1.) De-interlace your video: Most video files are interlaced, which means that half of one image is blended with half of the next. On a Television this produces smoother motion, on a computer it produces junk.
2.) Lower your audio standards: Most users are listening to computer audio on tiny speakers. Cutting your sample rate to 22 or 11 kHz and the sample size to 8-bit will often produce unnoticeable audio changes but huge space saving.
3.) Shrink the window: While you don’t need to make video postage stamps sized. But reducing the window to half size creates a file that is 25% the file size of the original. That’s a BIG savings in space.
4.) Reshape the video: Most likely you are working with a video file that is sized 720 X 480 (or 486) pixels. You need to resize this to 640 X 480 for it to properly display on the computer monitor.
5.) Restore the washed-out picture: Video signals operate between an RGB value of 16 thru 235. Computers use an RGB value of 0 thru 255. You will need to restore the back and white point of your image. Many applications have this option.
6.) Improve the saturation: A video file displayed on a computer will also need the saturation turned up a bit. This is to compensate for what I call the Wal-Mart effect. Consumer TVs have their reds over-cranked to make skin tones appear richer on their cheap tubes.
7.) Frame Rate: Your video file is likely recorded at approximately 30 fps. This is needed for a television display, but not important for most web video. Reducing your frame rate to 15 or even 10 fps will result in a 50 - 66% savings in file size.
8.) Codecs: The file architecture you pick will often have its own codec chosen. However some file formats support a variety of codecs. Be sure to keep compatibility and audience requirements in mind. Newer codecs offer a significant advantage over older formats.
9.) Don’t use a Conduit: For faster compression, don’t run web compression through a conduit like Final Cut Pro to your compression utility. Instead, save a flattened, self-contained movie and then compress.
10.) Test it: Before you compress a lot of video, create a small test file. Try compressing 10 seconds of video with different settings. Find the ones that work best for you.
Richard,
I’m surprised you don’t recommend compressing from FCP. It does take longer, but you get the benefit of 1) I-frames at edit points and 2) compressing directly from the source material rather than first rendering to the sequence codec, then compressing.
What do you think? Rest of the tips are great.
For black/white point from FCP, do you recommend tweaking that in FCP or in Compressor?
Posted by Mark Spencer on 07/31 at 09:30 AM
Some of these tips are good, a lot of them seem like tips I would have read in 1998. Any plans for upcoming posts to cover high quality encoding? Thanks!
Posted by on 07/31 at 09:34 AM
To respond to Mark first…
I often find the direct to Compressor to be VERY slow and ties up a workstation and the project media for us… It works well on a few cases… but the trade-off is not often worth the wait.
For Black Point/White Point I do it in Compression tool… unless Timeline is ONLY for web… then we color correct there.
For Advantech…
Yes… these are classics… but I think of compression being shrinking… small devices… portable media players and phones… I plan on talking more about encoding in other posts… for large/high-quality files.
This post was really targeted for web review/podcast/and mobile compressions…
Posted by Richard Harrington on 07/31 at 10:25 AM
Just a follow-up: you say you correct in FCP’s timeline if the spot is for web only. But a black level in FCP of digital 0 is equal to 16 on the 8-bit RGB scale if I understand correctly - so I believe it’s not possible within FCP to set black to 0 in YUV color space?
Posted by Mark Spencer on 07/31 at 02:44 PM
Depends on the codec you have the timeline set to… I am nor in front of an editing workstation… but believe Animation and Photo JPEG can process 0-255… and that for some setups in is an option in Sequence settings (the whole process White as thing).
Posted by Richard Harrington on 07/31 at 03:22 PM
A few questions:
1) what defines better? Faster compression, smaller end file, or what?
2) for 1(deinterlace) and 4(reshaping): do these make the final file significantly smaller? How much does reshaping the format add to compression time? You say that deinterlacing is better for the computer, and that the interlacing produces a lot of junk, but what does that really mean?
Posted by history is a weapon on 08/01 at 06:02 AM
There are some useful tips here (de-interlacing, but several duds as well.
First, there is nothing I hate more than crappy audio on web-files. Most surfers seeking good quality media content have decent to very good speakers. Unless you are targeting dial-up users, please kill the crappy audio. Nothing says pro like great audio.
Second, variable 2-pass encoding of progressive files is really the big secret for good web video with 8 x 8 or 16 x 16 block sizes for optimal encoding. The bitrate you save should then be spend on better audio.
On short clips, there is really no excuse for the vast amounts of horrible, tiny sized, awful sounding video you find on the web. Including some of your tutorials posted here which can be hard to see on 1920 X 1080 screens (the smallest I have in my studio).
Posted by stephen v2 on 08/01 at 12:27 PM
First.. responding to history person
Better is smaller and cleaner… like I said in comments… compressing for download speed here… not encoding for maximum quality
Next reshaping… simply avoids a distorted image.....
NOW… Stephen…
Freakin Chill.... nice ot meet you too… do you always start a conversation by yelling…
It says cutting an audio rate will OFTEN produce little change for MOST users… compression is all about compromise.. this is an easy one.
As far as VBR… not all codecs support this.. but we discussed it and praised it an an earlier article this week.
Now as far as my tutorials… most ARE done in HD…
BUT the vast majority of users aren’t viewing the web at 1920 X 1080.. but feel free to be proud to be on the cutting edge.
YouTube will only accept a 640 X 480 file… which I give them… and it has 48k audio at 16 bit… they then offer most at 320 X 240… small ... I agree… but I don#t run Google.
If you actually listen at then end of most tutorials… I instruct people to visit iTunes or Adobe Media Player where most can be downloaded in HD… of course this takes about 15-30 minutes for most folks in the world.. so most appreciate watching a little first in a streaming player to decide if they want it.
Last I checked… you weren’t paying for any of these tutorials… Bandwidth costs money…
Feel free to go and download the 1280 X 720 versions that I mentioned…
but as a piece of advice… chill… flaming someone is not a great way to start a converastion or even have a disagreement.
Posted by Richard Harrington on 08/01 at 12:42 PM
Thanks for being so active in the comments.
Posted by on 08/01 at 08:33 PM
Richard,
I apologize if my tone came across wrong - I did not intend my post as yelling or flaming. I did point quality problem with your tutorials and don’t recall seeing links to download high quality other than iTunes (which I do not use) - my mistake.
But comments on audio stand and I will continue to make those strongly. I think audio/sound/mix is the #1 factor in perceived professional quality. I compromise visuals before audio, not the other way around. I do frequently cringe at the crappy audio you find all over the web. We often don’t have the time or budget for superb mixes. But that’s no excuse for reducing quality when it’s not really necessary or not taking a few steps to improve audio.
Posted by stephen v2 on 08/02 at 09:34 AM
Stepehen v2.. okay cool.
I mention video is available a end of all videos… little rude to send people off this website to another to watch something....
I run several personal blogs with lots of resources posted
vidpodcaster.com
photoshopforvideo.com
rastervector.com
finalcuthelp,com
Most of my shows are also on iTunes and Adobe Media Player…
Web video is always a compromise… when doing software tutorials… I choose to favor screen clarity… but thats a personal choice.
Posted by Richard Harrington on 08/03 at 12:49 PM
