HD, the WWW and VS12.
Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2008 5:49 pm
I decided to plunge to HD. Bought a canon hv30 after seeing some video taken under the Friday night high school football lights (a big interest of mine) and was very impressed. I have been reading all I can and feel I am on the upside now of the steep learning curve. At least not intimidated any more. My primary interest at present is to publish on the web, at least until HD media comes down in price.
Here are my issues so far:
This appears to be the ideal file to transcode to for small file size and nice results on most of these sites: h.264 mpeg4, 1280x720 and around 3000 kbps video and 128 kbps audio
http://wiki.smugmug.net/display/SmugMug ... to+SmugMug
I created such a file using the third party software mpeg stream featured by smugmug in that article. The h.264 file is a manageable 63 megs where the original HD mpeg2 file was 117 megs. Both of these are examples of my test upload on two different sites.
Exposure room (free and a very nice site) shown here http://exposureroom.com/84d850ecce6a4c7 ... 48a563c1e/
And Smugmug trial (pay site) shown here: http://jamesmm.smugmug.com/gallery/6343 ... 2042_rsRqK
Mpeg stream is freeware that works good but is very slow. I would prefer to use VS but here are the problems.
It doesn support the creation of h.264 at 1280x720 unless I am somehow not seeing it.
Every time I try to put my newly created in Mpeg stream h.264 video in the timeline the program crashes immediately on both of my computers. So VS obviously doesn support this format at all, even though it is the preferred compression for stunning results publishing on the web in HD.
Also since HD had timecode imbedded, why can I split by scene when capturing like I can in DV? I understand it Mpeg but it seems the information is there to do it but VS won. When I shoot a football game I stop the camera between each play and used to make a nice folder with a separate file for each play of the game by splitting by scene on capture. I now can do this either and its inconvenient.
Is it time to scrap old faithful now? Is Corel missing the market here completely? Is there another file format that VS will create that is comparable in size and dimmensions to get these results? Anyone with more experience than me publishing HD on the web, I would love to hear your thoughts.
Thanks,
Here are my issues so far:
This appears to be the ideal file to transcode to for small file size and nice results on most of these sites: h.264 mpeg4, 1280x720 and around 3000 kbps video and 128 kbps audio
http://wiki.smugmug.net/display/SmugMug ... to+SmugMug
I created such a file using the third party software mpeg stream featured by smugmug in that article. The h.264 file is a manageable 63 megs where the original HD mpeg2 file was 117 megs. Both of these are examples of my test upload on two different sites.
Exposure room (free and a very nice site) shown here http://exposureroom.com/84d850ecce6a4c7 ... 48a563c1e/
And Smugmug trial (pay site) shown here: http://jamesmm.smugmug.com/gallery/6343 ... 2042_rsRqK
Mpeg stream is freeware that works good but is very slow. I would prefer to use VS but here are the problems.
It doesn support the creation of h.264 at 1280x720 unless I am somehow not seeing it.
Every time I try to put my newly created in Mpeg stream h.264 video in the timeline the program crashes immediately on both of my computers. So VS obviously doesn support this format at all, even though it is the preferred compression for stunning results publishing on the web in HD.
Also since HD had timecode imbedded, why can I split by scene when capturing like I can in DV? I understand it Mpeg but it seems the information is there to do it but VS won. When I shoot a football game I stop the camera between each play and used to make a nice folder with a separate file for each play of the game by splitting by scene on capture. I now can do this either and its inconvenient.
Is it time to scrap old faithful now? Is Corel missing the market here completely? Is there another file format that VS will create that is comparable in size and dimmensions to get these results? Anyone with more experience than me publishing HD on the web, I would love to hear your thoughts.
Thanks,