VideoHelp Forum
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 27 of 27
Thread
  1. Member
    Join Date: Apr 2014
    Location: Cleveland
    Search PM
    Hello Geniuses!

    New to the forum and have been reading up on a lot of stuff learning. I am in a bit of a crunch as my previous video team just flew the coup to Silicon Valley and is not being to prompt on returning any emails -- however they did give me all the videos I needed and paid for to get filmed.

    However here is my problem I now face:

    * I have videos for a health company that feature short, 1 minute exercise demonstrations.
    * I have a whole new set that are currently in .webm. I need these videos to obviously play cross browser and on all mobile devices.
    * I have been converting them myself using Any Converter Free, -- although somewhat confusing because there are a host of different "mp4" categories like iPhone 5s, iPhone 4, etc.
    * I converted one to test and found that it played on all browsers AND the iPad, but NOT the iPhone.

    I am trying to figure out the best and easiest way to convert these .webm videos so that they can play on all browsers, more specifically for all devices for iphone and ipad and macs. Is there one .mp4 format that will play across the board for all apple products and devices?

    I know we have a video on our home page (that was put there and set up by my former video guys) that is in .mp4 format that plays on ALL browsers and ALL ipads and iphones. So I am confused as to how this .mp4 video plays on all browsers because I was under the impression that mp4 was only for a certain browser/ device, and then .webm was for another, and then .ogv was for another, and .flv was for yet another. I don't understand

    We have another set of videos that are already up on the site and working fine, and for these videos, each video is on 4 different formats, .webm, .mp4, .. flv, and .ogv -- this is so they will play on all browsers and all mobile and portable devices. IF there is an easier way I would love to hear it.

    I really REALLY appreciate any help from anyone here .. totally appreciated!
    Quote Quote  
  2. You want to know what is wrong with those files and do not give any data whatsoever, there is two steps before somebody might try to answer,
    -let mediainfo software read those files and post those listings so somebody can compare them,
    -second choice is to upload both videos somewhere

    Also there could be always problem in the web player that is being used on your web site, some sort of bug, it does not mean necessarily that your video is wrong.

    Playability over web is more complex thing, but nowadays you can go safely with mp4 container only (H.264 video, easy profiles and AAC audio), where another important thing in this is a build-in web player, like for example jwplayer. It can load mp4 from your server and render it on users screen. That player knows "what" device or browser tries to play it and renders video appropriately in flash or HTML5. Apple devices do not use flash so they use HTML5, also android devices, or latest computer browsers without flash installed. Or you can use custom build web player, but this is not easy task then to render video to any screen and device or browser.

    Altogether, it is a messy thing including - php scripting, javascript, a bit of knowledge of how servers work, encoding those videos correctly, you have to know what bitarte to encode those videos, because your website has no unlimited bandwith etc,etc, having right web player on your server, today even things like joomla or wordpress are used, so there must be somebody with knowledge of those platforms to build your site in it ,...,

    so that is why most people just would not bother at all and are using Youtube and such services for embedded videos
    Quote Quote  
  3. Member Noahtuck's Avatar
    Join Date: Jun 2004
    Location: ®Inside My Avatar™© U.S.
    Search Comp PM
    * PLEASE Please Help ! *

    Help you to what ?
    Make a title that actually might convey your issue ?

    I mean, it's obvious you probably need help with something or else you would not be making a post here.
    It also makes it easier for someone later on down the road to maybe find the same help you may eventually get when doing a search.

    Imagine if EVERY post here was just PLEASE Please Help ! ?
    You would be opening 100's if not 1000's of posts with no clue to what was the issue and wasting your time when you may not care or can't help with the issue......
    Originally a member since 2001, LONG LIVE TARAN's!!!
    Quote Quote  
  4. Member Cornucopia's Avatar
    Join Date: Oct 2001
    Location: Deep in the Heart of Texas
    Search Comp PM
    It helps to think of h264 (and similar codecs) not as one monolithic codec, but a family of different profiles and levels that have that codec (and/or container) in common.

    Plus, you need to separate and compartmentalize your disparate needs of media, transmission engine/ distribution channel, and playback service. You cannot be 100% compliant and usable on every device without resorting to a very lowest common denominator (mpeg1?), so you need to pick your main targets.

    Scott
    "When will the rhetorical questions end?!" - George Carlin
    Quote Quote  
  5. Mod Neophyte Super Moderator redwudz's Avatar
    Join Date: Sep 2002
    Location: USA
    Search Comp PM
    Specialk, in the future please use a more descriptive subject title in your posts to allow others to search for similar topics. I will change yours this time. From our rules:
    Try to choose a subject that describes your topic.
    Please do not use topic subjects like Help me!!! or Problems.
    Thanks,

    Moderator redwudz
    Quote Quote  
  6. Member
    Join Date: Apr 2014
    Location: Cleveland
    Search PM
    Al and Cornucopia -- thanks for the input! It is greatly appreciated! I will note all of this .. it was a big help and can't thank ya enough .. I'd buy ya a round or 2 if this was out at bar!

    Redwudz and Noaktuck - my bad on the subject line. Had no idea something like that was not allowed. I belong to many other forums like saltwater reef forums, entrepreneur forums, and some others and I'll be honest , #1 I dont really read all the forum rules, I mean who totally reads them all thruought? #2 I must have gotten "catching copy" subject lines from them as there are all sorts of catchy subject lines in many of these forums as well as my years of previously writing copy for websites, etc. I understand the point, but did not know it was "not allowed"
    Quote Quote  
  7. Member
    Join Date: Apr 2014
    Location: Cleveland
    Search PM
    Also, another question in regards to this. I do understand what you guys are saying in terms of "picking your audience" and what are a vast majority of people using for their browsers and cater to them.

    But what about simply putting a player on the site that plays all videos regardless of what format they are in. For example, wouldn't putting the VLC media player up on the site solve the issue as this particular player, along with others that are out there, will play any format. essentially making all the videos play regardless of the browser or handheld device/mobile device?
    Quote Quote  
  8. There needs to be player build in web page, not operating system. User has to interact with web page, not server's operating system. Javascript is scripting language that provides that and it could be embedded in web page=html coded script. So those players are written in javascript. Somebody would have to write VLC in javascript then. .

    Latest html5 is cool also, allows for lots of advanced features, so you might heard about html5 players. BUT you need browser that is compatible with latest HTML5 - latest browsers, or mobile device browsers , but not so somebody on PC with XP operating system for example, using older web browser. And it complicates even more slightly, for example latest jwplayer javascript players will render html5 video in latest firefox and win7 or win Vista operating system but flash only if you have XP OS. I told you it is a mess.

    You might heard about php scripting also, but that is processed on server, not user computer or device, user does not see any php scripting, it runs behind users back while web page is loading. Programmer might use php scripting besides javascript, but only javascript tools are available for user interactivity without actually loading web page again.
    Last edited by _Al_; 17th Apr 2014 at 15:14.
    Quote Quote  
  9. Member Cornucopia's Avatar
    Join Date: Oct 2001
    Location: Deep in the Heart of Texas
    Search Comp PM
    I still don't understand why you keep trying to reinvent the wheel: why don't you just upload your existing source files to Youtube/Vimeo/etc and have private access for just your health company folks?

    Scott
    "When will the rhetorical questions end?!" - George Carlin
    Quote Quote  
  10. Yes, this system with "do it all yourself" takes a lot of resources, lots of work for one person trying to do it all even if he knows what to do. Not mentioning web traffic, it can go really high and server providers want their money for bandwith, they will start to offer you your own server or some other package that is not cheap at all. Some will kick you out finding that your webside takes lots of traffic. Formulation "unlimited" upon signing has no meaning, they will kick you out.

    The only positive outcome for doing this is:
    -people watch video that was encoded only once and could be in much better shape, if your sources are not top notch in the first place, after uploading it to YouTube it could get really bad (SD resolution video)
    -more freedom, about content and not being afraid that it is going to be shut down in a case of some 3rd party "situation" (as long your server provider is cool with you or does not get cut off too)
    -people will not leave you web page for some naked breast picture, veering off to YouTube that easily as if they would if you used Youtube embedded
    Last edited by _Al_; 17th Apr 2014 at 15:48.
    Quote Quote  
  11. Member
    Join Date: Apr 2014
    Location: Cleveland
    Search PM
    Originally Posted by Cornucopia View Post
    I still don't understand why you keep trying to reinvent the wheel: why don't you just upload your existing source files to Youtube/Vimeo/etc and have private access for just your health company folks?

    Scott
    Because we need to avoid users sharing the videos as it will take away the need for their own personal trainer. The goal, as these companies want, is for each employee to have their own account, and have their own health coach/personal trainer. Therefor, each user must get their own set of personalized workouts. Everything has to happen on the site. Believe me, if we could use a 3rd party, we would. But the benefits far outweigh the negatives right now and getting this complete. I have a whole team of programmers and developers at my disposal, so any programming and php scripting is not a problem. This video stuff is just slightly new to all f us, and ... as everyone is saying -- complicated.
    Quote Quote  
  12. Member
    Join Date: Apr 2014
    Location: Cleveland
    Search PM
    Originally Posted by _Al_ View Post
    Yes, this system with "do it all yourself" takes a lot of resources, lots of work for one person trying to do it all even if he knows what to do. Not mentioning web traffic, it can go really high and server providers want their money for bandwith, they will start to offer you your own server or some other package that is not cheap at all. Some will kick you out finding that your webside takes lots of traffic. Formulation "unlimited" upon signing has no meaning, they will kick you out.

    The only positive outcome for doing this is:
    -people watch video that was encoded only once and could be in much better shape, if your sources are not top notch in the first place, after uploading it to YouTube it could get really bad (SD resolution video)
    -more freedom, about content and not being afraid that it is going to be shut down in a case of some 3rd party "situation" (as long your server provider is cool with you or does not get cut off too)
    -people will not leave you web page for some naked breast picture, veering off to YouTube that easily as if they would if you used Youtube embedded
    Thanks for reply my friend. My replies to these issues you are mentioning:

    * We are prepared for the bandwidth issue and even have it detailed down to when we get 150 users, we will need to get our own virtual dedicated server, and yes it is around $200 a month, at which point we will have no problem paying for as the contracts with this amount of people will far outweigh this cost for this.

    * And as for all the php and programming to make this work ... we are fully able to program and code anything to make this work, no matter how hard the programming task may be. As I have said I have a full team of developers and coders at my disposal to make this work.
    Quote Quote  
  13. Member
    Join Date: Sep 2007
    Location: Canada
    Search Comp PM
    I converted one to test and found that it played on all browsers AND the iPad, but NOT the iPhone.
    Basically early gen iphones, and android devices were not compatible with CABAC (which is entropy encoding - an encoding setting you can disable) . Disabling it reduces compression efficiency (reduces quality at a given bitrate) .

    If you want it compatible with all idevices, including early gen devices, even ipods, then use baseline profile. That's essentially the "lowest common denominator" Scott was talking about. (This will severely impact compression efficiency because CAVLC (not CABAC), and no b-frames - you will need significantly higher bandwidth to maintain a certain level of "quality" ). And the only common device it won't be compatible with is the Sony PSP (which isn't compatible with CAVLC)

    That "one shoe fits all" approach isn't ideal IMO . Either your bandwidth will suffer, or you delivered quality will suffer. Also , different targets have different resolutions , and bitrate requirements , aspect ratios (a full HD 1920x1080 video will require more bitrate than something intended for an ipod display)
    Quote Quote  
  14. Member
    Join Date: Apr 2014
    Location: Cleveland
    Search PM
    Originally Posted by poisondeathray View Post
    I converted one to test and found that it played on all browsers AND the iPad, but NOT the iPhone.
    Basically early gen iphones, and android devices were not compatible with CABAC (which is entropy encoding - an encoding setting you can disable) . Disabling it reduces compression efficiency (reduces quality at a given bitrate) .

    If you want it compatible with all idevices, including early gen devices, even ipods, then use baseline profile. That's essentially the "lowest common denominator" Scott was talking about. (This will severely impact compression efficiency because CAVLC (not CABAC), and no b-frames - you will need significantly higher bandwidth to maintain a certain level of "quality" ). And the only common device it won't be compatible with is the Sony PSP (which isn't compatible with CAVLC)

    That "one shoe fits all" approach isn't ideal IMO . Either your bandwidth will suffer, or you delivered quality will suffer. Also , different targets have different resolutions , and bitrate requirements , aspect ratios (a full HD 1920x1080 video will require more bitrate than something intended for an ipod display)
    Honestly, I agree. It has been a major pain for me trying to figure this out. But here is what I am trying to do, and IF there is a way we can accomplish this, I am ALL ears!

    * Send users their workouts/individual exercise videos so that they are viewable by them and only them within their personal accounts on our site
    * Have them play on most, I stress most, browsers (chrome, firefox and possibly IE would be great) and androids and iphones.

    Is this pretty much impossible? Or do we simply need to convert each video into all the specific formats to fit each of those browsers and mobile devices?
    Quote Quote  
  15. Member
    Join Date: Sep 2007
    Location: Canada
    Search Comp PM
    Have them play on most, I stress most, browsers (chrome, firefox and possibly IE would be great) and androids and iphones.
    The problem is earlier gen iphones and androids were woefully underpowered , compared to their modern day equivalents. The newest shiny versions can play basically anything . Where do you draw the line ? I don't see browser compatibily as the problem, it's device compatibility

    I think _Al_ is alluding to tiered scripting but it's way beyond my programming knowledge. Basically a different version of that video is streamed depending on what browser/devices is used. eg. html5 version might be streamed for certain browsers. It will fall back on a flash mp4 version if an old browser is used, etc... it's all done automatically behind the scenes
    Quote Quote  
  16. Member
    Join Date: Apr 2014
    Location: Cleveland
    Search PM
    Originally Posted by poisondeathray View Post
    Have them play on most, I stress most, browsers (chrome, firefox and possibly IE would be great) and androids and iphones.
    The problem is earlier gen iphones and androids were woefully underpowered , compared to their modern day equivalents. The newest shiny versions can play bascially anything . Where do you draw the line ?

    I think _Al_ is alluding to tiered scripting but it's way beyond my programming knowledge. Basically a different version of that video is streamed depending on what browser/devices is used. eg. html5 version might be streamed for certain browsers. It will fall back on a flash mp4 version if an old browser is used, etc... it's all done automatically behind the scenes
    Gotcha. And I will say this ... if it came down to the solution of, it will play on Chrome, Firefox, IE and the LATEST android and iphones ... then I would be fine with that. We can simply tell the client/user "hey sorry if the video does not play it means your phone is a bit outdated and you must view the videos from your desktop" .. or something along these lines. I would be thrilled with that. I have no problem telling the health coaches/trainers to let their clients know this. This would be a very small problem and one I would have no problem with. I guess, I am just trying to cater to the "largest" most general audience -- as was suggested earlier. I KNOW we will never be able to please and have them play for everyone. I know this. I am just looking for the best approach we can possibly take that covers the biggest area.
    Quote Quote  
  17. Member
    Join Date: Sep 2007
    Location: Canada
    Search Comp PM
    What are your .webm specs ? Are these videos all roughly the same specs to begin with? (in terms of resolution, frame rate )

    If you don't know you can use mediainfo (view=>text) on a few of them to find out
    http://www.videohelp.com/tools/MediaInfo

    Approx how many videos do you have to process ?
    Quote Quote  
  18. Member Cornucopia's Avatar
    Join Date: Oct 2001
    Location: Deep in the Heart of Texas
    Search Comp PM
    Yes, the server polls the client and finds out what browser/OS version is viewing and branches accordingly. Standard javascript, php, etc.

    I concur w/ _AL_ and pdr, and again I say: you pick your MAIN/MAJORITY target audience and program for them, with a low quality fallback (or 2, or more) for those orphaned clients that can't handle that.

    Test each of your target devices' capabilities and find the common denominator (containers, codecs, levels+profiles, architecture, etc). I can do this and have done this before, but it's a constantly moving target so you have to do the (sometimes quite extensive) research legwork for each project. I'd do it for you, but I'd have to get employed or paid first.

    Scott
    "When will the rhetorical questions end?!" - George Carlin
    Quote Quote  
  19. Member
    Join Date: Sep 2007
    Location: Canada
    Search Comp PM
    ^Hell , I'd hire a consultant like Scott to do that

    It's a way more elegant and professional solution than the "one size fits all" IMO

    I know a bit about device compatibility and settings you would need, but nothing about the web/scripting fallback
    Quote Quote  
  20. Member
    Join Date: Apr 2014
    Location: Cleveland
    Search PM
    Originally Posted by poisondeathray View Post
    What are your .webm specs ? Are these videos all roughly the same specs to begin with? (in terms of resolution, frame rate )

    If you don't know you can use mediainfo (view=>text) on a few of them to find out
    http://www.videohelp.com/tools/MediaInfo

    Approx how many videos do you have to process ?
    I did 2 of them -- here is what I got -- (and I hope this is what you wanted to know )

    1.
    First Video Stream = 263 kbps, 1920 * 1080 (16:9) at 29.970 fps, VP8
    Format : VP8
    Codec ID : V_VP8
    Duration : 1mn 23s
    Bit rate : 263 Kbps
    Width : 1 920 pixels
    Height : 1 080 pixels
    Display aspect ratio : 16:9
    Frame rate mode : Constant
    Frame rate : 29.970 fps
    Compression mode : Lossy
    Bits/(Pixel*Frame) : 0.004
    Stream size : 2.61 MiB (58%)
    Language : English
    Default : Yes
    Forced : No
    Overall bit rate 449 kbps


    2.
    First Video Stream = 186 kbps, 1920*1080 (16:9) , at 29.970 fps, VP8
    Format : VP8
    Codec ID : V_VP8
    Duration : 1mn 7s
    Bit rate : 186 Kbps
    Width : 1 920 pixels
    Height : 1 080 pixels
    Display aspect ratio : 16:9
    Frame rate mode : Constant
    Frame rate : 29.970 fps
    Compression mode : Lossy
    Bits/(Pixel*Frame) : 0.003
    Stream size : 1.50 MiB (50%)
    Language : English
    Default : Yes
    Forced : No
    Quote Quote  
  21. Member
    Join Date: Sep 2007
    Location: Canada
    Search Comp PM
    Wow, if that's correct, the bitrate is quite low...(that implies the quality will be pretty low). If that is what you're starting with, it only goes "downhill" from there. Basically, when you re-encode a video with a lossy codec, it will lose quality . If you can in any way access the original (or at least a higher quality version) to start with - that would be more ideal. It doesn't hurt to ask.

    You will have Aspect Ratio issues for some devices. For example, the iphone 4 display is 960x640 , but your content is 16:9 . This means it won't "fit" properly in either landscape or portait mode. But iphone 5 retina displays are almost ~16:9 (1136x640), so it will "fit" better to that display. Some projects film with that in mind (so you can produce several different versions, a 16:9, and some cropped versions) . So if your exercise content has nothing important on the left and right peripheral edges, you have the option to could cater to specific displays . Most people won' t mind (they will be already used to viewing 16:9 content on their own non 16:9 display, so it will be letterboxed on a narrower display)
    Last edited by poisondeathray; 17th Apr 2014 at 17:48.
    Quote Quote  
  22. Member
    Join Date: Apr 2014
    Location: Cleveland
    Search PM
    Originally Posted by poisondeathray View Post
    Wow, if that's correct, the bitrate is quite low...(that implies the quality will be pretty low). If that is what you're starting with, it only goes "downhill" from there. Basically, when you re-encode a video with a lossy codec, it will lose quality . If you can in any way access the original (or at least a higher quality version) to start with - that would be more ideal. It doesn't hurt to ask.

    You will have Aspect Ratio issues for some devices. For example, the iphone 4 display is 960x640 , but your content is 16:9 . This means it won't "fit" properly in either landscape or portait mode. But iphone 5 retina displays are almost ~16:9 (1136x640), so it will "fit" better to that display
    Well I pulled these videos from my computer here. In which I got these videos here on my computer, by downloading them directly from our server (on the server they were the original files). So I am not sure if that means anything.

    I will say, as for quality, when viewing them here on my computer, they are not terribly bad, IMO. The main thing I want is for the client to be able to successfully see the movements of each exercise. However, I obviously don't want them to be really poor and look like an after school project, BUT at the same time I don't need them for an IMAX movie I am putting on. Make sense?
    Quote Quote  
  23. Member
    Join Date: Apr 2014
    Location: Cleveland
    Search PM
    In fact, if you go to youtube and type in "Shape Up Cleveland" you will see some of the videos .. I put them up there today for one of my health experts to see.
    Quote Quote  
  24. Member
    Join Date: Sep 2007
    Location: Canada
    Search Comp PM
    I'm not going to pull any punches - I know this is the re-encoded YT version but the quality is quite poor. It's watchable, but the "full HD" version wouldn't pass any QC checks. There other issues - e.g. it's oversaturated . The good news is, with 1920x1080, you can "hide" a lot of the defects at a lower resolution due to oversampling . You can see the movements clearly enough so I guess that's the important thing
    Quote Quote  
  25. Member
    Join Date: Apr 2014
    Location: Cleveland
    Search PM
    Good. I like that approach. Thank you

    Annnnd, well I guess if its viewable right now that's the main thing. These were filmed about 2.5 years ago .. not sure if that's why. But I guess that's all we can do right now. We can def film them again when we do our next video shoot -- as we are currently looking and getting ready to hire another video team.
    Quote Quote  
  26. If you do not go the way with using specialized player or custom web player (getting rid of javascripting etc.) you take a look here , that is HTML5 embedding into web page using simple <video></video> tags with sources in it.
    You can see overthere what browsers will not play WebM - Safari (Apple) and Internet Explorer, that is severe handicap.
    So the html script (very easy if video is embedded directly in html) has to involve another mp4 video link, like it is nicely shown on that page, so browsers pick up video they accept. You'd need to encode mp4 version as well. And because it is html5 (video embedding) older browsers would not play it, but , I guess there is not many people using old browsers.

    It gets simple and easy just using this latest html5 approach.
    Last edited by _Al_; 17th Apr 2014 at 19:58.
    Quote Quote  
  27. Member
    Join Date: Apr 2014
    Location: Cleveland
    Search PM
    Originally Posted by _Al_ View Post
    If you do not go the way with using specialized player or custom web player (getting rid of javascripting etc.) you take a look here , that is HTML5 embedding into web page using simple <video></video> tags with sources in it.
    You can see overthere what browsers will not play WebM - Safari (Apple) and Internet Explorer, that is severe handicap.
    So the html script (very easy if video is embedded directly in html) has to involve another mp4 video link, like it is nicely shown on that page, so browsers pick up video they accept. You'd need to encode mp4 version as well. And because it is html5 (video embedding) older browsers would not play it, but , I guess there is not many people using old browsers.

    It gets simple and easy just using this latest html5 approach.
    That's a big help thanks. I am going to fwd this on to my guys and see what they can do with it. Alot of help can't thank you enough .. ! And yes I agree for sure that not having IE and safari would be a enormously large hiccup and handicap
    Quote Quote