Video rendering: surprising results

[Anderton]

I just rendered a video, using highest possible quality, in four formats (with the size of the resulting file): QuickTime (Sorenson 3 codec, 118 MB) AVI (indeo 5.1, 82 MB) Windows Media 8 (55 MB) Real Media (14 MB) Surprise: Quality was inversely proportional to size!! The RM file was by far the best in terms of smoothness of motion, sound quality, minimal interlacing and "tearing" problems; Windows Media was almost as good, but blurred the colors somewhat; AVI and QuickTime were definitely the worst. So what's the deal? What do the Real Media people know that no one else seems to know?!?

[Sylver]

[quote]Originally posted by Anderton: [b]I just rendered a video, using highest possible quality, in four formats (with the size of the resulting file): QuickTime (Sorenson 3 codec, 118 MB) AVI (indeo 5.1, 82 MB) Windows Media 8 (55 MB) Real Media (14 MB) Surprise: Quality was inversely proportional to size!! The RM file was by far the best in terms of smoothness of motion, sound quality, minimal interlacing and "tearing" problems; Windows Media was almost as good, but blurred the colors somewhat; AVI and QuickTime were definitely the worst. So what's the deal? What do the Real Media people know that no one else seems to know?!?[/b][/quote]I don't know the answer, but I've noticed that to, Craig. I guess they just have better programmers. Quicktime sucks.

[halljams]

[quote]Originally posted by Anderton: [b] So what's the deal? What do the Real Media people know that no one else seems to know?!?[/b][/quote]Could it be something to do with the fact that you have to pay for their decoder? I find it a problem that not everyone has or is not willing to get real player.

[Steve LeBlanc]

Windows Media seems to work the best for [b]everyone[/b] in my experience. I have no bias...I just use what works...I find most people can deal with Quicktime files fine but would rather not (mostly because seems to hog so much system resources. I find most people hate Real for some reason or another. I've tried them all and recently decided to do everything in Windows Media from now on if it's too much for Flash.

[Anderton]

<> You don't have to pay for their decoder, it's available for free on their web site...you just have to hunt for it, because they'd rather that you buy the full-on subscription service. I'm hoping that Windows Media 9 meets Real's level of quality. But I have to say I was very disappointed in QuickTime. I would have thought that considering the head start Apple had with streaming media, they would have been able to keep it current with the competition.

[miroslav]

Well...I've been coding video for the Internet for a few years now. I never liked Real Media...I absolutely HATE their player...it's almost obscene the way it shit's all over your desktop...so ugly. I've mostly utilized Quicktime and Windows Media. I've always gotten extremely good results with QT...but I use WM for pure streaming files since the Windows Media Services are free and easy to install configure. AVIs...well, I just don't use them at all anymore. As far as quality...there is a lot of variation...depending on your parameter settings for any of the codecs. Most recently I've been working with Flash MX...which allows me to embed QT/Sorenson video right into the Flash movie. So far...very good results.

[KikkyMonk]

Real takes over your computer and associates everything with it!!! Anyone heard of lop.com? Don't get me started Dave

[GY]

Windows Media 9 is supposed to be the ticket. http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/9series/default.asp

[Ultravibe]

Well, QT sucks on a Windows computer, but through tests with literally hundreds of files, my associates at work have decided on the .wmv format simply because of the best trade off between file size, compatibility, quality of video and quality of audio. Now, during those tests, the files that came out absolutely the best [i]at larger sizes[/i] were QT files. Shrunk down for low bandwidth internet delivery, the suck factor increased exponentially. Windows Media definitely came in last in quality at larger sizes (way too many artifacts, and on either system, support for greater data rates was inconsistent) and at smaller sizes was comparable to Real files, for the most part. The kicker is compatibility. People don't want to put Real on their systems because it tries to take over. The program is a pain to configure for both Windows and Mac OS and is like a system dictator. Just because all us coders/programmers/audio/video guys hated so much what it did to our systems, we dismissed it out of hand. Sucks, because Real could be a contender if they would just let the user decide what they wanted for their system. Instead, they play media Hitler and do whatever they want.

[Mr Darling]

Craig - how long was your video anyway? I'm trying like mad to compress a 6.5 minute long promo video of an artist freind... I am using QT, and it does look good - but I can't get the damn file smaller then 25mb, which is still large for most net users... As a mac user I can decode WM, but I might as well put a Real's file for the hell of it. BTW - real player works great on OSX - I hated it before, bad playback (audio as well as video) and pron to crash - but on OSX it's the best!

[Anderton]

<> 4:15. I was able to get a 360x240 frame size with very good quality with about 6 MB with Real. Going to up 13 MB gave the best possible results, but the 6 MB file was better than the QT or AVI by far. Interesting comments above about sizing. I agree that WMV has a hard time with big sizes, although if there are de-interlacing options in your encoder, it seems to make a huge difference in terms of artifacts. Also, I NEVER use blur motion because my videos are usually of software demos and such, where it's important to be able to see small type, as opposed to videos of people moving. Not using motion blur makes it harder on the encoder -- it seems that QT and WMV are a lot happier with a little motion blur.

[Mr Darling]

Not to disrespect your result (since I haven't try anyother medium) but codecing with QT is an art by itself. There why to many option to choose form (and I'm only talking about free codecs) but like I said I did get some great result, if you want I look up the setting I've used. if you want to see the file (the video is a collection of street shows) you can check [url=http://www.DarlingNikkie.com/Fred]www.DarlingNikkie.com/Fred[/url] (It's not actually ready for sending yet - this is just a link to let the artist see what I do, he is in the USA while I'm in Belgium)

[miroslav]

I've been using Media Cleaner with the Sorenson codec...very good quality with Quicktime. Image sizes are 320 x 240, and the codec usually drops it to 15fps... ...anything smaller for image size is a waste of time, regardless of video quality...but that's just me... Yes, QT will be yeild a larger file than say...WM or Real...at that same image size. But...I just see too many artifacts in those files. For me...QT is still the best quality if I'm not really concerned about file size...otherwise, I offer up a WM streaming file option along with the QT file. I too would like to see what WM 9 has to offer...

[Ultravibe]

I've had big problems so far using the WM 9 beta. Older .wmv's don't even show up in it. This would normally not cause any anxiety, but good ol' MS basically stopped all support in Windows Media for AVI files, which was an MS format, so them not being backwards compatible with their own stuff wouldn't surprise me in the least. Create more work for me? Yes, it would do that.

[Mr Darling]

[quote]Originally posted by Anderton: [b]I just rendered a video, using highest possible quality, in four formats (with the size of the resulting file): QuickTime (Sorenson 3 codec, 118 MB) AVI (indeo 5.1, 82 MB) Windows Media 8 (55 MB) Real Media (14 MB) Surprise: Quality was inversely proportional to size!! The RM file was by far the best in terms of smoothness of motion, sound quality, minimal interlacing and "tearing" problems; Windows Media was almost as good, but blurred the colors somewhat; AVI and QuickTime were definitely the worst. So what's the deal? What do the Real Media people know that no one else seems to know?!?[/b][/quote]I decided to give real media a go, and used a free copy of real producer - the result were very bad. Even at the biggest setting (highest conection rate and best picture - the resulting filed didn't look that good) Was I doing something wrong, or did you pay for basic producer plus or did you do something very wrong using QT?

[EXAGON]

Try MPEG-4. it's the best ever video codec, with the best quality/size ratio. :cool: And it's a Quick time product, specially developed for streaming. It has a WONDERFUL quality!!

[Mr Darling]

[quote]Originally posted by tron: [b]Try MPEG-4. it's the best ever video codec, with the best quality/size ratio. :cool: And it's a Quick time product, specially developed for streaming. It has a WONDERFUL quality!![/b][/quote]I thought I tried... but can't be sure. I'll give it another go a report here.

[Anderton]

[[I decided to give real media a go, and used a free copy of real producer - the result were very bad. Even at the biggest setting (highest conection rate and best picture - the resulting filed didn't look that good) Was I doing something wrong, or did you pay for basic producer plus or did you do something very wrong using QT?]] The Real encoding was done with Vegas Video. All of the encoding was done with Vegas Video. My next QT attempt will be doing it on the Mac. I'll also try different codecs, although people tell me the Sorenson ones are by far the best.

[Dan South]

[quote]Originally posted by Anderton: [b]I just rendered a video, using highest possible quality, in four formats (with the size of the resulting file): QuickTime (Sorenson 3 codec, 118 MB) AVI (indeo 5.1, 82 MB) Windows Media 8 (55 MB) Real Media (14 MB) Surprise: Quality was inversely proportional to size!![/b][/quote]It's not the size that matters - it's how you use it. Okay, that was bad...

[miroslav]

[quote]Originally posted by Anderton: ...the Sorenson ones are by far the best.[/quote]Without a doubt. Started using the Sorenson stuff 'bout 3 years ago...never looked back! The new Flash MX also uses a Sorenson codec if you want to embed video right into Flash.

[offramp]

My experience has largely been to the contrary of the majority here...WMV and AVI suck doorknobs, RM is just wrong, QT works great everytime. Sorenson is hands-down a winner in my book, too (I use Cleaner 5.1). WMV and AVI, no matter how I've approached it and no matter what machine/configuration, has been problematic, with either bad video, bad audio, player incompatibility/stubborness ('please download some latest obscure update from Microsoft', which automatically adds an hour to my project time), or a combination of any of the above. The only time I've ever gotten RM to work was in producing a 5 minute talking-head piece--with static background and very little motion--into a 120 window for download on a company's intranet. AT that, the audio was questionable. For my money, QT has it.

[thisDude]

I think it all comes down to compression schemes. I've only used Sorensen and it looks great. What digital video needs is an emerging standard, but it can't be proprietory, like an mp3, or jpg. I've been quicktime for a while and it sucks when you want to see something and you have to download another player.

[Groovepusher Sly]

Craig, I'm not doing any video but, the movie trailers on apple.com have always looked good, strike that, looked excellent. How do they do those? Sly :cool:

[Anderton]

<> I wonder about that too. The trailers aren't small by any means, though...it seems the larger the file, the more of an advantage QuickTime has. Both WM and RM seem to have a "ceiling" above which they can't do any better. It's below that ceiling where they shine.

[Salyphus]

I would guess that Vegas Video may not be the best host for encoding Quicktime? Perhaps you should try Final Cut Pro or Media Cleaner?

[Master Zap]

Since I have been doing [b]a lot[/b] of this lately (see this [url=http://www.ninagoddess.com/video3.html]music video[/url] and [url=http://www.KidWars.com]this sci fi epos[/url] ) I can tell you this 1. QT is really dumb... you forget to give it a target bitrate right? So it makes a GARGANTUAN file which STILL doesnt look good. For QT I'd suggest the On2 codec or possibly the MPEG-4 in quicktime 6 over Sorenson 3, although Sorenson 3 is the most "compatible". QT takes FOREVER to encode too!! 2. QT on a PC really is a trouble child. If you encode something that is "hard to decode" the player will get caught in an endless failing loop of trying to catch up with itself, and show your "video" as nice slideshow with a frame every 10 seconds or so. This is NOT because the compressor has removed frames (hit stop and single step, EVERY FRAME IS THERE) it's because the player can't keep up displaying them in realtime! 3. Real may be great at video compression, but the ¤#)(&=C)=()/= they do to your computer is unforgivable. NEVER INSTALL THEIR PLAYER. NEVER USE THEIR STUFF! I urge you. I used to be a real advocate UNTIL they turned spyware mother of computer-screwer-uppers. AVOID! 4. AVI. Well Indeo. HAHAH. Thats barely a CODEC at all. Get DIVX and we can start talking AVI compression AT ALL here. 5. Windows Media. Yes how ungodly it might sound I AM NOWDAYS a TOTAL windows media advocate. Why? COZ IT SIMPLY WORKS! Just put in your source, hit encode, and QUICKLY get a GOOD LOOKING and SMALL file!! Now the secret to all this is really MPEG-4 compression. You see, Windows Media does MPEG-4. Has for a LONG time. Nowdays, Quicktime 6 also does MPEG-4. And what we all know and love as "DivX" was originally a HACKED version of the windows-media MPEG-4 encoder, re-coded in such a way it could be used in an .AVI file (something Microsoft purpously limited at first!) What Real is I don't know, but some ungodly propietary piece of crap I guess. Grrr. Also note that both winmedia, avi's and QT's are only wrapper format and inside of them the actual codecs do the real job. So what I am hopign for is that we are doing towards raw data files (like you can have an MPEG-2 datastream as a pure .mpg file) for the mpeg-4 codecs and BREAK FREE from all the proprietary crap of EITHER of QT, WinMedia or AVI's and just play the standardized data directly!!! Anyway.... So there you have it. NOW GO WATCH MY VIDEOS DAMMNIT CRAIG ;) /Z

[LawrenceF]

I've been using Vegas Video also but I've never used the Real Media codec. I love vegas video though. Lawrence

[Anderton]

<> I'd like to, but...last time I downloaded your video, the file transfer wasn't complete (remember, I'm on dial-up) and when I hit the end of the video, it crashed my machine and caused several other problems that took me a few days to sort out. Not your fault, of course!! Damn, I need broadband. Meanwhile, thanks for the enlightenment regarding video rendering. I'll have to try QT on the Mac and see what happens...although the Star Wars trailer played back just fine on my Windows machine. Hey Zap, have you worked with WM9 yet? Any thoughts?

[Audiobotica]

When I worked at >en, we had an entire compression department that had to serve up every streaming segment in QT, ASF, and Real. QT looked best, ASF was a close second and Real sucked. This was 3 years ago so I'm sure things have changed. Streaming is one thing, spotting is another. I've found that MP4, which works great for streaming, is useless for spotting sound to picture because of the frame differencing. Right now, I'm using QT/Sorenson for spotting on the Mac and AVI/Cinepak for spotting on the PC. Anybody know of any better combinations for when you need to do single frame scrubbing? Yours in Music, Ben Fury

[Audiobotica]

[quote]Originally posted by Audiobotica: [b] Right now, I'm using QT/Sorenson for spotting on the Mac and AVI/Cinepak for spotting on the PC. Anybody know of any better combinations for when you need to do single frame scrubbing? Yours in Music, Ben Fury[/b][/quote]Anybody? Cinepak compresses sooooo sloooooow. :bor: But everything else I tried looks crummy scrubbing frame by frame. Pleeeease tell me something that works better! :confused: Ben