On Fri, 28 Apr 2017 08:08:15 -0400, OleFart wrote:
>Hey Thumper,
>
>What I am going to describe here is in no way a criticism of what you
>do. You put a lot of effort into your posts something I greatly
>appreciate. Just passing along some information.
>
>I came across something that I wonder if you know about, the MPEG4
>Video (H264) codec. I have been playing around with some of your post
>putting them through a converter program I came by. The results I am
>seeing are interesting.
>
>Sizes are rounded off
>You posted these
>[Windows Media Video 8 1024x580 29.97fps 1500kbps]
>Naomi Woods - Sweet Naomi.wmv 302,700,000
>Naomi Woods - Talking Is Overrated.wmv 407,000,000
>Naomi Woods.wmv 329,000,000
>
>I converted these to
>[MPEG4 Video (H264) 736x416 29.97fps 995kbps]
>Naomi Woods - Sweet Naomi.wmv 171,500,000
>Naomi Woods - Talking Is Overrated.wmv 270,000,000
>Naomi Woods.wmv 176,500,000
>
>As you can see the size difference is noticeable with the quality not
>being effected at all. In some cases the quality is better in all
>likelihood because of the smaller size.
>
>The reason for me posting this is will the smaller file size help with
>the volume that you post?
>
>I will note it does seem to take longer to convert these file than I
>would expect, perhaps because of the high compression. Not sure it
>would be the same when you capture them.
>
>Thanks for what you do
>
>Olefart
I have expiremented with various formats and sizes in the past and
settled with the WMV V8 format as a compramise between the quality,
size and amount of time it takes me to create them. I found the MP4
format to be the best quality also, but I decided against it due the
additional hours of time it would take me to create them. The quality
differance just isn't worth the amount of additional time it would
take. I also think that if you did a straight conversion, using the
same resolution and kbps, you would see an increase in the size of the
files.
Thanks for the intrest anyway. Constructive input is always welcome.
|
|