Video Capabilities -- Confirming Current Limitations (Record + Higher Quality Than Sorenson)

Hi,
Regarding video with Cocomo, I writing to confirm that the
current version does not provide the following two capabilities:
Recording. Acrobat Connect Pro includes record capability.
Am I correct that at this time Cocomo does not (yet) include record
capability?
Video Encoding. Am I correct that at this time Cocomo
supports only Sorenson Spark for acquisition of live video?
(Background: I have two clients seeking integrated video and text
chat applications with higher quality video for the primary
presenter. Flash Player supports playback of video encoded in
Sorenson Spark, On2 VP6, and H.264. For encoding of live video,
Flash Player (and by extension Cocomo) encodes only Sorenson Spark.
Adobe does, however, also support via the Flash Media Live Encoder
(FMLE) live encoding using VP6 and H.264. I assume that Cocomo
currently does not support integration with FMLE or any other
option for higher quality live video acquisition)
Thanks again for your support and this great new
product/service.
I look forward to Cocomo having its official commercial
release here in 2009! :-)
Best regards,
g

Hi Nigel,
Thank you for your reply.
Regarding the use cases ...
1) Union For Regular Member Meetings.
2) Pharmaceutical Training.
The first has looked at Connect Pro and the second currently
is using Connect Pro. Both cases seek both a higher quality video
for the presenter as well as to be able to record (for archive and
for "re-airing" by those unable to join live).
Regarding additional encoder in the presenter's "Player", I
think if just AIR could encode H.264 these client's use cases would
be satisfied. (These clients' goal on video quality fits a
1-to-many pattern. Requiring the presenter only to install AIR
seems a reasonably unobtrusive solution. Then, should attendee
video also be required, Sorenson via Flash Player should suffice.)
For both clients, having the hosted service from Adobe is
also an attraction (depending on pricing ;-)
Again, thanks for the great work of your team and everyone at
Adobe for bringing these solutions to the market.
Best regards,
g

Similar Messages

Recording high quality video using a local buffer with FMS 3.5

Hello, I'm currently working on a webcam recorder to record high quality video. I had the recorder working before, but the video quality was quite poor. Instead I'm trying to use a client side buffer and then upload the buffer after recording has stopped. I thought after I unattached the video and audio from the NetStream that either a NetStream.Buffer.Empty or NetStream.Record.Stop event would be sent when the buffer was finished uploading. What is actually happening after I start recording is two NetStream.Record.Stop events are being sent in a row, so recording never really happens. Also, on the server side I'm trying to save a user name and password into a variable, but I'm not sure how to go about doing that since the application script is just a bunch of callback functions. I hope someone has done something similar so they might be able to help...

Here is the client application; it's quite messy because I'm just testing things at the moment, but the functions causing the problem are probably onNetStatus, recordButton_clickHandler, and stopRecButton_clickHandler.
http://pastie.org/private/vpk6naojmvagikgxkaffha
Here is the server-side application, as you can see I commented out the variables and the code using them.
http://pastie.org/private/gp5loh1wowbzvtusspxg
I hope my code isn't unreadable. Ask me to clarify anything if you don't understand the code. Thank you.

HT3395 What are some camcorders that are compabtible with the mac book pro and also records high quality youtube videos?

What are some camcorders that are compabtible with the mac book pro and also records high quality youtube videos?

any camcorder using AVCHD…

Quicktime Screen Recording - Higher quality missing

Everywhere I've read that Quicktime screen recording has a medium and a higher quality setting, but when I try to do a screen recording, it doesn't give me any quality options. It just has options for the microphone. See the attached photo.
How can I get it to give me an option for high quality screen recording? The default seems to be lower quality, which I can't use. Thanks in advance for any help!!

I have the same question, and have looked at the answers here. I am not trying to answer your question, just add to it.
I have used snapz pro x and find that I like that way quicktime displays whats on your screen with the same amount of lag that will be in the finished video, while snapz does not. surely there is a way, deep in preferences or maybe even in terminal, that will enable me to take higher quality images in my screen recordings. I find the audio is fine but the image is what I have a problem with. I dont have the 100+ dollars to spend on other screen recording software, and would really appreciate some help.
thanks,
hemmy1416

Audio - recording high quality stereo sound with iPhone 3Gs

There are a number of excellent sound recording apps now available for iPhone - notably RecTools 08 (8 track, PCM) but no way to get stereo sound into the device. To date both Belkin and Griffin state their stereo microphones (designed for iPod) will not work with iPhone because Apple has not enabled audio input via the dock connector.
to the community:
• Has anyone found a method of getting high quality stereo sound INTO the iPhone?
to Apple engineers:
• Is the dock connector software upgradable?
• Does Apple have any plans to correct this serious omission in it's flagship mobile device?

duggojnr wrote:
• Has anyone found a method of getting high quality stereo sound INTO the iPhone?
Sync a music file into it using iTunes.
to Apple engineers:
• Is the dock connector software upgradable?
• Does Apple have any plans to correct this serious omission in it's flagship mobile device?
This is a user-to-user forum. Comments to Apple can be submitted on the form here:
http://www.apple.com/feedback/iphone.html
Phil

IPhone 1.0 higher quality than 2.0?

From the way it sounds, the yellow tinted screen and the plastic case make me think the 1.0 has higher quality parts. Anyone care to comment?

First off, I totally sympathize with your problem. However 20% is implausible and unless you've asked every iPhone owner, you have no way of knowing how many people this affects.
That said, this is a support forum, and it seems that a lot of people have tried to offer you....support. If you're unwilling to try what they suggest, then I don't know what you expect. Don't complain about something if you're unwilling to try to find a solution. Please don't think I'm suggesting fault, but it's quite possibly a configuation problem, and you might want to take the phone to a store and let them work on it with you.
Apple does not do anything offically through these boards, so you *will not* get an answer from Apple here. All you will get are Apple experts, an maybe an employee or two (working unoffically of course) trying to help you. It's up to you if you want to accept it or not.
Good luck

24"iMAC panel much higher quality than 23" Acd, its the same as Samsung ?

Hi!
According to my research on 24" LCD panels, they almost all use samsungs S-PVA screen, including 244t, Dell 2407WFP , Acer, HP, etc etc..
I notice a huge jump in quality compared to the 20" or 23" ACD, mainly due to the lack of grainy/sparkly/video noise/screen door type layer of the former screens.
Can you confirm that this is indeed a samsung panel?
The ACD's are LG's on IPS.
Well whatever it is, I can't believe how wonderful this display looks, its the first time I can say that a display can replace a CRT. And its much sharper to boot.
I found an almost undying similarity to the 244t by Samsung, and I'm interested in getting that to accompany my MAC pro.

I just came to my local Apple dealer to get help and they have never encountered this before. Questions they asked that made it less clear for them; they were shot in jpeg and I have exported using every setting all yielding the same results.
This sounds to be a software issue and I encourage Apple's staff to investigate it.

Is DVD Player higher quality than standalone DVD player?ne

I tried finding an answer to this question with various searches and could not, but I apologize if this is a repeat question.
I'm a teacher and I'm showing DVDs (not Blu-Rays) to my class. I have a fairly new LG HDTV in my classroom. I don' have the model number but it's an LCD, and I think it's a 52 inch. I'm trying to decide whether the picture quality of DVDs will be higher by playing them on my MacBook Pro or on a standalone DVD player. My MacBook is the 6,2 version (15 inch), so I can hook it up to the TV through the minidisplay port with an HDMI converter. I'm just using the DVDplayer software that came with the MacBook Pro.
The standalone DVD player has just standard audio/video connections--no HDMI port, (which I'm assuming doesn't really matter since I'm just using standard DVDs).
Is there really going to be much difference, either visually or auditorially, between these two setups? It's about as easy to use either one, and from a quick visual comparison I can't see much difference, but I want the best quality I can get. So any advice would be appreciated.
Thanks.

No difference or worse from the MBP compared to a Real DVD player.
A Real DVD player is designed to do one thing. That is to send a signal from a DVD disc to a TV screen. This can be done over coax cable, composite connections or HDMI cable. A computer does many things one of them is to play movie DVDs. But first it must go through all the electronics of the computer and then out through only one port and then be changed to a style of port the TV can accept.
Also your MBP will get HOT when you are using it for this purpose. Just load up a DVD and watch how hot it gets displaying in on the internal screen.
So use the Real DVD player.

Why is a pdf created by PDFScanLib v1.2.2, so much smaller/higher quality than one made in Acrobat?

I'm currently scanning documents at 600 dpi, compressing to jpeg, and creating PDFs from there. Pdfs are usually 20-30 pages, and are about 20mb. After OCR, and reducing the jpegs to 400dpi, I can get the file size down to about 11mb. However, some pdfs I've found as 'benchmarks' are under 1mb for 15-20 pages. The only difference I can find are that they are produced in PDFScanLib. Is that responsible for the difference?
Thans for any help you can pass along

Hi Bob,
That's the strange thing. When I had both GHz channels working on one SSID, once in a while my iMAC would pick the 5 GHz channel (44 seems the best for me). I always use channel 1 for 2.4 GHz because I get the fastest speeds with it.
When the iMac would pick 5 GHz, the slowdown was very obvious. As I explained in my (long) first post, I immediately felt the difference. Now the $50K question - since the 5 GHz channel at that point was stronger than the 2.4 GHz one, why wasn't the speed faster? Why was it so slow compared to 2.4 GHz? That's what rattling my brain. If the 5 GHz signal's strong enough to get picked by my iMac, then why isn't there a commensurate speed increase? There must be something else going on here besides signal strength. If the 5 GHz spec says that I must have full strength to get 5 GHz speeds, then that makes sense. But I think it doesn't, that's why I believe I have a configuration problem somewhere, or a faulty AEBS.
I might add that my firmware's up-to-date in the AEBS and AX, and Airport Utility too.
I think heading to 4Runner's camp - even with high signal strength (and I would consider 3 of 4 bars high), the 5 GHz speeds aren't showing themselves.
Here's some snap's of my AEBX's setup:
I think my configuration's fine, although I've tried so many different options, I'm a little confused, but I know that changing the Multicast Rate doesn't have any noticeable effect on the speed. I also have "Use Wide Channels" checked, but as I said, the 5 GHz band is awfully slow for using both channels. I have set "N" only, so no "G" clients to slow it down.
Mind boggling!

How do I get audio from my macbook pro to my receiver with higher quality than the headphone jack?

I recently got a receiver and surround sound speaker system. The quality of the audio from the CD player connected to it is far beyond the quality of the audio that comes from the MacBook pro via headphone jack to RCA connection. This was confirmed by burning a CD from the MacBook, placing it in the CD player then testing the two against each other - the same audio piece from the CD player or the MacBook, both connected to the same receiver/speaker set up. What other options might get better audio quality from the MacBook to the receiver?

The Mac's audio output doubles as a optical Toslink stereo mini jack, just use a adapter to regular Toslink and plug the optical cable to your surround sound system. Fiddle with the sound settings to enable optical output.
Mac's pass surround sound through, they don't do any processing.

Why are iPhotos previews higher quality than my exports?

I have just now noticed this after using it for so long. I was using it to de-noise a photo I took earlier today and turned it up to 100%. I looks clean and smooth like I want, so I exported it first as a jpeg with max quality, but I noticed a lot of noise in it. So I exported it again as an original and it looks the same still. I just exported it as Current to see if there is still noise, and there is. I have exhausted the other formats as well, all export with noise.
I put iPhoto in fullscreen mode and took a screen cap of the photo via cmd+shift+4, and compared the the screen cap to both of the exports and it looks much cleaner, even though its more than half the resolution being displayed.
This is not right, plain and simple.
Here are two links, one to the original export, and the other is a screen cap.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/68608/IMG_0006.JPG
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/68608/Screen%20Shot%202011-08-06%20at%2010.06.48%20PM.pn g
What am I doing wrong? Are my eyes playing tricks?

I just came to my local Apple dealer to get help and they have never encountered this before. Questions they asked that made it less clear for them; they were shot in jpeg and I have exported using every setting all yielding the same results.
This sounds to be a software issue and I encourage Apple's staff to investigate it.

IPhone High Quality Video Formats?

In our app we need to run a video that is high quality. Higher quality than the settings that quicktime pro presets output at. Does anyone know of what format settings I can use to export a high quality video to play?

I use 15 fps, because it looks better when used or converted into flash. If you just try uploading 30fps & 15 fps of the same file on youtube, you will see a change of the quality of the video.
I have never used the broadband settings for the FCP compressor .. But I will try it out.
my bad for the bump.
and I know that there are tons of post like this, but I was trying not to get this post into a huge discussion. I was just trying to get people to just post their specs just like I have. Then we could have 1 post that answered all the questions of the specs of what people use & then people wouldn't have to search through everything..

High Quality Wide Screen for YouTube - PLEASE HELP!

I am using a Panasonic PV-GS400 camera in wide-screen mode (this is another topic, but the camera still outputs 720 x 480 video, my understanding is that it is called "anamorphic wide screen"). I had figured out some settings to get my videos to appear in "High Quality" mode, wide screen (16:9) in YouTube, but the last couple of times I have tried these settings, they didn't work. Here's what I used:
- Windows Media 856 x 480 frame size
- Frame rate 29.97kbps
- Pixel aspect ratio - square (1.0)
- 2 encoding passes
I got the 856 x 480 ratio from another website. I don't really understand why the pixel aspect ratio needs to be square, but when I tried 16:9 aspect ratio, the video is letterboxed. I also don't understand the two different project modes for PE7 (when creating a new project you can choose the format 4:3 or 16:9). Maybe someone can explain how the widescreen project setting works. Perhaps it is something similar to how my camera does widescreen but the videos are still 720 x 480.
At any rate, if someone has settings that will reliably produce wide screen videos that appear in YouTube's "high quality" mode, I'd appreciate it! Thanks.

As we often say on this forum, the biggest challenge with working with YouTube is that, as soon as someone figures it out, YouTube changes the rules again.
Here's what we've posted to the FAQs at the top of this forum.
http://www.adobeforums.com/webx/.59b6efbd/1

How can I upload my FCP project in high quality on youtube?

Ok so I finished a 4 minute project on Final Cut Pro and it's perfect. But when I bring it out of FCP the quality fails completely. The video is blurry. Even the music sounds terrible. This happens when I export through share masterfile even though it's 4 GB
I'm trying to put it on youtube. What's the best way of doing it?

Don't share directly to YouTube. YouTube has bandwidth limit requirements and I'm pretty sure FCPX is trying to upload its usual high quality H.264 video. If you upload a video to YT at a higher quality than they allow, they will re-encode the video for you to fit their requirements. Their encoders are not as good as the ones you have available on your mac... and... they don't care. The only exception is for creators with enterprise quality internet connections, in which case, youtube will take what FCPX feeds it.
Use Compressor, or Quicktime 7 Pro to transcode your "master" export out of FCPX (I'll usually just use ProRes 422 LT).
You need to encode the video with H.264. (Using QT7Pro:) if the video is 1080, then you need to set the Data Rate to 8 Mbps (Restrict to 8000 Kbps); Keyframes Automatic; Frame Reordering off; Optimized for Streaming; Best Quality (Multi-pass Encoding). Audio: format AAC; Rate 48kHz; (I use) Variable Bit Rate encoding with a sampling rate of 192kbps (typically - anything from 128 to 384). The last step you have to set up: Prepare for Internet Streaming: Fast Start. As a matter of habit (since this step seemed to make a difference a couple of years ago) I'll go into the Size options and check the Preserve Aspect Ratio by using: option and select Letterbox from the options. [I prefer using QT7Pro because there are less things to screw up. I've never had *satisfactory* success with Compressor — I'm always getting into things that complicate the procedure.]
Anyway, if you get the numbers under the limit, the upload to youtube is faster, it's "ready" right away (almost as soon as it's uploaded) and you'll get at least what you expect to get (what you see before uploading.) Compressing some types of video (usually high contrast/high action) down to 8Mbps is going to cause problems you'll just have to live with.
YouTube has an encoding requirements guide here:
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/1722171?hl=en
but it's for PC people... you do not need the .mp4 container, .mov is just fine (been using it for years).

How to Create a High Quality Band/Multitrack Recording Play-Through Video?

I am trying to work out the best way to make a playthrough video a little like these - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QUUajNPb5g - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAGqCAsk3gQ&feature=related .
It would be for doing a multitrack-recording playthrough video of my drummer, played to the backing track of one of our songs I recorded in cubase 6
I have Adobe Premiere CS6, Cubase 6, the aproprate mics, a soundcard etc, but I don't have a video camera, but I'd probably just get a £300-£500 one unless you guys think that's not right?
So I'm wondering how you might go about this?
Cheers!!!

Hi
This is due to iMovie and really iMovie'08 or 09
They are aimed for quick editing to web-publishing - not high quality DVD.
iMovie 1 to HD 6 and FinalCut Express or Pro are the tool of choise for DVD or
even Blue-Ray (needs Roxio Toast™ and ev. a Blue-Ray burner/disks)
iMovie'08 and 09 discard every second line = less quality very close to VHS.
I never managed to get full quality from them to feed iDVD.
• Pro Quality encoding in iDVD is very sufficient to my needs and
burning out with Roxio Toast™ as Blue-Ray to standard DVD (max 20-30 minutes)
gives an even better result BUT ONLY PLAYBACK on Blue-Ray player or PlayStation 3.
Yours Bengt W

Video Capabilities -- Confirming Current Limitations (Record + Higher Quality Than Sorenson)

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for