Uploading to Google Video using Compressor 1.x and 2.x

Question

Level 2

330 points

Uploading to Google Video using Compressor 1.x and 2.x

I recently upgraded to Compressor 2 (with Final Cut Studio)

The presets have changed.

I used to use MPEG-4 NTSC Improved Large Progressive for uploads to Google Video with pretty good results in a comparatively fast manner (both in terms of encoding and upload times).

So, I created a custom preset for Compressor 2 which I believe is the same as the MPEG-4 NTSC Improved Large Progressive preset in Compressor 1 (please correct me if these settings are in variance with the actual Compressor 1 preset):

320x240,29.9fps,768kbps,44k 128kbps audio

Beyond that, I was wondering what else I might try. The video is processed by Google Video into at .swf for Shock Wave plug-in. Given that, I imagine the highest quality would be going direct from Flash 8, which I do not have. Common suggestions on the Google Video support forum suggest mpeg-2 which I presume would have to be muxed first with the audio, which is an added step. I'd rather have it muxed from the start. Besides, for lower bandwidth encoding (so that it doesn't take forever and a day to upload on a DSL connection) any advantage in using MPEG-2 I think would be lost.

I have made a custom preset for H.264 @ 700 kbps to see how that compares with MP4 the old way. However, I do not know if Google Video will accept it. I'll have to make an separate test video to try to upload.

In the meantime, I'd be interested in folks experience uploading to Google Video using Compressor.

(Now that I finally have a DSL connection, I can start exploring delivering contend for ipod. Is there free hosting for this?

--Cris

G4 867 MHz, Mac OS X (10.4.8)

Posted on Dec 28, 2006 8:17 AM

Reply

Answer 1

Dec 28, 2006 9:32 AM in response to Cris McConkey

I use the Web Download (quicktime 6)800kbs or 600kbs preset and change to 640x480. I believe Google will take h.264, but it takes too long and they convert it anyway. I stick with MPEG-4 30fps which is what they reccomend and it seems to go the fastest.

Reply

Answer 2

Cris McConkey Author

Level 2

330 points

Dec 28, 2006 2:51 PM in response to Chris Clarke1

Thanks. I'll give that a try. I'll run the same video QT6 800 kbps and compare quality and encoding time.

Encode time for H.264 (is there a Senate version --lame joke) was longer, but for similar file size, there were dramatically fewer artifacts compared with MP4, though each still looked a bit softer, perhaps due to temporal noise reduction, or removal of some high frequency components of the image. Over all, I would say it is a much better encoding. However, the double pass makes long encoding time-- 138 minutes for a 13 min :21 sec video.

It will be interesting to compare.

Reply

Answer 3

Cris McConkey Author

Level 2

330 points

Dec 28, 2006 8:41 PM in response to Cris McConkey

Encode time for 43 min : 49 sec. QT6 for Web download MP4 29.97 fps 800 kbs. I changed screen size as well to 640 w, but I don't think this changes the encoding; just the default screen size on play. Image was noticeably sharper than MP4 done with Compressor 1.x (large progressive) without any really noticeable increase in artifacts; certainly a lot sharper than H.264. In fact, both look too soft by comparison. With respect to H.264, I noticed that there was a setting in the property inspector for adaptive detail which was off. I imagine that the I could tweak the settings so the image would not be so soft.

All in all, I think the setting Chris Clarke recommended are better, especially so given the faster encoding.

--Cris

Reply