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

Similar Messages

Exporting video for the web for windows Media player

What software can i use to compress an AVI file for the web. The finished product will be WMA file.

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

Best way to save HQ video for the web?

What´s the best settings for great video-quality for the web?
I have a 5 min long clip I´d like to put on my website.
I would like it to be 480x360 and with good quality. It´s ok if the file gets 30-40 MB.
I have tryed the Expert Settings, Quicktime Movie, Broadband - High, but the movie gets "striped".
What´s wrong?
A lot Mac OS X (10.4.8)

Hi Magnus40,
I'm not sure what you are doing to create this problem. I create web movies all the time and have never had this problem, although, I never use the advanced settings cos I have never had to. When you go to the Quicktime export pane in iMovie you have the quality choices from full quality to web. When you select one of these it gives an estimate of the file size. For that length clip you should not need to use any setting besides full quality. I'd say the problem is coming from the 480x360 aspect ratio. This is what is compressing the file. Have you tried exporting it as full quality and then uploading it? The only problem you face by doing this is, it will take a long time for the movie to load on your website. For a short clip you may find that the CD ROM setting is sufficient.
Good luck.
SR

Compressing video for the web

I have had people ask me to make a short 30 clip for the web say of some of there sporting shots, what is the best way to go about knowing what kind of compression you use and what type of file is best.

Bill bill bill... billy B... Will!!! Willy.... BillyWill...
Search is your friend. This comes up three to two thousand times a week.
Don't expect me to spoon feed you... but export it as a quicktime conversion and use one of the presets.
I really like Broadband High... will be in h.264 and will be roughly 3 megs a minute-- will look a whole lot better than the demo reel you have up on your site right now.
Good luck,
CaptM

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

Exporting a masked object for the web

Hi everyone,
I've created a pattern tile in Illustrator and need to export it for the web. The problem is that when I do this, the area that is masked out is showing up in the the save for web dialogue box as a blank transparent area.
Anyone know how to avoid this so that only the pattern tile itself is saved for web?
Appreciate any help.

Hi,
I tried filling a square with a pattern fill then expanding it but this doesn't work because the pattern definition is no longer accurate, ie. I need to use the original pattern object in order for it to tile correctly.
I also tried the two previous suggestions, ie. defining an artboard the size of the pattern and then exporting and also tried defining a slice. Both of these methods failed because it seems illustrator is adding an extra 2 pixels to the overall pattern which destroys the tiling effect.
The only way I could get it to work was to copy the pattern tile, paste it into Photoshop and then trim off 2 pixels from all four sides. This seems like an awful lot of work though. I wish there was an easier way.
By the way I'm using CS4.

What is the best way to compress longer HD videos for the web

I am struggling with the best way to post HD, as well as SD videos to the web - Vimeo as well as YouTube sites. Some of my files are up to an hour long, and above.
I've tried mp4, H.264 compression, multi-pass, as well as ProRes in various settings. The files are either too small or too large. I have an stand-alone Flash encoder, but it seems to take an inordinate amount of time.
My computer only has a Duo Core - its the first Intel processor. Is it too slow to process these large Video files?
ANY advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.
Peter

as well as YouTube sites. Some of my files are up to an hour long, and above.
There are quite a few videos on YouTube that are up to 3 hours long. If you are having issues uploading long YouTube movies, have you contacted their tech support?
(10.6.3)
Use Software Update to update your os and anything else that needs to be updated.

Preparing video for the web...I am lost

Hello all,
I had a project that began in imovie 06. It is an hour long production that i wan to prepare for use on a web site. I know that an hour long video is asking a lot of a web audience but the work is unique in that it is a poet reading a very long poem. I want to get this right for the few people who will actually want to see this thing.
My workflow is as follows. Share the video from iMovie 06 with expert settings set to Quicktime. High quality 480 x 360 letterboxed AAc 128. The resulting hour long video is 360mb
I open that video in Quicktime 7.6.4 then I copy and paste the first 15 min to a new player. From that new player I Export for Web and create the three standard versions. The problem is that the desktop version is 105mb and iPhone versions is 108mb. Both are bigger than the section of the movie that i started with 90MB. This suggests to me that there is a lot wrong with my workflow.
Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Re-read your last paragraph for the obvious clues to your troubles. Going from 90 MB to a larger file size means you are "up-sampling" previously compressed data.
Even though your 12 GB file seems absurdly large now it will become highly compressed when using the "Export for Web" feature of QuickTime Player Pro.
Do some simple "one minute" test files from your DV source file. Compare settings (pen and paper) and dimensions and audio quality. Ask some questions about the source file. Do you really need "stereo" sound when "mono" would be half as large? AAC audio is good but do you need 128 when 64 would be half as large in file size?
Is this a "talking head" (little motion) video track? Could you replace the video track with some still image files and still achieve your goal?
Just something to think over.

*** FCP exports a stuttering clip for the web - help.

I'm exporting a clip and it stutters at 2 specific points about 2/3 of the way through. This happens in the same spot no matter how often I encode it. I checked the original file in the timeline and there is no stutter hiccup at all.
I've trashed FCP and QT preferences and re-started but the problem still persists. Can anyone suggest how I may solve this? For reference, the clip in question is here: http://www.cloudninecreative.com/trailers/adtrailer.html
Thanks in advance!

First off...WOW DUDE! That is an AMAZING wedding video! I am really impressed. Holy cow...I wish mine looked that good. Well, mine was filmed by Uncle Larry, but let's not go there. I have seen my friends wedding video and...I have worked on wedding videos...and...they don't compare. Nice.
Second off...what camera did you use to get such GREAT slow motion? HVX? GREAT slow motion, good colors. I am really impressed. Great camera work on that.
We film in HDV with a Sony HVR-Z1U. Nearly every frame is colour-corrected and some have filters applied. Shot with a hand-held steadicam.
Third off...and this is a doozy...where did you get that music? Sounds like a movie soundtrack. We are all big on paying for your music, cause it will sting you. Just curious.
The music is from a film trailer, but just meant for the couple. I know the music thing is a big issue, you just can't get the same impact with royalty-free music IMO.
Now...the stutter...is that when they are leaving the church? You see the low angle of the steeple, then a tilt down that cuts and repeats itself, THEN you cut to the street? that's odd...and you say it is not on the master...
Trash renders...re-render and try again?
Thanks Shane! I didn't think of trashing the render files - good idea!
(GOOD wedding video dude...you are setting the bar pretty high with that one.)
Shane

Shooting video for the web

I am shooting a spot for a client that is requesting an 18fps deliverable for use on the web and the spot needs to play in real time. I have never heard of this and I can't seam to find any information on it. Does anyone know how this works and what the possible sound syncing issues I can avoid?

you made it sound so easy and it was thank you! I tried to manipulate the frame rate in Compressor and Cinema tools but I couldn't find a custom frame rate option. I ended up finding it in FCP under the quicktime conversion.

How best to export a themed slideshow for the web.

I want to export my scrapbook themed slide-show such that I get the best size/quality of movie for use on a web-page. What export settings should I used to accomplish this?
- CDM

All good questions. Should have provided that information up front.
This is for broadband users that have something in the region of aroun 2Mb donwload speed connections.
I already managed this at some point in the past (http://www.ChrisAndSandyMorgan.com) but no longer have the files that I uploaded to inspect and capture the settings from.
- CDM

Exporting FCP 16:9 to QT for the web in 16:9?

Hello everyone,
I recently began doing my projects in 16:9 mode. I shoot them with my GL2's in 16:9, then capture to FCP as usual. FCP then automatically recognizes the 16:9 footage and adjusts everything perfectly for me. I figured out how to get the footage to DVDSP by 'forcing letterbox'. This plays the true 16:9 footage on a widescreen TV perfectly.
Now, I've come to another bridge that I can't seem to cross... that is... exporting the video to QT for the web in 16:9. I did a lot of searching here and all of the topics related to this did not help me at all. So, what I'm going to do is explain what I used to do when I shot in 4:3 mode:
1. In FCP... File>Export>QT Conversion
2. Format: QT Movie> Options
3. Settings> Sorenson Video 3
4. Frame Rate>15
5. Key Frames: Every 150 frames
6. Compressor> Medium
7. Data Rate: Automatic
8. OK
9. Sound>Settings>Mpeg-4 Audio, 16bit, Stereo
10. OK
11. Prepare for Internet Streaming> Fast Start
12. OK
13. SAVE
This usually turns a full sized 5 minute clip into a nice little presentation for the web no larger than 35 or so MB's. You can see a boat load of files like that on my website at (www.buerhausdesign.com).
Now, what I want to do is get a similar sized video for the web, only in 16:9 as I'm now shooting and editing in 16:9.
Does anyone have step-by-step instructions on how to do this? I know it's possible as I see movie trailors in 16:9 all the time in QT.
Any help would be appreciated:)
Matt

Nope, tried all of that. It stretches the image way beyond 16:9. Currently, if I export as a 4:3 file, the widescreen displays correctly, but I get two black bars at the top and bottom of the frame. Manually sizing to a 16:9 size, to say 720x404, stretches everything... including the unwanted black bars.
When I export to DVDSP, the black bars go away when I 'force letterbox'. There's gotta be a way to get it to work in QT.

HDV Aspect Ratio and Exporting For the Web

INTRODUCTION
I am trying to export an HDV video for the first time and have managed to confuse myself. I want to upload it to blip.tv and they transcoded videos into Flash with 4:3 aspect ratio. But more than that, I want to understand how this all works so I don't have to guess about the settings that will give me what I want.
BACKGROUND DATA
4/3 is 1.333...
16/9 is 1.777...
1440/1080 is 1.333... (if the pixels are square)
1920/1080 is 1.777... (if the pixels are square)
In FCP my clip format says:
Frame Size: 1440 x 1080
Pixel Aspect: HD (1440 x 1080) (Does this mean the pixels are 1.333... times wider than it is high?)
EXPORT USING QUICKTIME CONVERSION
When I go to export this clip using Quicktime Conversion under the Options... Size... dialog and look at the Dimensions dropdown, (I assume this is the dimensions of the exported video. Is that correct?)
Some of the settings are (the settings are in quotes, my notes are in parentheses.):
"HD 1440 x 1080 16:9" (if pixels are square this is 4/3)
"HD 1920 X 1080 16:9" (if pixels are square this is 16/9)
So both of these settings claim to be 16:9 but they both can't be true unless they have different pixel aspect ratios (which I find hard to believe). This makes me think I don't really know what they mean when they notate something as 16:9. Can anyone give a definition that will help me here?
EXPORTING FOR THE WEB
Using FCS2, what settings should I use to export this clip undistorted for the web (with letterbox if needed)?
Thanks for the help,
Rob:-]

What I find with HDV 16x9 1440x1080 footage, is that when you output for the web you have to hard code the size you want the result to be. 320x180 or 640x360 for example scale things nicely. If you want bigger, just do the math.
I don't know why but whenever I select a predefined output size, it always screws it up (I don't work with 4:3 ever, so I'm speaking only of 16x9). So I always enter the size I want.
And as far as Compressor 3, I really can't get that to set the size I want correctly either. Mostly its due to me being lazy and not wanting to spend a year reading the Compressor manual. A package that should basically have the easiest interface known to man is now so complicated that unless I have to hand-holding tutorial, or get to drag/drop one of their presets, I end up screwing things up with it. Not to mention that you get to wait for hours just to see how you screwed up the settings of your output.

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.

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

Exporting widescreen anamorphic video for the web

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for