few files were indeed untranscoded. So it will be a double compression and I dont want that. So, my new question is, what is H.264 good for ?????????? I was research that Mpeg 2 is a faster render but H.264 is a slower render but better quality.....
   what do you think ????
   Peter

Should I deinterlase my movie before compressing to a h264 file for the web

Hi I have a movie in fcp that I want to compress for the web. I am going to compress it to a h264 file using quicktime. I was wondering if I should deinterlace the movie before compressing it
thanks sam

I have done it both ways and on computer monitors at least its always been my experience that DEINTERLACING the video looks better. Quite a bit better.
Now there are 2 main ways to do it. And I've gotten similar results both ways. You can deinterlace from within Final Cut Pro which works fine or you can set Compressor to Deinterlace. Now I've read articles on why one is better than the next, but at least with Final Cut Pro 5.1.4 in the videos I've worked on I can't tell the difference. It looks good both ways.
Hope that helps-

Exporting widescreen anamorphic video for the web

I have a project in fce which is filmed in widescreen anamorphic at 720, 576 the setup in fce is dv-pal anamorphic and anamorphic is checked in item properties. When I export using quicktime using h.264 encoder it shows at as widescreen in the preview but when I open it after export it is squashed. I know that is because it is anamorphic but how can i export for the web and get the correct image? If I was doing full scale I could just change the resolution from 720 to 1024 but what if I want to do lower resoultion is there a better way? Thanks.

WMA is Windows Media Audio. I think what you meant is WMV (Windows Media Video). To export to that format on a Mac you'll need Flip4ac, available from www.flip4mac.com Once you've installed it, it adds the WMV and WMA export option to QT and other apps such as Sorenson Squeeze.
-DH

AdobePRO bad for the web?

Ive been using AdobeRGB as my working color profile for a long time. I didnt notice that the default working space for Lightrooms RAW conversions was AdobePRO. Consequently Ive got a bunch of files now with the PRO color space. I didnt notice any difference between the two spaces on my PC they look identical.
BUT, on uploading a file to onemodelplace.com (a modeling portfolio site) I noticed the AdobePRO images had the color washed out not completely, but about 50% of where it was supposed to be. Uploading the same image converted as AdobeRGB looks fine.
Whats going on here is there a problem at onemodelplace or are AdobePRO files useless for the web?

When you create a Lightroom Web Gallery the images are automatically converted to sRGB!
When/If you export images you can select your colour space.
Note that sRGB is an ideal, not all monitors are capable of displaying sRGB. Not all monitors are colour managed and even better only 2 browsers support colour management, Safari in IE for Mac.
Richard Earney
http://inside-lightroom

Encoding for the web/workflow. It works, better way?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for