Compressing Movies for Web

[DaveD]

It'll depend on the codec you use as well as a few other factors. MPEG-4 and Sorenson 3 both do a decent job squashing big stuff down to size. There may be others too. Quicktime Pro has an Export to Web option. Best thing to do is render the full-res, full-quality images from C4D. Then string the images together and compress them with Quicktime Pro or similar program. You don't need AE.

If you still can't get it small enough with the codec alone, you may have to try reducing the overall frame size, dropping some frames, or reducing the quality. All of this can be done in Quicktime.

[designbytes]

I use Sorenson Squeeze (Mac) to drop things to were they can be emailed, etc.

ex: 2.92GB HD (1920 x 1080 frames) shrunk to 2.4MB (960 x 540)
112.2MB (320 x 240 frames) shrunk to 672KB (320 x 240)
...using sorenson 3 codec

I use QTPro to stitch the frames together, save the *.mov and then run it thru Squeeze. Squeeze had dozens and dozens of presets for formats of mpeg-4, flash *.swf, flash *.flv, quicktime *.mov, windows media *.wmv, mpeg 1/2, and even mp3.....a couple of dozen codecs available as well

...and if you really know what you are doing you can tweak all the bitrates, etc in advanced mode.

[BUZZFX]

So the both of you use QT Pro. I was really disappointed with other mac apps like IMovie etc. so I shyed away from QuickTime, but it sounds like it isn't too bad now. designbytes you talk about using QT Pro to "Stitch" the frames together" What does that mean?

DaveD, you also talk about stringing the images together using Quick time. What may I ask do you mean by that?

Can anyone here tell me what a descent "compressed" size would be for my 480 x 270 (16:9) 200 images movie? Like I said above it was 68 mb. Nobody's going to download and watch that so what is a reasonable size for this size of a movie to be?

Thanks

[govinda]

Quicktime Pro is a must-have app. It's not like iMovie. Quicktime proper is fundamental stuff for all things animated, and to upgrade to Pro and have the ability to do quick cut/paste edits, import image sequences, see your frame number and export using codecs is really a bargain at $29.95, regardless of the need to repurchase every few years when there's a major upgrade, which invariably will lead to Wagner-esque spouts righteous indignation on this forum and many others.

'Stitching' together means importing an image sequence. It's just shift-command-o, choose your frame rate, bam. Then save it as a .mov. Then do a command-e to export, choose Options and select your codec from the pull-down list, and then you're in a world of things that you should google such as Keyframes Every X frames, Max Data Rate, Save for Streaming, and all that. You'll see and surely ask about that stuff.

There's no target size really, but a range of acceptable. If you do the right kind of compression, you'll naturally get sizes that do the job. There's a years-long debate over which codecs to use, and this isn't the place to recapitulate that mess. I use h264 for motion drafts with high-end clients who don't mind the gamma shift (don't ask); I sometimes use PNG just for kicks with clients I know well, while Sorenson 3 and photo-jpeg are safer for official business (demos and higher-level client motion reviews) and still give good sizes if larger than h264. And by 'safer' I mean, not as much chance that someone won't be able to play your movie, which must be avoided at all costs if it's a demo reel. So as you might have guessed many wise people provide several flavors of codec-encoded demo reels for their visitors to download from their websites. And then I know people who only provide h264, because it's newer and because the people who hire them will surely be able to play the reel.

Tag, someone else's turn. :D

[Neil V]

I tend to use Cleaner 6.5 which does a great job of compressing a large file down to an acceptable size for web. The other option I'm currrently exploring is exporting my large Quicktime movies as FLVs. The final sizes for FLV are very small with a moderate loss in quality. Those are the two options I would explore.

[imashination]

Use quicktime pro, export as H264, medium quality, youll get a 1 meg file at most.

[designbytes]

'mash is right....qt pro will do 90+% of what you need. Keep it simple and cheap without having to learn the esoterica of video compression, etc. -- unless of course that is what you need.

I had collected Squeeze from past years and got used to it. I liked the number of presets, different file formats, watch folders, etc.

[DaveD]

So the both of you use QT Pro. I was really disappointed with other mac apps like IMovie etc. so I shyed away from QuickTime, but it sounds like it isn't too bad now.

DaveD, you also talk about stringing the images together using Quick time. What may I ask do you mean by that?


You're better off rendering a series of images from C4D rather than a movie. If the render shuts down at any point you'll lose the movie. If you have images you still have anything that's been completed. "Open Image Sequence" in QT Pro allows you to string together the images into a movie.

As for QT being bad or not, QT is the multimedia technology that most multimedia apps are built on. IMovie, Garage Band, even Cinema's export to QT movie all tap into the existing QT technology already on your computer. QT Pro merely provides an interface for tapping into the features that are already in Quicktime. Be warned of potential QT 7.4/C4D incompatibilities right now though. Check the other threads on this board for details.

[NWoolridge]

So the both of you use QT Pro. I was really disappointed with other mac apps like IMovie etc. so I shyed away from QuickTime, but it sounds like it isn't too bad now. designbytes you talk about using QT Pro to "Stitch" the frames together" What does that mean?

Maybe your expectations aren't in line with the programs your using. iMovie is an excellent consumer-grade DV editor; it is really tailored to the import and editing of DV-format footage (and some recent consumer HD formats). It is not a tool for general video editing or compositing; look to FCE, FCP, or AE for that. And for transcoding (the process of moving footage from one encoding method to another), its hard to beat QT Pro, though there are free tools like QT Amateur and iSquint that can also do the job.

Can anyone here tell me what a descent "compressed" size would be for my 480 x 270 (16:9) 200 images movie? Like I said above it was 68 mb. Nobody's going to download and watch that so what is a reasonable size for this size of a movie to be?

Depending upon whether the movie has audio, you should be able to get it well under a megabyte. Here's a render from cinema that was originally more than 60 MB (uncompressed), but is down to 312 Kb (640x480, 90 frames, h.264 at 900 kbits per second data rate) after export via QTPro:

http://www.bmc.med.utoronto.ca/c4d/NPR_head_QTPro.mov

Important: do not render with these types of settings directly from C4D or AE; the results will be bad. Modern codecs need look-ahead or multiple-pass capability, which they cannot get when rendering from a 3D app or compositing app. Here are two movies, rendered directly from C4D and AE with the same settings as above, and the results are far poorer image quality and larger file sizes!

http://www.bmc.med.utoronto.ca/c4d/NPR_head_C4D.mov
http://www.bmc.med.utoronto.ca/c4d/NPR_head_AE.mov

Nick

[BUZZFX]

Quicktime Pro is a must-have app. It's not like iMovie. Quicktime proper is fundamental stuff for all things animated, and to upgrade to Pro and have the ability to do quick cut/paste edits, import image sequences, see your frame number and export using codecs is really a bargain at $29.95, regardless of the need to repurchase every few years when there's a major upgrade, which invariably will lead to Wagner-esque spouts righteous indignation on this forum and many others.
Richard you've done a good job of convincing me! :)

'Stitching' together means importing an image sequence. It's just shift-command-o, choose your frame rate, bam. Then save it as a .mov. Then do a command-e to export, choose Options and select your codec from the pull-down list, and then you're in a world of things that you should google such as Keyframes Every X frames, Max Data Rate, Save for Streaming, and all that. You'll see and surely ask about that stuff.
OK, I've imported sequences of images into Flash before I didn't know it was called that. Thanks for explaining!


I use h264 for motion drafts with high-end clients who don't mind the gamma shift (don't ask)
Actually I've seen those awful color bands in videos when gamma shift occurs!
Richard, Thanks for the great answers. They've helped a lot! :)

I tend to use Cleaner 6.5 which does a great job of compressing a large file down to an acceptable size for web. The other option I'm currrently exploring is exporting my large Quicktime movies as FLVs. The final sizes for FLV are very small with a moderate loss in quality. Those are the two options I would explore.
Thanks Neil, I know FLV is mac compatible, but is the software windows based. How small can the files be compared to QT Pro files? I have also seen a few DivX movies lately. I wonder how it compares?


Use quicktime pro, export as H264, medium quality, youll get a 1 meg file at most.
Wow, smiles all around! That's Great News ! :) Thanks Imashination!


'mash is right....qt pro will do 90+% of what you need. Keep it simple and cheap without having to learn the esoterica of video compression, etc. -- unless of course that is what you need. I had collected Squeeze from past years and got used to it. I liked the number of presets, different file formats, watch folders, etc.
Keep it Simple! That's good advice! Thanks designbytes!


You're better off rendering a series of images from C4D rather than a movie. If the render shuts down at any point you'll lose the movie. If you have images you still have anything that's been completed. "Open Image Sequence" in QT Pro allows you to string together the images into a movie.
Yes I do render a series of images. I only render a QT movie to quickly test the movie and look ofr flaws before final rendering a series of images. Thanks DaveD


Important: do not render with these types of settings directly from C4D or AE; the results will be bad.
NWoolridge, thanks for the video examples. So if I understand you correctly the best method is to render a sequence of images and import them into QTPro then export at H264?

[NWoolridge]

NWoolridge, thanks for the video examples. So if I understand you correctly the best method is to render a sequence of images and import them into QTPro then export at H264?

Yes, for a final render that is the best bet.

On the other hand, for draft or in-progress renders directly from cinema I'll often render directly to a quicktime movie, using PhotoJPEG compression. This makes for a scrubbable, pretty small file with good image quality, that is perfect for the review process.

Nick

[BUZZFX]

I also render a small QT movie for previewing before final. Thanks for the info. :)

[Dtox]

This is merely an opinion, take it or leave it.

You'll have better results if you take your rendered stills and drop them down to something like 1024x768(assuming your aspect ratio is 4:3) 32bit targa images as opposed to an HD resolution or digi-photo resolution like 2048x1536.
Then take those images and bring them into QTpro to output for the web.
The logic is that the quality hasn't diminished but the dimensions are smaller.
So when you compress it for the web you can lower the quantizer significantly.
Then the compressor doesn't take as long, and it doesn't diminish the quality as much as if you had brought full size frames in since it doesn't have to downsize them as much.

I like h.264 for HD quality if the compressed output will also need to be high quality.
But when the output is to be lower quality at low dimensions like you're doing, regular mpeg-4/divx is better.
Some think h.264 IS mpeg-4, but it isn't. It's mpeg-4 compliant.
H.264 is really for compressing HD content with high quality at *smaller* file sizes.
Small*er* is the operative word here.
It's not meant to shrink the file down as low as is needed for an embedded cilp.
If you notice when outputting h.264 the options don't appear to assume that type of file.
The presets are still in HD dimensions such as 720p-1080p. Which means it's intended to compress the video but retain HD specs.
It produces amazing output in that manner.
But it loses that when you go so far below those specs.
You can compensate a little with lower frame rates, but that has it's drawbacks as well.

If the output will be embedded in a web page, you're better off with regular mpeg-4 or divx/xvid.
Those codecs allow you to manually adjust the quantization for your desired output.
Problem with it is that the viewer will have to have that codec installed in the player plugged into their browser.
Having it embedded in the page is where the problem is.
If the place hosting the file uses quicktime or windows media for the embedded player, then it's not a problem.

But in the case of youtube or google video, they re-encode your already encoded file on their end.
Which seems to diminish the quality even further.

Personally, I hate video that's embedded on a start page.
It makes me feel like I'm being forced to do something I don't want to do.
If the page is a specific page for that video file, that's one thing.
But forcing people to watch your video on your homepage is rude to say the least.

[LucentDreams]

h.264 isn't only for HD footage. My little ipod doesn't play HD and yet the movies are h.264 and aac. Heck apples Ichat encodes with h264 as well

[BUZZFX]

Thanks Ben thats some useful information.
Also Thanks Kai for the reply too!


I used to use Flash and add a couple of audio tracks to it and it didn't work too bad.

If I import my image sequence into QTPro can I also add audio into QTPro or do I need to use a compositor application like AE for that? Can Quicktime Pro add multiple audio tracks and can they overlap like I did in Flash?

Thanks

[Dtox]

h.264 isn't only for HD footage.
It's not "only" for HD, but that's where it shines and what it was actually built for.



My little ipod doesn't play HD and yet the movies are h.264 and aac. Heck apples Ichat encodes with h264 as well Of course, they're all apple products.
As I said, this is merely my opinion based on my experience encoding.
For tiny files for use in embedded players, divx/xvid was what gave me the best results.
But at the same time, compressing HD video but retaining HD specifications gave me amazing results with h.264.
ALOT better than mp4, divx/xvid.

I also found it difficult to keep the file below certain sizes with good quality using h.264.
Which prompted me to try resizing the input file to smaller dimensions to lower the quantization. And even then, for a video at 320x240, divx/xvid had fewer artifacts and less smoothing.

[designbytes]

Thanks Ben thats some useful information.
Also Thanks Kai for the reply too!


I used to use Flash and add a couple of audio tracks to it and it didn't work too bad.

If I import my image sequence into QTPro can I also add audio into QTPro or do I need to use a compositor application like AE for that? Can Quicktime Pro add multiple audio tracks and can they overlap like I did in Flash?

Thanks

haven't done it, but appears so....below screen grabs from QT Pro Help

[DaveD]

QT is not a timeline editing app like AE, FCP or even iMovie or GarageBand. You can extract audio, video and other tracks from various movies and paste those tracks into other movies. But you have very little control over exactly where it's placed and other details like volume fading in/out and other goodies. It's best to think of it as a quick-use utility that does quick conversions and patches things up. It's not meant to be used as a full content creation tool.

[designbytes]

IOW, its $29....;-)
think of it more as a utility rather than an application

[LucentDreams]

It's not "only" for HD, but that's where it shines and what it was actually built for.



Of course, they're all apple products.
As I said, this is merely my opinion based on my experience encoding.
For tiny files for use in embedded players, divx/xvid was what gave me the best results.
But at the same time, compressing HD video but retaining HD specifications gave me amazing results with h.264.
ALOT better than mp4, divx/xvid.

I also found it difficult to keep the file below certain sizes with good quality using h.264.
Which prompted me to try resizing the input file to smaller dimensions to lower the quantization. And even then, for a video at 320x240, divx/xvid had fewer artifacts and less smoothing.

One of the main focuses for h.264 was actually for 3gp use for mobile devices which are all very low res. Keep in mind too that flash now is supporting h.264 as its standard codec, and both google and youtube (granted they are the same company) are switching all encoding over to h.264.

Its definitely a codec for low res work. I think the issue your facing is probably in the lack of control QT pro itself offers for encoding as it doesn't offer the majority of features available to the codec. As already stated QT pro is more of a utility than an application. Its very limited, but for the average user its suitable. If your going to be doing serious publishing on the web you should have a serious compression software. Full H.264 makes the DivX pro codec look simple.

[StructAural]

For a very cheap and effective program check out VisualHub - it's superb and very easy to use (and only 23 dollars or so). I use it over QT Pro and After Effects for most recoding.

http://www.techspansion.com/visualhub/

[wonky]

Visual hub is one of the best lifesavers at video encoding I have ever used. It has its limits though.
The other godsend (free)is mpeg streamclip which can read and encode things when others fail, it is VERY fast too.

I would also install perian(free) as it will allow you to read and write in many other formats through quicktime.

My company site uses mp4s from VHub and we also throw then up to youtube too. Choice is very important when dealing with clients.

http://www.streetmonkey.tv

[govinda]

I just went and bought VisualHub. Part of it was the advice of respected members, part of it was that when you go to 'Advanced' you see the message at the top in the screenshot below. :D I'm ALWAYS going to buy stuff by people like this.

As bonus enticement to someone like me, in Prefs the dialog reads 'Play Sound When Complete (Uncheck this for ninja-like video processing).'
:thumbsup:

[designbytes]

hmmm....that is the definition of "advanced" in my dictionary ;-)

[DaveD]

I'm ALWAYS going to buy stuff by people like this.

I have some video software (don't recall the name, may even be from the same folks) that also has funny dialog like that. Clicking on the options brings up a menu that says something like "So my presets aren't good enough? You think you can do better?" ;-)

[Horganovski]

Not sure if there's a setting I'm not seeing, but when I use h.264 compression on anything colorful the compressed version tends to look very washed out, to the point that a blank frame on the original which looks completely black, looks noticeably grey on the compressed one.

H.264 seems to work well when I've compressed editor renders or screen captures when making tutorials (more text based, less colors) but I just cant seem to get nice results for animation. FLV gives me much better results generally which is great for streaming on a website, but there are times I'd like to export something more 'portable'.

Anyone else had this issue?

Cheers,
Brian

[AdamT]

There's some kind of bug in QT's H.264 implementation that results in the wrong gamma being produced. Not sure if that's just on Windows or in OSX too. Makes it unuseable from my perspective.

[govinda]

Yeah, just google h264 gamma shift (http://www.google.com/search?q=h264+gamma+shift&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a) and you'll see a lot of stuff on that subject.

Edit: I just saw Adam's response, and I agree halfway. H264's still usable for clients who aren't your end client, like in-house review or producer review. But for the end release or for external clients, absolutely, big problem, better to go with Sorenson or something. That's why my earlier long response differentiated between the two uses.

Yes it's a prob in OSX also.

[Dtox]

If your going to be doing serious publishing on the web you should have a serious compression software. Full H.264 makes the DivX pro codec look simple.
I use QTpro only for quick conversions.
For real encoding I use Apple Compressor.

[StructAural]

I have some video software (don't recall the name, may even be from the same folks) that also has funny dialog like that. Clicking on the options brings up a menu that says something like "So my presets aren't good enough? You think you can do better?" ;-)

I like the quality settings in VisualHub - medium, high, go nuts!

:D

[BUZZFX]

QT is not a timeline editing app like AE, FCP or even iMovie or GarageBand. You can extract audio, video and other tracks from various movies and paste those tracks into other movies. But you have very little control over exactly where it's placed and other details like volume fading in/out and other goodies. It's best to think of it as a quick-use utility that does quick conversions and patches things up. It's not meant to be used as a full content creation tool.

Yes I realize QTPro cannot edit like AE and other composting apps, but if I want to make a simple movie for the web with an audio track this should work shouldn't it?

Maybe I could create multiple audio tracks in GarageBand and then import that as 1 audio track into QTPro? What do you think. Does that sound viable?

Finally, hearing all of this gamma shift problems when using h264 sounds kind of troubling. From what I gather H264 is a good setting for compression but is the color going to be washed out? What if a person were to oversaturate the images beforehand?

Is the Gamma problem with h264 bad enough to warrant going with FLV?

Thanks, just a newb in this area so all of the advice is appreciated.

[designbytes]

qt pro "export for web" function works pretty well and simply.

it allows you to pick the bandwidth versions you want to create: iphone wi-fi, iphone-cell, and desktop (all h.264); creates a poster image and then all the html to have it sit on a webpage, with instructions how to do so.

i have used it a couple of times and I was impressed as to the ease.

bite the bullet - only $29 - and explore. Not much to risk even if it is a total wash, which I would I don't think it would be.

[JoelOtron]

Use quicktime pro, export as H264, medium quality, youll get a 1 meg file at most.

This is my preferred output as well

HOWEVER (beleive it or not) most of my clients dont use QT, and those that do rarely are able to see an h264 file. So Im forced to use sorenson3 in many instances.

2 cents added...
Also--Been using visual hub as well for a while now--like it a lot. Great for things like flv files.

[DaveD]

Maybe I could create multiple audio tracks in GarageBand and then import that as 1 audio track into QTPro? What do you think. Does that sound viable?

QT Pro is limited to simple cut and paste functionality. Yes, it will paste an audio track or even multiple audio tracks and then squish them down to a single track for you. It's just difficult lining up in/out points and there's no volume fade in/out to clean things up.

Having said that, I believe the latest GarageBand will let you load a video so you can create a soundtrack for it. But absolutely, the combination of the iLife multimedia apps and QT Pro will allow you to do everything you need and more.

[JoelOtron]

Just found out the hard way that sorenson3 (and 1) appear to be removed from QT 7.4 :(
This codec was very useful to me.

(EDIT)
Luckily there is a way to enable older codecs:

(pulled from another forum)

"Under system preferences/QT/tab for Advanced, and check mark (show legacy encoders)"

that actually wasnt too bad--but was worried there for a moment.

[CGTalk Moderation]

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.