Home > All Posts > Sort by Topic
Topic #24626

to H.264, or not to H.264?

By civanyi | "civanyi" <civanyi@...> | civanyi
October 17, 2005 | Post #24626 | Topic #24626

My Windows based PC now opens up and plays H.264 compressed movies. Yes! = I guess with the upgrade to iTunes 6.0, and QT 7.0.3, the PC world can no= w enjoy QT's latest compression. I am wondering if it's time to switch fr= om compressing our movies from MPEG 4, (or whatever),to H.264? Any though= ts out there? Should we make the switch? (I hope this is not a question = already dealt with). [View]



Re: to H.264, or not to H.264?

By Steve Watkins | "Steve Watkins" <steve@...> | elbowsofdeath
October 17, 2005 | Post #24627 | Topic #24626

Theres no clear agreement or concensus, up until now the advise from most p= eople was to avoid h264 until more people could view it. Now things like t= he ipod supporting h264 are going to help, it will likely help encourage pe= ople to upgrade. People with no video ipod but who want to buy videos from = apples itunes will also be h264 capable. Up until last week and the video i= pod, there had been virtually nobody switching to h264 as they didnt like g= etting comments from viewers saying they couldnt see their stuff. Clearly = Apple dont think its too soon to use h264, as thats the video type that the= y sell. But they have the luxury of being sure that anybody buying the vide= os has itunes and quicktime 7, videobloggers cannot make the same assumptio= ns. Thre are non-quicktime ways to play h264, but these mostly work if you= save h264 as a .mp4, not as a .mov. The other drawback with h264 is that = it takes longer to encode, a lot longer in some cases. And slow computers s= truggle to play h264. Another reason some people cant play h264 is they ow= n quicktime pro 6 and dont want to pay another $30 to get 7 pro. I favour= h264 as the image quality is better, substantially better, but some people= hardly notice and the compatibility etc issues might... [View]



Re: to H.264, or not to H.264?

By Bill Streeter | "Bill Streeter" <bill@...> | straydogma
October 17, 2005 | Post #24629 | Topic #24626

I won't use it, yet. I think it's great and there is a lot of potential th= ere, but it's really slow to encode, and older machines (like older than 2= years) have trouble decoding them. So in the interest of broader distribu= tion and maximum compatibility I'm sticking with MP4 for the foreseeable f= uture. I'm not saying that I'll never use it, I just don't see it being re= ady for prime time. Bill Streeter LO-FI SAINT LOUIS http://www.lofistl.com ---= In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "civanyi" <civanyi@g...> wrote: > > My W= indows based PC now opens up and plays H.264 compressed movies. > Yes! = I guess with the upgrade to iTunes 6.0, and QT 7.0.3, the PC > world can n= ow enjoy QT's latest compression. I am wondering if it's > time to switc= h from compressing our movies from MPEG 4, (or > whatever),to H.264? Any = thoughts out there? Should we make the > switch? (I hope this is not a q= uestion already dealt with). > [View]



Re: [videoblogging] Re: to H.264, or not to H.264?

By Pat Cook | Pat Cook <patsvideoblog@...> | kpdcnettv
October 17, 2005 | Post #24644 | Topic #24626

Hi everyone: At 11:06 AM 10/17/2005, you wrote: >I won't use it, yet. I think it's great and there is a lot of >potential there, but it's really slow to encode, and older machines >(like older than 2 years) have trouble decoding them. So in the >interest of broader distribution and maximum compatibility I'm >sticking with MP4 for the foreseeable future. I'm not saying that >I'll never use it, I just don't see it being ready for prime time. I'd have to agree with Bill. MP4 is where the market is at right now. The main target audience of both of my two vlogs are users of the Sony PSP and (now) the Video iPod). As such, as long as those two companies are battling it out to set compatibility standards in the portable video market (which I might add Sony has the upper hand on with its pocket TV's and portable DVD players), I don't see it changing anytime soon either (IF it EVER changes at all). Just my opinion :) Pat Cook patsvideoblog@... (FEEDBACK EMAIL) Denver, Colorado PAT'S VIDEO BLOG - http://patsvideoblog.blogspot.com/ DIVB-TV | THE DUMBASS IDIOTS VIDEO BLOG - http://dumbassidiots.blogspot.com/ RSS FEEDS ON EACH PAGE PAT'S PODCAST & VIDEO BLOG MESSAGE BOARD - http://patspodcast.proboards36.com/ SKYPE ME @ patspodcast [View]



Re: [videoblogging] Re: to H.264, or not to H.264?

By Pete Prodoehl | Pete Prodoehl <raster@...> | raster
October 17, 2005 | Post #24645 | Topic #24626

Bill Streeter wrote: > I won't use it, yet. I think it's great and there is a lot of > potential there, but it's really slow to encode, and older machines > (like older than 2 years) have trouble decoding them. So in the > interest of broader distribution and maximum compatibility I'm > sticking with MP4 for the foreseeable future. I'm not saying that > I'll never use it, I just don't see it being ready for prime time. I too will avoid H.264 for now. If 2 years old is an 'older machine' than my 4 year old G4 is downright ancient! Pete -- http://tinkernet.org/ videoblog for the future... [View]



Re: to H.264, or not to H.264?

By Steve Watkins | "Steve Watkins" <steve@...> | elbowsofdeath
October 17, 2005 | Post #24646 | Topic #24626

Mpeg4 is where the maket has been up till now, but h264 is now starting to = be used. Both the video ipod and the PSP work with H264, and as the qualit= y is better I am hoping that people viewing stuff on these devices quickly = come to expect h264 where possible. Id disagree about Sony being ahead. Th= ey are ahead on hardware in some respects, but they donthave a nice portal = like itunes to provide content, and so far they hav made a stupid unnecesar= y mess of the fileformat used on the PSP. The file naming structures are pr= imitive, you cant use quicktime mpeg4 or h264 on the PSP without additional= modification to the file structure, possibly because Sony wanted people to= buy its own software encoder. A drawback with PSP h264 support is that PS= Ps with firmware 1.5 or lower cant play it off memory sticks. Any quirks in= Apples implementation of video on the ipod will only become apparent once = people start getting their hands on them. Steve of Elbows --- In videoblo= gging@yahoogroups.com, Pat Cook <patsvideoblog@g...> wrote: > I'd have to = agree with Bill. MP4 is where the market is at right > now. The main tar= get audience of both of my two vlogs are users of > the Sony PSP and (now)= the Video iPod). As such, as long as those > two companies are... [View]



The Art and Science of Screencasting

By Beth Kanter | "Beth Kanter" <beth@...> | harry_sarak
October 17, 2005 | Post #24647 | Topic #24626

Hi again, A few weeks ago, I got obssessed with the idea of wanting to make a screencast. Thanks to the great folks on this, I got a lot of advice about the tools. So, this week, I took captivate from Macromedia for a spin (it's a flash movie program). I made really sloppy and choppy screencast -- hey was learning how to use the editing features. It's here: http://www.bethkanter.org/technorati/projectfile.htm and my reflections about the process posted to my blog: http://beth.typepad.com/beths_blog/2005/10/technorati_tag_.html I would love to get some advice and tips on the creative process for screencasting -- if you break up into 3 chunks: Create Produce Edit What are some best practices that have worked for you so you can get polished screen casts? Beth [View]



Re: to H.264, or not to H.264?

By Steve Watkins | "Steve Watkins" <steve@...> | elbowsofdeath
October 17, 2005 | Post #24649 | Topic #24626

Id like to get a much firmer idea of what the minimum spec computer is need= ed to play 320x240 H264 at 15,25,30 fps and bitrates around the 700-800kbit= s/sec mark. I have access to an array of differently aged Windows PCs at = work, so if operating system issues dont get in the way, I'll post results = from them soon. But the only Macs Ive got access to are a mac mini and 2gh= z imac. If I make a suitable test clip, would some people be prepared to tr= y it on older machines? When H264 quicktime first came out, much of the t= esting related to how badly the high definition apple samples played back o= n most machines, image quality, and encoding time issues. I dont remember m= any results about how well 320x240 h264 played back, or people not having q= t7 got in the way, and Im eager to get clarity on this issue. For one thing= it will enable people to advise others whether it is worth them installing= QT7 on their older machines or not, and we can get specific on CPU require= ments rather than age of machine which is vague. Cheers Steve of Elbows = --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Pete Prodoehl <raster@g...> wrote: > = > Bill Streeter wrote: > > I won't use it, yet. I think it's great and ther= e is a lot of > > potential... [View]



Re: to H.264, or not to H.264?

By Bill Streeter | "Bill Streeter" <bill@...> | straydogma
October 17, 2005 | Post #24653 | Topic #24626

Yeah Steve I'd like to do some tests for you. I have access to a few macs = of various ages and processors. A G5 2ghz, a G3 iBook 800mhz, a dual G4 45= 0mhz, a 800mhz g4 eMac, and a iMac G3 350 mhz. Just email me off list and = let me know. Bill Streeter LO-FI SAINT LOUIS http://www.lofistl.com --- In vide= oblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Watkins" <steve@d...> wrote: > > Id like= to get a much firmer idea of what the minimum spec computer is > needed t= o play 320x240 H264 at 15,25,30 fps and bitrates around the > 700-800kbits/= sec mark. > > I have access to an array of differently aged Windows PCs a= t work, so > if operating system issues dont get in the way, I'll post res= ults from > them soon. > > But the only Macs Ive got access to are a mac = mini and 2ghz imac. If I > make a suitable test clip, would some people be= prepared to try it on > older machines? > > When H264 quicktime first c= ame out, much of the testing related to how > badly the high definition ap= ple samples played back on most machines, > image quality, and encoding ti= me issues. I dont remember many results > about how well 320x240 h264 play= ed back, or people not having qt7 got > in the way, and Im... [View]



Re: to H.264, or not to H.264?

By Jack Nelson | "Jack Nelson" <jack@...> | mexiculture
October 17, 2005 | Post #24663 | Topic #24626

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Watkins" <steve@d...> wrote: >= > Id like to get a much firmer idea of what the minimum spec computer is >= needed to play 320x240 H264 at 15,25,30 fps and bitrates around the > 700-= 800kbits/sec mark. > > I have access to an array of differently aged Wind= ows PCs at work, so > if operating system issues dont get in the way, I'll = post results from > them soon. > > But the only Macs Ive got access to are= a mac mini and 2ghz imac. If I > make a suitable test clip, would some peo= ple be prepared to try it on > older machines? Steve, I'd be glad to test= it for you. I have a 5 different G4 Macs and three different G3 Macs (I d= oubt that they will play h.264 well) Jack [View]



Re: to H.264, or not to H.264?

By Steve Watkins | "Steve Watkins" <steve@...> | elbowsofdeath
October 17, 2005 | Post #24670 | Topic #24626

Cheers, and cheers to the other people who volunteered too, great response = :) I think thats at least 3 people who have volunteered, all with multiple = macs to try. To be honest, thats probably far more machines than we actuall= y need to get a good idea, and also I havent looked yet at what OS you need= to run quicktime 7. This may be a rather large stmbling block for some mac= hines I guess. Anyway I need to sleep now, and Ive gotta work tomorrow so = more test clips from me are not about to materialise in the next few hours = or anything. To be honest my test clips wont be anything special, anybody = with quicktime pro 7.0.3 can do it. May as well use the ipod export mode to= create the h264 for these tests, as it uses about the same settings as a 3= 20x240 h264 videoblog is likely too, maybe very slightly higher bitrate tha= n average but still a pretty fair test, and possibly the popular choice in = future, time will tell. Hmm it occurs to me that the baseline type of h264= that the ipod supports is likely to use less CPU power to decode than the = main profile h264 that people have probably (unconciously) used previously.= So Im hoping that ipod h264 works on slower machines than h264 people migh= t have tried in the... [View]



Re: to H.264, or not to H.264?

By wazman_au | "wazman_au" <elefantman@...> | wazman_au
October 18, 2005 | Post #24692 | Topic #24626

Last night I tried tweaking the 3ivx advanced options in QT Pro to see if = I could produce a 3ivx file that came somewhere close to the quality and c= ompression I get with this new H.264 thingy. I don't really know what I'm = doing, but setting options like dual pass encoding etc. seemed like it mig= ht have some effect. Each time I tried to encode my AVI file using these s= ettings, QuickTime Pro crashed with an "unexpected error" about halfway t= hrough the encode! I'm on a Windows XP machine. Fun and games! Looks like= some more tweaking is called for. We haven't gone live with an H.264 file= s yet. If 3ivx can be made to measure up I'll probably stick with it inste= ad. Waz http://www.crashtestkitchen.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "= Steve Watkins" <steve@d...> wrote: > > Cheers, and cheers to the other peo= ple who volunteered too, great > response :) I think thats at least 3 peopl= e who have volunteered, all > with multiple macs to try. To be honest, tha= ts probably far more > machines than we actually need to get a good idea, a= nd also I havent > looked yet at what OS you need to run quicktime 7. This = may be a > rather large stmbling block for some machines I guess. > > Anyw= ay I need to sleep now, and Ive gotta work... [View]