Video for web - Quality vs. Size

[Jeff_NJ]

Hi fellas,

I'm trying to put some video I produced on the web for people to download. The problem is, it's either low quality, yet a manageable download, or its high quality and a huge file size.

I guess my question is, what format is best? .mov, .avi, mpeg1, .wmv? I shoot in widescreen 720x480 and usually shrink them down to 320x240.

Any suggestions would be great help. Thanks!

Jeff

[mats.hogberg]

What do you put into "best"? Quality vs file size is the eternal trade off. Some codecs are more efficient than others, but may be lacking on the target computer. mpg1 is the most universal codec, playable by most ny computer. Alas, it's inefficient, and would require like 1000 kbps for a half decent 320x240 video.
wmv is more efficient, but then only Windows boxes will work without add ons.
mov is fine too, but require a Quicktime player to be installed.
AVI can be so many different things - some codecs are installed with Windows, most efficient recent codecs require the user to have installed it.
Is "best" the most efficient codec, or is perhaps the "best" codec the most universally understood?

/Mats

[gfx_vietnam]

And with editing & compositing, mov & avi, which is better?

[guns1inger]

And with editing & compositing, mov & avi, which is better?

Neither and both. Again, it depends on the codec used to compress the video inside the quicktime (mov) or avi container. Most lossy compression codecs are poor for compositing and effects work. DV is poor because the way the colour data is compressed makes green and blue screen work difficult. mpeg-1, 2 and 4 are poor because of the inherent artifacts, and because repeated encoding quick degrades the image. A lossless codec is best - huffyuv, lagarith etc.

For just editing, DV is very good. Mpeg-2 is OK if you have a dedicated mpeg-2 editor, but degrades quickly if you don't

[zoobie]

I've put a few hundred vids on the net (320x240) and each and every one of them have required different settings and sometimes deinterlacing.

One method I've found to determine sharpness is to watch for signs and other text. It's easily noticable which is clearer.

I'd go with wmv for compatibility and flv for quality.

[edDV]

I'll put on my marketing hat and say "Who is your customer?"

You distribute in the format your target customer will value. In most cases they just want it to play and if it is glorious, they will come back for a higher def version.

If your customer is Joe average computer geek, look at what everyone else is using ... wmv, flash, then quicktime.

Flash is the rising star but requires your target to download the player.

You would *NEVER* edit in any of these distribution formats.