While I like to think I know how to shoot and edit a scene, I've never been that up on the technicalities of compression and formats for digital video. Usually, I edit a scene in the simple but effective editor that came with the camera (Panasonic's "HD Writer AE"), this allows full non-linear editing and outputs the same format the scene started in, AVCHD. Then I use Windows Movie Maker to convert it to MP4 and add the credits.
Usually, the MP4 version is smaller than the AVCHD original, though with outdoor wetlook scenes there's often little difference, due to the complexity of the background. However our most recently released outdoor mud scene actually initially came out at more than double the size of the AVCHD master - nearly 5 gig instead of just over 2, and unplayable even on the main computer here in Mission Control.
Turning the bit rate down to 18k instead of 28k brought the file size down slightly, to just under 4 gig, and that's the version that's been released. There is slight artifacting in the background in a few places but not on the models or their clothes, so it's OK. But it'll still need to be split into four pieces for the download store.
Now I know that ultimately the thing that controls the bit rate needed is the level of detail in the scene, the more of the screen has to be redrawn each frame, the more overall data has to be encoded. But are there differences between the ways different software packages create their MP4s, would using a different package enable smaller files without any loss in quality?
Maybe you already know about this, but I use Handbrake to compress mp4's which is free, safe software that one can download here https://handbrake.fr/ And here is a short tutorial on the Handbrake settings that will reduce file size without loss of quality: https://youtu.be/EKPZKgGBIKM Try it out on a short video before going whole hog, of course. Shout out to wambob for suggesting it in the Forums.
One nice thing about UMD downloads is that the bitrate is listed for each vid. Just for example, this one of yours: https://gungemastercom.umd.net/download_info/modesty-in-denim-evelyne-in-u is split into mp4's that range from 5,660 Kbps to 8,256 Kbps. Compare other's downloads and you'll see that is higher than those of Jayce or SStuff but about the same as MudBunny's. However the 1920x1080 dimensions of yours is much bigger than all of them. If using Handbrake doesn't help, might be time to think about setting your quality or size standards a bit lower.
kbps is a useless metric for modern video. Everything has been referenced in megabits per second for at least ten years. It really helps out to have a common (and relevant) reference point when doing the math in your head
AVCHD (h.264) cameras typically have a few different available data rates, with crappy ones topping out at 8 or 9 mbps and better ones offering around 16-18 mbps. The best consumer stuff has a 25 mbps option. Pro cams start at around 50 and go up into several hundred. (most require insanely expensive proprietary memory cards as consumer types simply aren't fast enough)
Personally, I always edit and then render out to the exact same format as what came out of the camera. That way you have a maximum quality version to work with if you want to reissue a clip at a better final quality at some point in the future. In my case, that's MXF @ 50 mbps, 4.2.2 color space. Then I use the edited master to render out to a distribution format.
Lets assume that everyone is rendering to MPEG4 Part 10 these days (a.k.a. h.264, which is the name of the format FAMILY, not a specific codec) The quality at that point depends VERY much on the quality of the codec you are using and your skill as a tweaker of settings. The general consensus is that the open source x264 codec (used by handbrake among others) is the best for lower bitrates like downloads require. I edit with Vegas (which doesn't support x264) so I render out with a commercial codec called MainConcept, which is also pretty good.
The final dimensions have a VERY large effect on the size of the final video file. Since I'm starting with an extremely high bit rate, I still have great quality rendering at 1280x720 and using a bitrate of 2 mbps. (3 for moving water, which is a real bitch to compress decently) Even with my high quality source, rendering to 1920x 1080 requires a much higher bit rate for the same quality because there are a hell of a lot more pixels to work on. 4 is the absolute minimum and 5 or 6 is preferred.
Keep in mind that quite a few of the amateurs around here are shooting with $100 cameras or cell phones and distributing at whatever crappy "web friendly" rate is the default on iMovie and Movie Maker. People love their stuff and buy the hell out of it. Netflix distributes at 3-6 mbps and they seem to do alright. Feel free to use any insanely high final bitrate you want, but at a certain point (around 8-9, IMHO) you're just feeding your own vanity and wasting a lot of bandwidth that someone has to pay for.
Keep in mind that no matter how good you get at rendering HD, it will all be for naught in a couple of years when you switch to 4k, 8k, or higher cameras and have to relearn everything all over again
smess said: Maybe you already know about this, but I use Handbrake to compress mp4's which is free, safe software that one can download here https://handbrake.fr/ And here is a short tutorial on the Handbrake settings that will reduce file size without loss of quality: https://youtu.be/EKPZKgGBIKM Try it out on a short video before going whole hog, of course. Shout out to wambob for suggesting it in the Forums.
I spotted Handbrake in MM's set of recommended software, was wondering if it would do a better job than Movie Maker does. Will try it on that mud clip, see what comes out.
smess said: One nice thing about UMD downloads is that the bitrate is listed for each vid. Just for example, this one of yours: https://gungemastercom.umd.net/download_info/modesty-in-denim-evelyne-in-u is split into mp4's that range from 5,660 Kbps to 8,256 Kbps. Compare other's downloads and you'll see that is higher than those of Jayce or SStuff but about the same as MudBunny's. However the 1920x1080 dimensions of yours is much bigger than all of them. If using Handbrake doesn't help, might be time to think about setting your quality or size standards a bit lower.
1920 x 1080 is Full-HD. Whenever I've asked the question on the forums about size and resolution, everyone wants the highest possible, and TBH I'm that way myself - I remember a few years back when someone gave away some of her old videos, because they'd only kept the for-release version (rather than the higher res master recordings), and by modern standards they were effectively postage-stamp sized. I want my videos to have a decent shelf-life, both in terms of saleability and also so that the people who buy them can go on enjoying them for years to come. Today that means Full-HD, in a couple of years time it will be 4K, twice as big again. Though I could look at releasing a 1280 x 720lower-res version as an option for people with slower connections or less storage space. Will think about that.
soundguy said: kbps is a useless metric for modern video. Everything has been referenced in megabits per second for at least ten years. It really helps out to have a common (and relevant) reference point when doing the math in your head
Good point!
soundguy said:AVCHD (h.264) cameras typically have a few different available data rates, with crappy ones topping out at 8 or 9 mbps and better ones offering around 16-18 mbps. The best consumer stuff has a 25 mbps option. Pro cams start at around 50 and go up into several hundred. (most require insanely expensive proprietary memory cards as consumer types simply aren't fast enough)
I'm currently shooting with what was the top-of-the-line Panasonic memory card camcorder when I bought it a few years back. It does need faster than standard memory cards, though not into the proprietary ranges.
soundguy said: Personally, I always edit and then render out to the exact same format as what came out of the camera. That way you have a maximum quality version to work with if you want to reissue a clip at a better final quality at some point in the future. In my case, that's MXF @ 50 mbps, 4.2.2 color space. Then I use the edited master to render out to a distribution format.
Yep, that's what I'm doing - edit in AVCHD (.m2ts files), then use Movie Maker to add the credits and convert to mp4.
soundguy said: Lets assume that everyone is rendering to MPEG4 Part 10 these days (a.k.a. h.264, which is the name of the format FAMILY, not a specific codec) The quality at that point depends VERY much on the quality of the codec you are using and your skill as a tweaker of settings. The general consensus is that the open source x264 codec (used by handbrake among others) is the best for lower bitrates like downloads require. I edit with Vegas (which doesn't support x264) so I render out with a commercial codec called MainConcept, which is also pretty good.
The final dimensions have a VERY large effect on the size of the final video file. Since I'm starting with an extremely high bit rate, I still have great quality rendering at 1280x720 and using a bitrate of 2 mbps. (3 for moving water, which is a real bitch to compress decently) Even with my high quality source, rendering to 1920x 1080 requires a much higher bit rate for the same quality because there are a hell of a lot more pixels to work on. 4 is the absolute minimum and 5 or 6 is preferred.
Keep in mind that quite a few of the amateurs around here are shooting with $100 cameras or cell phones and distributing at whatever crappy "web friendly" rate is the default on iMovie and Movie Maker. People love their stuff and buy the hell out of it. Netflix distributes at 3-6 mbps and they seem to do alright. Feel free to use any insanely high final bitrate you want, but at a certain point (around 8-9, IMHO) you're just feeding your own vanity and wasting a lot of bandwidth that someone has to pay for.
I've tried turning the bit rate down in MM, but the result is pixelation. Given I'm shooting fully clothed WAM where the money shots are all about the fine details as the clothes gradually get messier, pixelated video isn't going to cut it. Know what you mean about moving water too - our dungeon scenes compress far better than anything we shoot outdoors because of the much simpler background of the dungeon walls, and anything with moving water compresses the least of all.
I'd love to have smaller file sizes and lower bitrates, but only as long as image quality isn't affected.
soundguy said: Keep in mind that no matter how good you get at rendering HD, it will all be for naught in a couple of years when you switch to 4k, 8k, or higher cameras and have to relearn everything all over again
Am planning to edit a shot section of scene and then compare Handbrake and Windows MM output at various resolutions, will post the results (and link the files) here, but uber-busy at the mo. Bumping thread to allow for posting links in a week or so.
Just letting you know that I tried Handbrake on a recent trailer of yours https://umd.net/videos/green-skirt-milk-bath using the settings laid out in that YouTube clip, and the size went from 28 MB to 17 MB with no loss in quality that I can see. It took 11 minutes for my old computer to process that 45 second clip. A newer computer will go much faster, but again you'll want to test it out on short clips like that trailer.
smess said: Just letting you know that I tried Handbrake on a recent trailer of yours https://umd.net/videos/green-skirt-milk-bath using the settings laid out in that YouTube clip, and the size went from 28 MB to 17 MB with no loss in quality that I can see. It took 11 minutes for my old computer to process that 45 second clip. A newer computer will go much faster, but again you'll want to test it out on short clips like that trailer.
Interesting! I'd not thought of attempting to re-compress an existing (compressed) MP4, had assumed that would do horrendous things to the image quality.
What I want to do as a test is take a 3 minute section of the mud video here the compressed file ended up bigger than the .m2ts original, and compress at various rates, in both Movie Maker and Handbrake, and put the results up for comparison. It's just finding the time to sit down and do it - not even had time to promote current releases for the last month, which really needs doing as some of them were absolute classics. Will get to it soon!
I had a try using Handbrake to compress the entire Daphne & Friday mud video, from the original .m2ts edit master, with most settings left on default, just to see what would happen. On the plus side, it got it down to 3.84 gig (where Windows Movie Maker produced a file well north of 5 gig), however unlike Movie Maker it's not properly handled the interlacing issues, resulting in noticeable zig-zag edges on the girls' legs whenever they move quickly, which to me isn't acceptable from a quality viewpoint.
Will have to play with the settings and see if that can be improved.
Ah, sorry to hear that. Hoped it would do the trick cleanly but it sounds like more testing and/or research is needed for what you're dealing with. With my lesser computing power resources, I think all the more I can do is wish you good luck!