Best Video Format for Keynote

If you have access to a video switcher, I'd do it that way.

that said, if you do use Keynote, use the native res of your projector (usually 800x600 or 1024x768) and use the inspector to unlock the proportions on your videos, then resize them to fit the screen. If you leave them at 720x480 they won't look right on screen.

as for what format, many have found h.264 to be fine.

it depends on what you're comparing it with. H.264 will definately be smaller than a DV file, but if you're looking at a "reference" movie, it will APPEAR smaller, but if you were to find all the parts that it references, you'd see that it's much bigger than you think.

DV is roughly 4.5 min per gig. H.264 is nowhere near that. I made an h.264 of a dvd movie the other day and it came out under 2 gig for the whole movie. BIG difference.

yes, less taxing than DV or some other formats, though honestly I haven't done very many tests with video lately.

Brian

You did not give us direct comparitors.

How big was the original DV in Gb and what screen resolution and framerate were you using?

I would find this very useful as I am considering playing with this but don't want to chase every possible variation just to find a workable one.

Thanks.

someone else will have to answer that. I don't have time to run a bunch of tests for you.

Unfortunately, when you're dealing with video, chasing every possible variation is part of becoming proficient at encoding. I could very easily create an H.264 file that's many times smaller than DV that I think is ok, but you would think is unwatchable. Then again, I could create an H.264 file that's even LARGER than DV by using a far too high data rate. It would look great, but the file size (and the speed of the HD to read it) might make it unworkable.

It's a LOT of trial and error, but in the end, not only do you have a video compressed to YOUR liking, you also know what tweaking those numbers do and what effect they have. So, if you ever are using a more/less powerful machine, you'll know what to do to get your video to look and play great!

I understand what you are saying, I've heard it before, but if I can make a parallel with audio or photo manipulation I can certainly give you settings and at least some usable verbal description of the results.

I can classify audio and image types and their purposes and offer guidelines with methods to achieve good results, offering reasons why.

The original post compared the results of 2 different formats with some sizes for one but not the other. This is not much use as a comparison for results.

If you can not articulate a subject don't say it is undefinable, just work on the analytical and English skills needed to clarify the subject.

But with audio and Photo manipulation, you're not dealing with nearly as many variables as video compression. Actually, you could say that instead of dealing with one or the other, you're dealing with both, simultaneously, over time, and with far more compression options not the least of which is codec, bitrate, and keyframe rate.

It most certainly can be defined (and you can even stick to Apple's defaults for Quality settings if you prefer); however, I've found that those who decide to experiment via trial and error will find themselves much better off than those that have lists of numbers and no idea how they relate to one another to affect the output. Just because you don't like the answer that you've obviously "heard before", doesn't mean it's invalid.

Incidentally, there used to be a very nice website put out by Terran (I believe it used to be codeccentral.com) that listed rates, encoding settings AND showed video examples of what the output looked like. That was an excellent resource for users that did more than any list of numbers could ever do to show the uninitiated how this stuff works. I'm not sure if something like that exists today that would be even remotely as complete, but at least it'd be another option.

I'll look up codeccentral.

Yes I have heard it all before, and once I tackle the exercise I am always left wondering why "experts" are chronically uncommunicative.

I got exactly the same non-response when I started on audio editing and ripping, and can remember similar advice with Photoshop as well.

"It's all a matter of taste", "It varies, just make sure you choose a good one", "You can't get there from here".

...and there is always the definitive Spike Milligan excuse for unhelpfullness: "You can't get the wood, you know!"

Oddly enough I found it is perfectly possible to narrow down the choices and give a beginner starting points for most tasks. It is up to the student to then vary the details as they see fit.

Not at all the same as paint by the numbers.

PostNote: codeccentral.com takes you to Autodesk's site and their chargeable "tuition". How to make a living: make something unnecessarily difficult then offer "training courses that usually don't leave you any the wiser. So you'll take another and then another...

The reason I didn't give the size for h.264 is that the bitrate is completely variable. You can make it lousy, or you can make it look amazing. DV isn't adjustable, and I happened to know the size on it, so I posted it.

I'd checked before I posted. Since the info is no longer posted I believe it was codeccentral.com. It leads to Autodesk which bought Terran which originally had the site, so... ok, just checked archive.org and that WAS the site. 🙂 Still some good info in the archive, though the videos are, of course, not there anymore.

If someone wants a solution that's "perfectly usable" they can use QuickTime Pro's presets or the presets from a tool like iSquint (it's free). Or, they can go up the ladder to more expensive programs and use those presets. The developers of these applications have narrowed down your choices to give starting points for all tasks...usually in a good/better/best kind of configuration. However, there is no quick path to excellence (beyond the defaults), no matter what any enthusiastic student may think.

DV is roughly 4.5 min per gig.

Useful information, even though I would have expressed it the other way round. ie 220 Mb/min

H.264 is nowhere near that.

Sorry but my ruler doesn't have "nowhere near that" as a unit on it. Is this some non-metric unit only applicable in the States, used for NASA's Martian landers?

I made an h.264 of a dvd movie the other day and it came out under 2 gig for the whole movie.

Previously you used minutes to define length for DV. How long was the movie in minutes?

BIG difference.

The only BIG difference I see is the non-comparable units used to compare them.

h.264 can have different resolutions, which did you use? What Audio did you use?

How would you describe the results? Blurry, Jerky, with discernable artifacts, Audio metallic, near DVD quality, TV on a bad day?

Sorry but I am just trying to make sense of what you are saying.