Frage von Christian:
Hi,
I'm grad to my site for some videos to be completed. Only I can still not be appropriate for the codec s.besten decide.
The videos are all in Quicktime format, 320 x 240, 800 kbps audio codec QDesign or MP3.
I have read H.263 rather bad, especially that this codec only for peaceful images should be taken. In some tests I have, however, the H.263 at fast movements and changing picture seem less or no artifacts is, in contrast to Sorenson Video 3, but otherwise synonymous quality is very good. The size of the video (MB) takes almost nothing.
Can someone tell me which of these codecs are better suited for the web? The videos will be integrated into the website, as at apple.com / trailers.
Greeting
Christian
Antwort von Bruno Peter:
I am convinced that, one with Flash video gets the best results:
1. Starts very shortly after the start download
2. If it is embedded in HP enlarge and shrink
3. With a data rate of 700 kbit / s to get even with movements and Resolutionvon a 470 x 264 a good video quality.
I will create the *. flv files with Adobe Premiere Pro 2.0
Antwort von Sceetch:
I was already synonymous to the heart, but I've only the grad with the embedded Quicktime hinbekommen and am so very happy. Synonymous, especially since I do not know how the Flash movies with the control bar is ... synonymous because you start, stop, pause, etc. and you can advance the video a little load, so it plays smooth?
If I have someone on the mentioned codecs can say I would be very grateful!
MfG
Christian
Antwort von Bruno Peter:
Understand Your questions are not, in the above link but can you see two examples.
Antwort von Sceetch:
sorry, did the link above to see full ...
Thank you!
Antwort von Christian:
after some further testing I can say that the H.263 codec image quality with fast changing something better for them than the Sorenson Video 3rd Especially when this flood of images even with short black visors or crossfades decorated. The Sorenson transforms it into this case in quite pixels salad.
But synonymous of H.263 is not the yellow from the egg. He makes it better, but he tends synonymous with fast changing with additional image crossfades to artifact formation.
I would like to once more try with the H.264, but Canopus meckert the export rum "encoding error" ...
Maybe someone knows what's wrong. The newest version of Quicktime I have anyway.
Or if someone still another QT codec for web videos can only recommend that ever so forth.
MfG
-------------------------
With After Effects but I could now use the H.264 codec and the clip successfully exported. The image quality is the same size, despite (zuH.263) the madness! Not ma an approach of artifact formation, no preference as the wild images on the screen move.
Unfortunately, it takes several passes with the use of converting ne small eternity. The sound, unfortunately I have not chosen sufficiently high, as it seems. The klang sheets (QDesign).
Mysterious: I have a Pro version of Quicktime 7 to, I just wanted the sound track from a more successful version of the clip in the clip with H.624 and more. This is synonymous, but still sound after the sound is not as good as in the clip from which I've taken the sound. This goes beyond my understanding, since it is only one copy of the sound track, without any modification or re-compress ...
Antwort von Bruno Peter:
Well you see, so it gathers its own experiences.
Weiter so ...
