Web delivery- HDV to flash...never having done this 'properly' before. at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > Cross-Platform Post Production Solutions > Distribution Center > Flash / Web Video


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old October 24th, 2008, 07:31 AM   #1
Major Player
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 755
Web delivery- HDV to flash...never having done this 'properly' before.

Apologies over the dodgy title:

I've just had a call from a guy I'm doing a bit of work with. He, for the main, works in web/design/flash animation. I've provided a video for him recorded in HDV (JVC HD100), edited in FCP/Motion then exported via compressor as a H.264 LAN file (the QT 7 download preset).
The results are pretty good - the physical size is just right (640x360- 16:9 by the way) and the file size is small, considering the quality, at just under 9mb.
This has now been embedded into a website via (and I've only just heard this phrase on here and via the web guy): progressive download. Unfortunately the results are not particularly pleasing to the eye. I 'presumed' (I really don't dabble into the underworld that is back end web) that the quality would be exactly as it was on the completed QT mov file...but it clearly isn't. Whilst better than youtube, it still looks pretty compressed and pixilated (maybe not helped by the fact that this is a Kung Fu promo and as such there is lots of fast movements).

I'm at a loss what to do next - send over a larger QT file (not using the H.264 codec)?
I've had a browse through this part of the forum (a quick browse...time is against me as the site needs to be 'live' very soon) and spotted a referral to Wowza - there's few pennies in the pot at the moment however so I might have to work with what I have.

Any suggestions will be gratefully received.

Many thanks,
Dave.
David Scattergood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 24th, 2008, 08:28 AM   #2
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Cambridge UK
Posts: 2,835
David, anything in this thread that helps you? Good luck!

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/dvd-web-v...am-please.html
__________________
Andy K Wilkinson - http://www.shootingimage.co.uk
Cambridge (UK) Corporate Video Production
Andy Wilkinson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 24th, 2008, 08:35 AM   #3
Major Player
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Winter Park, FL
Posts: 978
David, Please provide a link so we can see.

Most of the time I have had this issue is because they are using a different resolution on the player than the video that was embedded which can cause some quality loss. You should be able to get the same quality that the file has for the most part. Please be aware of any post processing QT may be doing to the file as it plays it back though. I have not worked directly with QT in a while as I use VLC but I have seen where some players will add post processing to sweeten the image.
__________________
Simple Thought Productions - Life @ 30,000 Words per second
Josh Chesarek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 24th, 2008, 08:40 AM   #4
Trustee
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: North Conway, NH
Posts: 1,745
David... You don't indicate how long your video is so it's hard to determine how compressed it is. Based upon what you are seeing in the compressed clip (artifacts, low quality) you may have compressed it too much and squeezed all the detail out of it. 9MB is pretty small for a clip of any length.

You might want to compress it again but this time raise the quality and data rate settings and see if it improves the situation. I cannot give you specific suggestions as I do not use FCP.
Tripp Woelfel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 24th, 2008, 08:53 AM   #5
Major Player
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 755
Thanks All - cheers Andy - I'll take a look at that link.

Quote:
David, Please provide a link so we can see.

Most of the time I have had this issue is because they are using a different resolution on the player than the video that was embedded which can cause some quality loss. You should be able to get the same quality that the file has for the most part. Please be aware of any post processing QT may be doing to the file as it plays it back though. I have not worked directly with QT in a while as I use VLC but I have seen where some players will add post processing to sweeten the image.
Josh - I'll see if I can provide the link...it's not live at the moment - I'm seeing a 'back door' version of the site. As far as I know, the web guy is using the same version of QT as I (and we're both on macs by the way). Looking at the file in a standalone QT player, it's just about right - sharp (colours have diluted a little which seems to occur with the h.264 codec for some reason). When the same file is being played back via the flash page however it's, for want of a better phrase, a shadow of it's former self.

Quote:
David... You don't indicate how long your video is so it's hard to determine how compressed it is. Based upon what you are seeing in the compressed clip (artifacts, low quality) you may have compressed it too much and squeezed all the detail out of it. 9MB is pretty small for a clip of any length.

You might want to compress it again but this time raise the quality and data rate settings and see if it improves the situation. I cannot give you specific suggestions as I do not use FCp.
David - it's a really short 45 sec piece. I'll try and play with the h.264 settings (I'm using compressor for web output settings - best for 'LAN'). If it were playing on the site as it stood then we'd be more than happy...but it's degraded somewhat (and it's not a 'too close to call' judgement - it's quite obvious the crispness has been stolen somehow?!?).

I'll look at the settings within compressor for the H.264 output, but perhaps try a larger QT file, either via compressor or directly exported from FCP.

Thanks for your replies.
David Scattergood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 24th, 2008, 09:23 AM   #6
Major Player
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 755
Checking my output to compressor from FCP it was set at medium quality - I've changed this to best now and it's currently being processed.
I was told that I couldn't make the physical size any bigger (currently at 640x360) as Flash won't 'shrink' this too fit but will show the video at the original size (which is the size it needs to be).
I haven't as yet tried the Mpeg codecs but will do.
The link Andy provided has some advice on there (the bitrate calculator is a handy tool) and perhaps it might be worth investigating a different player to show ('progressively download'?) the clip?

I'll persevere till it looks good...we have a few more projects coming up that will absolutely require good looking clips.

Cheers all.
David Scattergood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 24th, 2008, 10:53 AM   #7
Major Player
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Winter Park, FL
Posts: 978
The video size sounds like it should be fairly high for 45 second video @ 9MB That is a very high bit rate I would actually think you could lower it a bit and still keep the quality.Either way, the guy for the website should not need to reencode the video to play in flash so if the file looks good when you play it via QT but bad when it comes through the flash. Can you provide the file outside of the site? We could look at it to make sure everything is as it should be with the file.
__________________
Simple Thought Productions - Life @ 30,000 Words per second
Josh Chesarek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 24th, 2008, 11:14 AM   #8
Major Player
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 755
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Chesarek View Post
The video size sounds like it should be fairly high for 45 second video @ 9MB That is a very high bit rate I would actually think you could lower it a bit and still keep the quality.Either way, the guy for the website should not need to reencode the video to play in flash so if the file looks good when you play it via QT but bad when it comes through the flash. Can you provide the file outside of the site? We could look at it to make sure everything is as it should be with the file.
I could try and add the original QT file here...give me a moment to try that - hopefully I can add the link to site too - and you'll notice the drop in quality instantly.

I've compressed a couple more attempts, with different bit rates and quality (using Quicktime) set to Best rather than Medium. That file is 22mb. Currently compressing a straight QT conversion at the moment...and as I type that, it's complete...at 191mb...ahem, slightly larger than expected!

Here's the 9mb (8.8) file:
Attached Files
File Type: mov Final Kung Fu LAN FILE.mov (8.81 MB, 3187 views)
David Scattergood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 24th, 2008, 11:34 AM   #9
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Bend, Oregon
Posts: 206
The quicktime video looks pretty damn good for the size. It would be interesting to see the page that you embed the video in to see how the quality changed, if you could get us a link that would be great.

(note: usually when embedding an h.264 video into flash the video is saved in a mp4 wrapper not mov)
__________________
http://wildlookout.com
Wes Coughlin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 24th, 2008, 11:39 AM   #10
Major Player
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 755
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wes Coughlin View Post
The quicktime video looks pretty damn good for the size. It would be interesting to see the page that you embed the video in to see how the quality changed, if you could get us a link that would be great.

(note: usually when embedding an h.264 video into flash the video is saved in a mp4 wrapper not mov)
Yes - I've been pleased with the H.264 (web download 7 for LAN setting in compressor).
Might the Mp4 wrapper effect this (I know little about embedding video into flash I'm afraid - apparently the video is 'linked to' rather than 'a part of' the flash site...?)

Here we go...try this link and let me know, if possible, where it might be going wrong:

index
David Scattergood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 24th, 2008, 11:51 AM   #11
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Bend, Oregon
Posts: 206
I see what you did! You went into flash and create a swf project and embedded your video into that and then exported that project and embedded the index.swf file onto your page.

This is not the best way to embed a video into flash. What you usually do is get a flash player such as the open source JW FLV Media Player (JW FLV Media Player). You embed that player.swf file onto your page and link the "src" parameter to your video file.

Here is an article I wrote about using the JW Flash Wizard to help you embed your videos in flash JW Flash Player Wizard | Vidlivery
__________________
http://wildlookout.com
Wes Coughlin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 24th, 2008, 12:05 PM   #12
Major Player
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 755
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wes Coughlin View Post
I see what you did! You went into flash and create a swf project and embedded your video into that and then exported that project and embedded the index.swf file onto your page.

This is not the best way to embed a video into flash. What you usually do is get a flash player such as the open source JW FLV Media Player (JW FLV Media Player). You embed that player.swf file onto your page and link the "src" parameter to your video file.

Here is an article I wrote about using the JW Flash Wizard to help you embed your videos in flash JW Flash Player Wizard | Vidlivery
What the web guy did you meant!! I've never 'undone' the boot of a webpage and looked at all the wires and electronics...I've so far managed to leave that for other people :)

Cheers Wes - I'll pass your info on and hopefully get this sorted...be good if it works as we want it.

Many thanks.
David Scattergood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 24th, 2008, 12:44 PM   #13
Major Player
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Winter Park, FL
Posts: 978
the wrapper should not change anything in terms of it looking better or worse. The only thing the file should have done to it is the ATOM moved to the front of the file so people can do progressive downloading. Most video compression tools offer an option to enable to do this which ussually is named something along the lines of http streaming.

Simple Flash Video Player

The above link is your video in the JW FLV player you have to wait a moment for the file to download before it plays but once it does it should be fine. The quality looked really good overall for the ammount of motion and such.
__________________
Simple Thought Productions - Life @ 30,000 Words per second
Josh Chesarek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 24th, 2008, 01:16 PM   #14
Major Player
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 755
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Chesarek View Post
the wrapper should not change anything in terms of it looking better or worse. The only thing the file should have done to it is the ATOM moved to the front of the file so people can do progressive downloading. Most video compression tools offer an option to enable to do this which ussually is named something along the lines of http streaming.

Simple Flash Video Player

The above link is your video in the JW FLV player you have to wait a moment for the file to download before it plays but once it does it should be fine. The quality looked really good overall for the ammount of motion and such.
Josh - that looks much better. I'm not sure how I would translate this to web guy, or what he would need to do to make it much better. Might it be because we are linking to the original file rather than embedding it within the website itself (and I'm quite possibly talking bo**cks here so apologies in advance).
The only other options were to try different file exports from the FCP timeline - MPeg4 or AVI format perhaps??

Suffice it to say, we could do with it looking just like the link you posted Josh.
Many thanks...this has been an enlightening afternoon!
David Scattergood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 24th, 2008, 02:27 PM   #15
Major Player
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Winter Park, FL
Posts: 978
I basically embed the video you posted here which is what you should be doing. I did not actually modify the file or anything. When I suggested modifying the file that was to enhance playback speed for the viewers. I use the JW FLV player that is linked above. Tell your web guy to try and use that.

Try this one: Final Kung Fu S.T.P Encoded

I rencoded the file a bit but to the same resolution which is actually 640*480 which is 4:3 new file size is about 5.6MB. Most of your video is indeed wide screen but when you do the zoom effect on the punch you do utilize the 4:3

The file is optimized for progressive download with the ATOM at the front of the file. If you like it, feel free to use it on your site.

Direct file link is: http://www.simplethoughtproductions....NFILE-h264.mp4 (right click save as)
__________________
Simple Thought Productions - Life @ 30,000 Words per second
Josh Chesarek is offline   Reply
Reply

DV Info Net refers all where-to-buy and where-to-rent questions exclusively to these trusted full line dealers and rental houses...

Professional Video
(800) 833-4801
Portland, OR

B&H Photo Video
(866) 521-7381
New York, NY

Z.G.C.
(973) 335-4460
Mountain Lakes, NJ

Abel Cine Tech
(888) 700-4416
N.Y. NY & L.A. CA

Precision Camera
(800) 677-1023
Austin, TX

DV Info Net also encourages you to support local businesses and buy from an authorized dealer in your neighborhood.
  You are here: DV Info Net > Cross-Platform Post Production Solutions > Distribution Center > Flash / Web Video

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:54 PM.


DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2017 The Digital Video Information Network