Tips for Encoding .Mov Files?

[ehmjay]

Okay so I have a bunch of films I want to encode for the web however I had a few questions first...

firstly - I want to keep the file sizes fairly small. I already encoded a few in the MPEG-4 codec and I was told that I should use H.264 because its better for compression. If so, what are some good settings to use?

Secondly, each of these videos are letterboxed. However I realize that the letter box is probably causing the files to be bigger because of the dimensions. So how do I set things up to crop out the top and bottom black bars so that the final file is the actual film with no letterbox (does that make sence?)

I have final cut pro and quicktime pro.

Any help would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks in advanced!

[TugBoat]

If you have a recent version of FCP then you should have Compressor. Compressor would be your best bet. Load the Movie, select one of the QT6(MPEG4) or QT7(h264) presets and play around with it. You can also crop the letterboxing with the correct settings.

Just remember, anyone that doesn't have QT7 will not be able to view a h264 video with QT.

[ehmjay]

okay thanks for that!

is there a better choice? MPEG-4 or H.264? Or is it a matter of preference?

[TugBoat]

Well, it's all about compatibility. h264 requires Tiger or 10.3.9 with QT7 manually installed. The majority of Mac users do not meet this requirement. So, if you use h264, you're basically saying that you prefer that most Mac users not watch your videos. MPEG4 however, can be viewed by people still using even OS9. Big difference. If this doesn't bother you, then by all means use h264.

[pianoman719]

I sometimes like to suggest offbeat (and cheap) solutions. I'm not sure of your exact needs. Except for a few indie producers, most people don't post feature-length films on the web; so I'm assuming you have some short films you want to convert for web viewing.

Considering your wish to carefully remove letterboxing, one solution is to follow a two-step process using MPEG Streamclip and Real Export Producer. Both are freeware:

http://www.squared5.com/svideo/mpeg-streamclip-mac.html

http://www.realnetworks.com/products/realexport/index.html

I know you have Final Cut Pro, but this is for the benefit of those who don't.

Real Export Producer is a QuickTime export module that works with many OS X video apps (including QuickTime Pro), allowing you to export your footage to the Real Video format which is cross-platform and has pretty good compression. The export module is not compatible with OS 10.4.

If you prefer MPEG4, you can probably do the needful using just MPEG Streamclip. The tricky thing is setting Streamclip's export dialog just right so you get both letterbox removal as well as high-quality scaling to a smaller frame size for web viewing, while preserving the correct aspect ratio. You can experiment with this and post a follow-up if it has you stumped. (Fortunately, once you get it right for your particular material, you can save it as a preset, and then use that preset to process additional files.)

These suggestions may benefit readers who are trying to do something similar to what you want, but don't have FCP. I'm not sure how interested anyone is in using these tools, so I'll say no more for now. Let me know if you have questions, and I'll try and post a follow-up.

Regarding Real Video, I kind of hate that format as an end user, especially since Real Player has always sucked on the Mac side. But I have to admit it's a good format for content producers. Real Video is like the Roach Motel of compression formats - video footage checks in, but it doesn't check out.

I've uploaded a short Real Video sample that uses a data rate of 384 kilobits, and a custom frame size of 480x240. I like this size for 2.35:1 material. The simple 2:1 aspect ratio divisible by 16 can be a good way to go.

I believe this short clip was produced starting with a full 720x480 clip containing 2.35:1 material with letterboxing, and using MPEG Streamclip to crop and export a 480x240 .mov using Apple Component Video YUV 422. Then the 420x240 file was opened in a QuickTime video application (BTV Pro), and exported using Real Export Producer.

-Pianoman

ww2joke.rm

[ehmjay]

Thanks Pianoman.

I don't think I'm going to use Real Media as it's such a pain to have to deal with, so I think I will stick with quicktime.

I've been playing around with the formats in compressor and think im getting the hang of it.

just one more thing, this is a fairly simple question.

while eventually I'll upload these to the web right now they're sitting on my HD. I dont want to keep full rez versions because of the files size, and I have a lot of shorts on here right now. I want to compress them all to a good format thats small and still looks great when put into full screen.

Thus, since for now the only person viewing them (for now) is me, is H264 the way to go?

(I plan on doing MPEG-4 once I put them on the web which i will just create from the H264).

I also have created iPod versions of everything (which was simple enough.)

thanks for the tips!!

(Basically the question is, what will produce smaller file sizes for the same/better quality/sized films? H264 or MPEG4?)

[terryj]

(Basically the question is, what will produce smaller file sizes for the same/better quality/sized films? H264 or MPEG4?)

first I'm sorry I have to say it...REAL MEDIA? WTF?!?!?
YEEECCHHH!
pm, you coulda KEPT that (cheap) tip....
Who the hell uses RM anymore? Do they even exist still,
since they failed to gain any ground in the online buying video/audio
war?

(apologizes to Piano...but...WTF?!? )
lol!
............

ok,
now as on to the question..
ehmjay, without looking at your footage it would be hard to say..
depending on the amount of Talking heads to action packed action ratio,
it's a toss up. You'll most likely only end up shaving off only a mb or two
here or there, using either codec, depending upon the footage.

Better as Tug suggested to go with the
widest compatiblitiy for your audience..
Your audience will thank you for it.
AND as a potential
audience member, I will go ahead and say "THANK YOU!"
for encoding for iPod standards video, it will not only
save me the headache of doing so, from your web based footage,
but will make it easier if i like your stuff to point it out to
my other "ipod enabled" friends.

what makes me bypass a video is compatiblity with my needs as a (1) Mac User,
and (2) a BUSY mac user. Don't freeze out potential audience members
in an effort to shave a few MBs that won't matter here or there.

and Piano....

[pianoman719]

Terry, I hate Real Media as much as the next Mac user of taste and sensibility. But yes, a lot of people still use it for streaming video because it works for content producers, is dual platform, and produces video that our esteemed readership can't easily repurpose. NPR, C-SPAN, and the BBC can't all be completely nuts (or can they???).

There are plenty of things I hate about Real Media, but at this point video quality is not one of them. It looks good, and the file sizes are small. If I were a content producer on a budget, and I didn't want people burning DVDs of my content, I might choose Real Media - which I've already described as the "roach motel" of video formats.

Hey, like a hot poker up the nether regions, Real Media might be useful to someone for some reason. Don't lambaste me for mentioning it.

My ideal format would be MPEG2. Then everything people download will be almost ready to burn to DVD, and we won't have to answer any more questions about how to convert .avi files.

-Pianoman

[terryj]

Terry, I hate Real Media as much as the next Mac user of taste and sensibility. But yes, a lot of people still use it for streaming video because it works for content producers, is dual platform, and produces video that our esteemed readership can't easily repurpose. NPR, C-SPAN, and the BBC can't all be completely nuts (or can they???).

I might not question their sanity, but I do question their choice of delivery method!

For all intents, they probably got sold a "bill of goods" on RM's viability as
a delivery format; however, they did not get truly sold on its viability for
CONSUMER use. In terms of scalability, as well as keeping pace
with the needs of its consumer base, RM has fallen quite short when
stacked against H.264/MPEG-4.

There are plenty of things I hate about Real Media, but at this point video quality is not one of them. It looks good, and the file sizes are small. If I were a content producer on a budget, and I didn't want people burning DVDs of my content, I might choose Real Media - which I've already described as the "roach motel" of video formats.

*shrugs*
A better alternative if your on a budget with WIDER compatiblity for all users is
Flash 8 video, which by and large meets the demands you just mentioned,
while not hampering ANY percent of the viewing audience.

Last time I looked, Flash video was gaining ground and was supported WIDELY
out the box often more Natively in the browser interface than the latest iriteration
of RM.

A content producer should have options for protecting their content, true...
I'm a content producer, and I want this option. But, I also don't want
to cripple my audience before they can DO any infringement.

Flash Video offers that to the widest ( READ: technophobic) populace
who just need to click on the link and view. You Tube, Yahoo Video, Google Video etc.
are all standardizing on this format, and is more "consumer viable",
meaning the non tech savy won't have to worry about going to
get a player downloaded and having to meet certain system requirements.
It's already in the browser, built inready to access on all computers.
(Adobe will make sure of it if it isn't.)

Real depends on you having bought into their player software at some level
( last I looked Silver /Gold /Plus /Superpass, they hide the FREE one behind
a Credit card screen)
to be able to view most content, and to
keep certain system requirements to enjoy the benefits of same player.
Not to mention, IIRC, it expires in 14 days or some such ( trial), and then
you have to ante up?
Talk about "restrictive" DRM!

Flash allows for 10.2 users on bubble iMacs
to view video in Safari 1. Much more "consumer viable".
system req-Flash

That's crappy and I'm ( hopefully) sure we agree on Real's practices being the worst.
Their video quality, when buffered, is very good though, I do concede that,
much better than say most .asf video streams I've seen.
*shrugs*

Hey, like a hot poker up the nether regions, Real Media might be useful to someone for some reason. Don't lambaste me for mentioning it.

"who smelt it, dealt it, return fire and on him pelt it."


I'm all for free /low cost alternatives, because I realize we are a mix
of Consumer/Prosumer/Pro guys here,
and like you have OFTEN said, "not everyone can afford [insert here]"
so yes we should offer all alternatives for various levels of.......video enthusiasts.
(sorry if that doesn't quite fit...it was the first that came to mind as an all in one descriptor)

But Real? Media?
[shakes head]

sorry, I respectfully disagree.... :P

My ideal format would be MPEG2. Then everything people download will be almost ready to burn to DVD, and we won't have to answer any more questions about how to convert .avi files.

-Pianoman

on this,
we respectfully agree.

[ehmjay]

"My ideal format would be MPEG2. Then everything people download will be almost ready to burn to DVD, and we won't have to answer any more questions about how to convert .avi files. smile.gif

-Pianoman"

That's what the Archive.org is for!