HD demoreel web video
 

Hello, I'm trying to put something on my website, but I can't get the encoding completely right.

Please take a look at http://users.telenet.be/wespproductions/new-page-9.htm and let me know what you think of the picture quality. It is a .wmv, originated from HD.

The edit isn't entirely definitive, but I'm testing how to put it up efficiently. Any help and suggestions are welcome. You're always welcome to tell me what you (dis)liked also - of course.

Werner, looks fine to me. What seems to be the problem?

One thing, for the "True Colors" I'd use something that was more... colorful! Like the shot of the Ferarri.

Just a thought.

I agree with Jay. Encoding looks good to me.

Regards,

I also agree with Jay, a color sample should be more "colorful" such as the spinning Ferrari trophy. The reflection of the cameraman in the window is a turnoff for me for some reason, other than that the quality is exceptional! Great quality footage.

The bit rate is way too high for streaming: 3.11 Mbps! You could divide that by three and still have great looking video at 640x360. The frame also looks cropped in Firefox; I had to set it to Full Screen to see the whole thing.

Thanks guys,

The problem I have with the encoding is the part of the streaming water after the 'true colors' announcement: it's rather flat and the colors don't quite as visible as on the original. Also there's a lot of blocking where the water whirls...

Emre, what kind of codec and setting did you have in mind?

Thanks again!

That'll be taken out in the final edit. I finished the edit somewhat fast, to experiment with some internet video settings. Apparently lots of people have problems playing back this clip at full res ot playing back at all...

You can still use WMV, but H.264 and Flash 8 are good too. IF you want people to be able to stream it keep the total bit rate under 1Mbps. 512kbps is even better.

Won"t that degrade the quality too much... ?

This is what you get for 512kbps (1/6 of the bit rate you used). You have to decide whether you can afford to lose viewers to maintain transparent quality. If I were you I would use a low bit rate video and offer high resolution stills to show viewers what the unadulterated thing looks like.

Is this what you are looking for?
 

Werner, I have been wrestling with the same problem for the past 2 months.
Now, after trying various encoders and formats I settled for Flash!

I don@t know if this is what you are trying to get - but to get the higher quality and size I had to use a much higher bitrate than others are suggesting here.
If your computer has a fast connection, and also a powerful enough processor take a look at :

http://www.gaijin-eyes.com

Follow the flyout menu to. Gallery/ Scotland/ HDV 16:9 then choose.
Or Stock Samples/ Japan and then choose.

(Oh yes, you will need Flash Player 8 or 9 installed)

Regards,

Douglas

Thanks, the picture quality is defenately better, but the frame rate seems to drop somewhat. Nice images though!

Thanks to you too, Werner.

I am not sure what you mean about the framerate.
The sequences are at 30fps.
If you mean that there seems to be some "stutter" or "jerkiness" when playing back it probably is due to your computers resources. Try and view the same material from another computer with a more powerful processor.

Another thing you must consider is what is your target audience? Will they have a setup that can view the higher quality material.
if the material is reasonably static then a lower bitrate will not be so niticeable..... but where there is a lot af motion and action lower bitrates will definitely show up as blockiness or fuzziness.

I have deliberately set my audience computer requirements much higher than an audience who want to watch sites of the YouTube type.

When they see the video stutter I think they will blame you before they blame their computer.

I have to agree to emre on this, I'm afraid.

That is why I took the quality of the sample on my website even further down. It is now only 1 Mbps. In order to keep it looking somewhat acceptable in quality I've brought the resolution down some more...