I am searching for a source of information detailing the capacities and
running times of programmes burned to CD and DVD using all the amazing
variety of compression systems, file formats, codecs, screen sizes, display
players (Real, WMP, Quicktime), and the optional settings and variations of
each.of these. And it would be great if recommendations for quality were
also given.
Does such a tome exist in download form or as a reference on-line site? It's
a nightmare!!
--
Maurice Fleisher
www.videoenterprises.co.uk
High Wycombe. UK

For any site to have a comprehensive set of data on the miriad of codecs
available would be nearly impossible. In a nutshell there are some hard and
fast rules. The larger the frame resolution and frame rate coupled with a
higher data rate the larger the file, and then there is a slope of
trade-offs in one fashion or another until you reach the very lowest of all
known factors.

What file size is too big? What target audience do you have in mind? How
much detail is there in the video you wish to present? All these are factors
to what is the preceived "quality" for that particular video.

You certainly wouldn't want to waste the time making a very high quality
video yielding a higher file size out of something as routine as a person
talking behind a podium. In the same respect you would not want to have that
same video compressed to the point of showing massive artifacting just to
save disc space. The very same holds true if you are presenting video of the
paintings in a museum. In this case you naturally would want to preserve the
quality as much as possible, and in doing so you will create a larger file
size.

In truth the file sizes of nearly any codec you use will yield very similar
results in quality and file sizes. Some may save a couple of MB here and
there. In truth there are no real "magic bullet" codecs that will squeeze
the Dickens out of a file and still produce a small file size. Though MPEG-2
is very close to the original video in many cases there is still the
trade-off between quality and file size.

When compressing video to any codec there is no way to tell someone else
what to expect in encoding times because each video is quite different from
the next. The codec must read the image information it is presented frame by
frame and then re-write that information, in accordance to the frame
resolution, frame rate and data rate you have chosen. If there is a lot of
picture information then it will take longer accordingly. If there is little
picture information it can take less time.

If the codec offers multi-pass encoding then it can take longer for the file
to be finished when the frame resolution, frame rate, etc. are set to a
higher standard, and less time for the same file on a single pass encode.
Again, all video files are different. About the only time you will get
really high quality is when the encoding is to a file evenly matches the
attributes of the orginal.

After all is said and done the other question that arises is "which codec
will provide the most widespread playback to the most users possible?"

If you, or anyone else, ever find this magic site where all this data has
been compiled please let us all know. I for one have been testing
compression against frame resolutions, frame rates and data rates for a very
long time. I can only tell you good quality by my standards is full frame,
full frame rate and if the file size comes in at about 21 to 25MB for 3
minutes so be it. I know the same file encoded to 320x240 MPEG-1 is nearly
the very same file size.

Your best bet is to encode short sequences of a wide variety of videos with
varying types of picture information to as many targets as possible in order
to judge the quality, or lack thereof, for yourself.

--
Larry Johnson
Digital Video Solutions

http://www.digitalvideosolutions.com
877-227-6281 Toll Free Sales Assistance
386-672-1941 Customer Service
386-672-1907 Technical Support
386-676-1515 Fax

Thank you Larry. It is a sad fact that I know most of what you have said and
I do appreciate that source content will always be a variable but I guess I
was clutching at straws in the forlorn hope that someone, somewhere has done
all the work I am trying to avoid and had it documented to some degree.
Someone once said to me "get a life!" and that is what I am trying to do
rather than sit in front of an infernal crashing machine grinding its way
through multiple conversions using multiple codecs with multiple setting
options for multiple players to see which is best for that particular video
for streaming or powerpoint or flash or whatever..............before
actually getting around to doing it!

Just a thought!
--
Maurice Fleisher
www.videoenterprises.co.uk
High Wycombe. UK

"Digital Video Solutions" wrote in message
m...
For any site to have a comprehensive set of data on the miriad of codecs
available would be nearly impossible. In a nutshell there are some hard
and fast rules. The larger the frame resolution and frame rate coupled
with a higher data rate the larger the file, and then there is a slope of
trade-offs in one fashion or another until you reach the very lowest of
all known factors.

What file size is too big? What target audience do you have in mind? How
much detail is there in the video you wish to present? All these are
factors to what is the preceived "quality" for that particular video.

You certainly wouldn't want to waste the time making a very high quality
video yielding a higher file size out of something as routine as a person
talking behind a podium. In the same respect you would not want to have
that same video compressed to the point of showing massive artifacting
just to save disc space. The very same holds true if you are presenting
video of the paintings in a museum. In this case you naturally would want
to preserve the quality as much as possible, and in doing so you will
create a larger file size.

In truth the file sizes of nearly any codec you use will yield very
similar results in quality and file sizes. Some may save a couple of MB
here and there. In truth there are no real "magic bullet" codecs that will
squeeze the Dickens out of a file and still produce a small file size.
Though MPEG-2 is very close to the original video in many cases there is
still the trade-off between quality and file size.

When compressing video to any codec there is no way to tell someone else
what to expect in encoding times because each video is quite different
from the next. The codec must read the image information it is presented
frame by frame and then re-write that information, in accordance to the
frame resolution, frame rate and data rate you have chosen. If there is a
lot of picture information then it will take longer accordingly. If there
is little picture information it can take less time.

If the codec offers multi-pass encoding then it can take longer for the
file to be finished when the frame resolution, frame rate, etc. are set to
a higher standard, and less time for the same file on a single pass
encode. Again, all video files are different. About the only time you will
get really high quality is when the encoding is to a file evenly matches
the attributes of the orginal.

After all is said and done the other question that arises is "which codec
will provide the most widespread playback to the most users possible?"

If you, or anyone else, ever find this magic site where all this data has
been compiled please let us all know. I for one have been testing
compression against frame resolutions, frame rates and data rates for a
very long time. I can only tell you good quality by my standards is full
frame, full frame rate and if the file size comes in at about 21 to 25MB
for 3 minutes so be it. I know the same file encoded to 320x240 MPEG-1 is
nearly the very same file size.

Your best bet is to encode short sequences of a wide variety of videos
with varying types of picture information to as many targets as possible
in order to judge the quality, or lack thereof, for yourself.

--
Larry Johnson
Digital Video Solutions

http://www.digitalvideosolutions.com
877-227-6281 Toll Free Sales Assistance
386-672-1941 Customer Service
386-672-1907 Technical Support
386-676-1515 Fax

"maurice" wrote in message
...
I am searching for a source of information detailing the capacities and
running times of programmes burned to CD and DVD using all the amazing
variety of compression systems, file formats, codecs, screen sizes,
display
players (Real, WMP, Quicktime), and the optional settings and variations
of
each.of these. And it would be great if recommendations for quality were
also given.
Does such a tome exist in download form or as a reference on-line site?
It's
a nightmare!!

Much of this is already posted at www.videohelp.com
Suggest looking there first and then seeking what is missing.

Maurice, what is the speed of you machine? If you have a P4 2.0GHz 400MHz
for 533MHz FSB and the right Intel chipset, or even AMD computer the Matrox
RT.X10 and RT.X100 offer Hardware-accelerated simultaneous batch encoding of
DVD, SVCD, VCD, and web formats.

Also, realtime output to MPEG-2 from the timeline of Premiere. 1 hour of
video equals 1 hour of encoding time.
--
Larry Johnson
Digital Video Solutions

http://www.digitalvideosolutions.com
877-227-6281 Toll Free Sales Assistance
386-672-1941 Customer Service
386-672-1907 Technical Support
386-676-1515 Fax

Thanks for that. I had forgotten the address.

--
Maurice
South Bucks.. UK

"Richard Crowley" wrote in message
...

"maurice" wrote in message
...
I am searching for a source of information detailing the capacities and
running times of programmes burned to CD and DVD using all the amazing
variety of compression systems, file formats, codecs, screen sizes,
display
players (Real, WMP, Quicktime), and the optional settings and variations
of
each.of these. And it would be great if recommendations for quality were
also given.
Does such a tome exist in download form or as a reference on-line site?
It's
a nightmare!!

Much of this is already posted at www.videohelp.com
Suggest looking there first and then seeking what is missing.