PDA

View Full Version : Videotutorial: Suggestions to improve them



FranK10
03-15-2006, 09:08 AM
I appreciate a lot the videotutorials made by Proton and Graham. They are very useful and explain well the features of LW. So, first of all, thank you. :thumbsup:

I opened this thread to help you making those videos better from a technical point of view.
I deeply looked into their structure and I found some mistakes you made; because of this they grew up too much in filesize.

Here are some suggestions you could follow to improve them:

1) I noticed that in the mov files from Proton, there is audio uncompressed at 44khz mono, while video is in Sorenson3. This means a transfer rate for the video at 120kbs while the audio is at 705kbs: in a minute you get 900KB video vs 5,16MB of audio. Practically the videotut is all audio...
You must really compress the audio please!
In mov you should choose IMA 4:1 at 22khz mono: this will ensure best compatibility and quality. You will be surprised by how much you will save in your new video filesize without any audible loss in voice. Believe me!

2) the same problem with the avi from Graham. You used a 22khz mono but uncompressed. So the same rule apply here: compress it! In avi you could go safe with a Mp3 22khz mono at 32kbs. Yes it sounds very well for talking sounds.

3) When using TSCC codec, go in the config panel and put the compression slider at 'max compression': you don't loose any quality since TSCC is lossless, but you save more kbs.

4) if you record at a given res, for example 800x600 or 1004x790... don't resize it down to a lower res! Leave it as it is. Because otherwise you will get a very blurred video and the recompression of TSCC doesn't work well, so you end up with about 5x datarate. This happened with your 'Flatten' video of 74MB.

5) if you follow my above suggestions, this one could be a little unnecessary: you could save a bit more of filesize compressing the videos with rar. The other time I suggested it to you, it was a great increase because you left audio uncomp, so it was a save of about 46%, but if you follow now the above advices, you should gain a 2-5%, so now it could be trascurable.

You can also modify existing audio if you have already made some of them.

So, I hope I helped you a bit to make your videos more efficient with so little efforts more. If you have some questions tell me, I'm happy if I can help.

Thank you again for teaching us LW features! :)

WilliamVaughan
03-15-2006, 09:18 AM
I'll try the audio settings you recommend on the next demo I create. Thanx for teh heads up!

WilliamVaughan
03-15-2006, 09:23 AM
I'll do a test on the Render Status Video so we can compare. I'll post back with results

Sensei
03-15-2006, 09:29 AM
That's kinda funny.. I just ZIP-ed RenderStatus.mov from original 31 MB to 23 MB ZIP, and... 15 MB RAR.. :D

WilliamVaughan
03-15-2006, 09:32 AM
I just did the test and I will be using the Audio settings you recommened....thanx for the heads up!

I got the Render stauts to 11.6 megs and before it was 30.9....almost a third the size. Look for these settings on the next demo!

FranK10
03-15-2006, 10:22 AM
@sensei: yes that is what I was referring to when I was saying it was a huge compression with rar and half with zip (about 22%).
But if they do the right thing with audio it could be a plus unneded...

@proton: Good! I'm happy I helped you and I think all users will be happy for the new video's filesizes too!

Another thing: I noticed also you make 640x480 videos in Sorenson: they are scaled down. Here I'm not sure with Sorenson3, but have you tried leaving them at the original res? I think they will be less blur, but maybe you should increase the bitrate a bit. Also I think you could use a max res of 900x... not more. Maybe 800x600 or similar could be the standard to have more room to move tools.

Another point: if you want to show us some feature that it has to be rotated or zoomed in a single viewport like perspective maximized , lower the capture res! Because for the codec is a real pain to handle all that changing wires... Or at least use a high res in a 4 viewport, so the perspective one is smaller and the changing are minor.

Thanks

WilliamVaughan
03-15-2006, 10:43 AM
The file size is much bigger at the original size of the capture....but I don't see that much blurring on the demos....I can read every bit of text just fine.

I'll be re-compressing as many of teh older demos as possible so be on the lookout for new file sizes.

I think the new file sizes are a massive improvemnet...thanx for the hook up!

ufo3d
03-15-2006, 11:25 AM
please post more video today , so we can see the result. :)

Sensei
03-15-2006, 11:25 AM
@sensei: yes that is what I was referring to when I was saying it was a huge compression with rar and half with zip (about 22%).
But if they do the right thing with audio it could be a plus unneded...

I have better idea.. read below.. :D



Another thing: I noticed also you make 640x480 videos in Sorenson: they are scaled down. Here I'm not sure with Sorenson3, but have you tried leaving them at the original res? I think they will be less blur, but maybe you should increase the bitrate a bit. Also I think you could use a max res of 900x... not more. Maybe 800x600 or similar could be the standard to have more room to move tools.

From point of view person that wrote desktop recording software I must tell that the main problem making such soft is... hard disk transfer!

Let's for example mine desktop resolution: 1280x1024x32, this is 5 MB raw still data, and 25 fps is 125 MB of data that must be written to hard disk.. But even ultra fast double 250 GB HDD Serial-ATA on RAID have just 94 MB/s transfer..

To solve this problem desktop recording software could do following things:

- Rescale image while it's beeing screen-grabbed. This is also very fast method because data that has been read from graphics card memory (which is usually very slow BTW) are in CPU L1/L2 cache memory and could be used without re-reading, and only smaller rescaled image is truely written to slow DDR1/2 memory.. I have tried using graphics card blitter to rescaling but GDI Windows driver didn't blurred image making text completely unreadable..

- Ask user to specify area that is screen-grabbed. This will give you super sharp image, but user must see or remember what area is recorded.. On NewTek videos it's very often visible that center of screen is recorded and mouse goes outside for a while and other windows are moved here and there..

- Compress data immediately to AVI/MOV scream.. This is killing for CPU speed, 125 MB of data must be analized and saved to hard disk.. The better algorithm, the slower working.. With a lot of compression algorithms not just previous frame must be kept in memory but a few seconds of data..

Proton, do you remember EasySpline #5 video that had originally 37 MB size? I just rerendered it using QuickTime.. 'Animation', with the Best Quality, no compression, receiving 450 MB MOV file.. Then used WinRAR on this huge file and ended up with... 6.5 MB file!! :D

http://www2.trueart.pl/Products/Plug-Ins/EasySpline/Graphics/Movies/EasySpline_5.rar

This animation has 4 minutes!

FranK10
03-15-2006, 11:27 AM
@proton: Yes, you're right saying it is visible, not excessive blurred, but i compared the Sorenson ones to TSCC avi from Camtasia. There IS difference, really.
What's about making all with Camtasia TSCC avi? Remember TSCC is lossless, not lossy. It's like seeing your screen on my pc also at Fullscreen, without ANY artefact in moving video, not only in still.
I obtained a datarate of about a 2,5MB/min with TSCC at 800x600 audio included, so it could be an interessant alternative.
Anyway it's good also the Sorenson that is slightly more compressed.

Anyway I appreciate the changing direction and I think all lwers will.

FranK10
03-15-2006, 11:35 AM
@sensei:
you are my friend! :D
You understand the power of rar. I also thought of a similar approach and exposed the rar option to proton and Bryan the webmaster without luck.

One point noted from a user was that he wants to stream the video file without downloading it first and the unpacking to see it.

So it's a matter of compromise. I think with my suggestions they end up very good. Your is of course the max compression possible. It' a good thing to know. Let's see if they want to make two links for videos? One mov/avi and another rar? :D

Anyway I want you make another test :)
Try the same video using this compressor: 7zip with this extension at max compression.
It should be slightly better than rar. Let me see if I'm right.

WilliamVaughan
03-15-2006, 11:45 AM
When we first did the LW8 demo vidz the majority complained about using the TSS codec. It is my preference sincethat is native to Camtasia and has best quality for file size..

The feedback we got back then wasn't very good about the use of the codec and the best feedback we have gotten is with MOV files.

The tests I have done show the file size on the new MOV files will be much smaller (thanx to you) and should please both Mac and PC users all around.

None of my tests have been over 14 meg so far....and that is aon the largest that I have done....

Let's see how the next few play out.

FranK10
03-15-2006, 12:11 PM
When we first did the LW8 demo vidz the majority complained about using the TSS codec. It is my preference sincethat is native to Camtasia and has best quality for file size..


I'm glad you think like me about TSCC. But I see people are wide range, and there are also Mac user... It's a pity Quicktime can't play TSCC avi files (I think).

BazC
03-15-2006, 12:14 PM
I'm glad you think like me about TSCC. But I see people are wide range, and there are also Mac user... It's a pity Quicktime can't play TSCC avi files (I think).


It can! The ensharpen Codec works on Mac.

Sensei
03-15-2006, 12:14 PM
Anyway I want you make another test :)
Try the same video using this compressor: 7zip with this extension at max compression.
It should be slightly better than rar. Let me see if I'm right.

7zip? what's that? ;)

I tried WinZIP-ing this almost 450 MB file and end up with 135 MB file (WinRAR was 6.5 MB)..

You could do whatever test on your own, I gave you link to RAR-ed file.. Just download it and uncompress and do the test :)

FranK10
03-15-2006, 01:26 PM
It can! The ensharpen Codec works on Mac.

I'm not sure because I haven't a Mac to test, but from Camtasia Docs:

mov: "Requires Apple QuickTime. This is one possible choice if you must produce videos that will be played on both Windows and Apple operating systems. QuickTime can also play AVI files, but cannot play AVI files that are TSCC-encoded."

Maybe you must encode a mov file with the Ensharpen codec instead of sharing an avi with TSCC, but I tried to play such a mov in a PC and it doesn't compare to the avi TSCC one.

@sensei: 7zip is an extremely powerful compressor, the best actually on the market. Nothing to compare to zip, despite the name... It's generally better also than rar. Google it.

Sensei
03-15-2006, 01:55 PM
@sensei: 7zip is an extremely powerful compressor, the best actually on the market. Nothing to compare to zip, despite the name... It's generally better also than rar. Google it.

Oh my Gosh.. Compressing 450 MB file took 10 minutes! But decompression was extremely fast and took just 18 seconds.. Not bad for such a huge file, isn't?

And result is.. 4720 KB 7-Zip, 6104 KB WinRAR, 132 MB WinZIP and 450 MB original file..

http://www2.trueart.pl/Products/Plug-Ins/EasySpline/Graphics/Movies/EasySpline_5.7z

FranK10
03-15-2006, 02:00 PM
Have you seen I was right? :D

I know this stuff...

Anyway what have you used on settings? Which dictionary and word length? 192 and 255?

Impressive anyway. Isn't it?
I think someone couldn't believe to have 4MB from 450...

And yes decompressing is another stronger point for this prog also a lot better for decompressing rar archive themselves.

Sensei
03-15-2006, 03:02 PM
Have you seen I was right? :D

Proton, are you still with us? How about forcing the all LW community to install 7-ZIP archiver and having the smallest videos in history.. ? ;) People that're boring during download or one without broadband would fallen in love with you! (after a few rude words at the beginning, people don't like experiments ;) )



Anyway what have you used on settings? Which dictionary and word length? 192 and 255?

Used default Ultra mode, which has 64 word size.. I just made test with 256 bit, and it's just 17 kb less than 64 bit version but compression time went from 11 minutes to 16 minutes or so..


Impressive anyway. Isn't it?

Definitely! But data that we're working on was raw, pretty poor compressed..

I tried compressing 12 MB MOV file EasySpline #5 video (poored quality than 37 MB), didn't expect anything good.. Do you know what?! It's compressed to.. 4174 KB?!?

Now it is time for NewTek videos:
RenderStatus.mov went from 30 MB to 15 MB
Node_Edit.avi from 58 MB to 40 MB
And they were compressed already?!

WilliamVaughan
03-15-2006, 03:23 PM
Comprssing the files with Zip or Rar won't be my call...but I'm sure NewTek is looking intoit.

FranK10
03-16-2006, 08:07 AM
Proton, are you still with us? How about forcing the all LW community to install 7-ZIP archiver and having the smallest videos in history..

It's not necessary to force people to install 7zip if we don't want: it's possible to embed the decoder codec into the video, so it becomes an exe that autoextracts.

EDIT:
I didn't expect Proton changed old version so quickly :) so I intrpreted bad your new compression tests on NT videos. Yes it's a great improve also if they are compressed. I'd suggest a two links to choose? One mov-or-avi and the other a 7zip autoextracting.

I hope also Graham has seen this thread. :)

colkai
03-16-2006, 08:34 AM
I've had comments from a couple of people I know complaining of the multiple codecs and large file sizes. Basically, they weren't very impressed by the "hapahazard" approach (their words). I think many people are forming an opinion of Newte kand LW based on these videos as so if there is at least a "united front" it may quieten some of the complaints.

I personally have tons of codecs installed, but I can appreciate those not in my position may feel mystified by the apparent inconsistencies about how the videos are being produced and authored.

pixelinfected
03-16-2006, 11:03 AM
for quicktime another tip to reduce the size is to setup keyframe every very large number, like 1000-2000 frames, that help a lot to reduce the final size.

FranK10
03-17-2006, 02:44 AM
Very good results Proton on your latest Anisotropic video! It's about 282kbs! This is Good.

Still there's a major save with 7zip or rar: 11MB -> 5,5MB it's half size!
NT think about that!

For the QT problem with TSCC: a friend of mine showed me a grab of an avi video played well on Mac:
http://img397.imageshack.us/my.php?image=video4rg.jpg

At this point I don't know why Camtasia in the help file says QT can't play such avi TSCC files. Do you?

WilliamVaughan
03-17-2006, 11:19 AM
be sure to check out all 15 of the movies that have been updated with new file sizes

bluerider
03-17-2006, 03:20 PM
[QUOTE=FranK10]I appreciate a lot the videotutorials made by Proton and Graham. They are very useful and explain well the features of LW. So, first of all, thank you. :thumbsup:

I opened this thread to help you making those videos better from a technical point of view.
I deeply looked into their structure and I found some mistakes you made; because of this they grew up too much in filesize.

Here are some suggestions you could follow to improve them:

-------------------------------------
Thanks Frank10,
I've just had time to view this thread now and want to thank you for your good suggestions. From Monday I'll definatly be referring to your very helpful points.

Thanks for taking the time out to post this thread, its greatly appreciated.

I'm printing your points out now.

From Monday you'll see me doing my best to make improvemments .

Best regards,

Graham :)

FranK10
03-18-2006, 07:15 AM
Oh, now I'm happy!

Before I was thinking you didn't read this, because of your latest video on APS of 47MB... It's really too much! Apart the audio non-compressed, there is a video section of about 1400kbs, that is 10,2 MB/min!
You must lower to 2,5-3 MB/min max. I'm sure you will reach this with my tips.

Now I think I made my work completely and videos will be ok from both of you :)

Nemoid
03-18-2006, 08:30 AM
cool to hear vids are going to have correct sizes compared to the content, and that NT has a feedback also on this point.
Not everyone is an expert in compressing vids, but the community is there to help, and Frank made a fantastic job. Kudos. :thumbsup:

Red_Oddity
03-18-2006, 09:09 AM
Just grab VideoLan and you won't even have to install any codecs what-so-ever, and it plays it all, regardless of what platform you're running it from.

Kudos on the new file sizes (i wondered why these short tuts where so friggin' big)

WilliamVaughan
03-18-2006, 09:33 AM
Not everyone is an expert in compressing vids, but the community is there to help, and Frank made a fantastic job. Kudos. :thumbsup:


The community is what drove me to LW years ago...just keeps getting better!

prospector
03-18-2006, 10:00 AM
could someone post a screenshot of the best settings in 7Zip?
seems that no matter what I try it comes out the same size file
avi 10 megs un
avi 10 megs compressed.
I'm just not getting it

Sensei
03-18-2006, 10:32 AM
could someone post a screenshot of the best settings in 7Zip?
seems that no matter what I try it comes out the same size file
avi 10 megs un
avi 10 megs compressed.
I'm just not getting it

If file is highly compressed already you won't get good result compressing it again in any software.. But raw files are even compressed 1:100, see f.e. my tutorial posted recently to SpinQuad
http://www.spinquad.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11353
It has 1:60 ratio..

Just set method to Ultra and then change word size to 256..

So, if you have image sequence and want to make video from them, use uncompressed loseless video/audio formats, this will create very big file.. Then use 7-ZIP on it and compare with AVI/MOV compressed with lose.. Compressing will take a lot of time, but uncompressing is the fastest in the all available compressing algorithms that I have seen..

lwlurker
03-18-2006, 03:25 PM
At Camtasia's own website, they say,

"QuickTime 7 and H.264 Support --
Camtasia Studio delivers the industry's highest quality video with spectacular compression for customers who want to publish their content in the QuickTime format."

For unmatched compression and quality, at any framerate, H.264 beats out Sorenson 3, WMV 9, and any flavor of Divx. I've seen HD footage compressed at 800 kbits/sec pass for DVCPro100 footage at NAB.
And the AAC codec is superior to MP3 for size and quality of audio as well.

Downside? Takes a little while to compress, but easy enough from Quicktime 7 Pro.

For a side-by-side with other codecs (including TSCC) check out
http://www.myschizobuddy.com/index.php?/archives/29-Best-codec-for-Screen-capture-content-benchmark.html&serendipity[entrypage]=1

On page 2 they write "H.264 gives you the best quality to size ratio. No other codec comes close to it."

thought you might want 'nother opinion
:lwicon:lurker

pauland
03-18-2006, 06:06 PM
Just to say that a few of the LW9 videos now show a reduced file size on the text, but the files are still the old size. In particular the connect tool, G-Toggle, Centre-pivot and the Node Editor tool videos are larger than their description suggests. Nice work on the other file size reductions though.

Paul

FranK10
03-20-2006, 06:07 AM
For unmatched compression and quality, at any framerate, H.264 beats out Sorenson 3, WMV 9, and any flavor of Divx. I've seen HD footage compressed at 800 kbits/sec pass for DVCPro100 footage at NAB.
And the AAC codec is superior to MP3 for size and quality of audio as well.

Downside? Takes a little while to compress, but easy enough from Quicktime 7 Pro.

For a side-by-side with other codecs (including TSCC) check out
http://www.myschizobuddy.com/index.php?/archives/29-Best-codec-for-Screen-capture-content-benchmark.html&serendipity[entrypage]=1

On page 2 they write "H.264 gives you the best quality to size ratio. No other codec comes close to it."

thought you might want 'nother opinion
:lwicon:lurker

That's an interesting article.
But H.264 is a relatively new codec that requires all users download the new Quicktime7 to play it.
Also AAC is very good, but is pretty useless the comparison with MP3 at this bitrates (32 Kbs) only with speeches. For hearing them on a small, not so hi-fi speakers...
Generally speaking, besides, it's very possible h.264 is very good at videotut, but I made some deeply tests comparing Mpeg4 ASP vs MPEG4 AVC (h.264) and found out it compresses well because it blurs a lot more especially on uniform patterns like skin. So in normal vids it's another point, but let's not go OT.
So, maybe it's better to stick to Sorenson3.

FranK10
03-20-2006, 06:27 AM
@Graham:

In my first post I wrote:



4) if you record at a given res, for example 800x600 or 1004x790... don't resize it down to a lower res! Leave it as it is. Because otherwise you will get a very blurred video and the recompression of TSCC doesn't work well, so you end up with about 5x datarate. This happened with your 'Flatten' video of 74MB.



Well, I confirm the blur problem. But the recompression of TSCC at lower res seems to lower the filesize. I don't really know what happened the first times I did my tests, but it seemed to be that 5x datarate. Now I redid some more and it seemed not at all!
So here we have another chance to drop filesize, but I will suggest you capture at lower res and maintain that if you can: it's a lot clearer.

Besides I got also an increase in the generally datarates using TSCC, having also 5MB/min... So I'm thinking if it should be better to make like Proton on the mov files: using Sorenson instead of TSCC avi. What do you think?

As an example of an extremely good quality/filesize with TSCC, see this video:
http://www.lwita.com/lwers/lcs/videos/DF_Sculpt_Tool.zip (10,4 MB for 4':31'') It's about 310kbs that is 2,27MB/min (noAudio, but it should be only 32kbs more).

Maybe the key with TSCC is to record at res like that (about 700x550)?

Anyway, to take a decision, let's look at your MB/min: if you go over 3MB/min you should consider to compress the video with another (lossy) codec.
If you decide to resize it down to a lower res, maybe the best choice is with Sorenson3, because I don't see very good reason to stick to lossless when we get anyway blurred pic because of the resize.

FranK10
03-30-2006, 10:04 AM
@Graham:

I have seen your latest video and I noticed you don't compress the audio as I suggested to you, with MP3.
Have you some problems with this? If you need help tell me.

Also I discovered that compressing lossless with mov Ensharpener versus avi TSCC gives better results in filesize.
So if you want to stick to lossless, maybe is better to use Ensharpener codec (remember to set compression level to 9-the max comp, every time you compress because it seems not to remember the setting). And for the audio you should follow advices given to Proton (IMA 4:1 22khz mono).

Anyway I think that 8,4 MB/min (based on your latest video, but with audio compressed) are too much for a videotut: maybe it's better to go lossy with Sorenson3 or wmv.

So let me know something.

Chuck
03-30-2006, 11:01 AM
FranK10,

Graham's out of the office for the next few days, but plans to recompress the videos when he returns - and I've reminded him to check this thread for your settings advice.

Thanks again to you and all for your input here!

Chuck