FCP export for web use
- Thread starter photogguy
- Start date
Chicago Dog
Well-known member
I agree with eugalc's suggestion and second his questions. A lot of settings are highly dependent on what you want to do.
I've had great results with high-quality H.264 settings using multi-pass encoding. Multi-pass takes longer than single-pass, but the results are worthwhile if you're not under an extreme deadline. For audio, I use a sample rate of 48 kHz and 16-bit audio to help keep the file size manageable.
Not only do my video files look and sound great, but they don't need anything more than a few seconds worth of buffer time before they begin playing.
I advise against using video hosting websites. Once the file is sent to the site, you have zero control over encoding. Further, I'm led to believe you're asking because you want to learn and eventually hope to market yourself as someone who understands internet video. Using a video hosting site is going to make you look like a lazy amateur.
2 Hungry Dogs
PRO user
CD,
You may want to rethink this idea. It used to be true, but the tide has already changed on this. Youtube's video quality is actually pretty good these days, especially if you send them a 720hd original. And you absolutely can't beat the exposure and versatility you get from them, especially for the price.
I used to be down on Youtube, but have had several clients want to distribute this way, and have found them to be a perfectly acceptable distribution method depending on your project. Vimeo and the others are keeping the pace as well.
Chicago Dog
Well-known member
"Depending on your project" is the key phrase. I'm all for adhering to my clients' requirements. They write the check, they make the calls. We do what they pay us to do. Most of my clients don't mind some professional opinion or suggestion along the way.
YouTube or Vimeo might be "perfectly acceptable," but let's be honest: most people out there still hold the stigma that both are amateurish and unprofessional. I think it's hard to argue otherwise.
I don't get the feeling that photogguy is asking because of a request by his client. It sounds to me like he wants to learn how to host videos rather than relying upon what can easily be interpreted as a lazy alternative.
"Throw it up on a video hosting service" isn't the kind of advice he was looking for.
zac love
Well-known member
It is always going to be a compromise, size vs quality. Until the next generation compression comes out.
photogguy, the first question is really: Are you OK with YouTube / Vimeo?
If so, I suggest using the H.264 Apple TV preset. Going to be a larger file size, but less than the native codec you're editing in so your upload time won't be a zillion years.
You can make your YouTube channel look really nice. And unless you're trying to sell yourself as a web guy, you don't need to code an entire player yourself into your own page.
If you want to skip the 3rd party hosting & use your own website, then .flv is going to be the best way to go. I'm not that big a fan of flash, but it is the most likely to work on the most computers. You also have to embed your .flv into a .swf, which is more code that can be tricky or can be easy.
FCP / Compressor can't export to flash w/o buying more software, so this isn't a free way to go.
Finding the best .flv settings really depend on what you consider "best." I've had clients that need things under 10MB, where others need the video to be exactly 320px wide.
Anything multi-pass is going to take longer to export, but will be much higher quality.
If you're doing a lot of exporting, it is probably a good idea to look into Matrox Max. Hardware h264 acceleration that works perfectly in FCS & has better presets than what is in Compressor out of the box.
photogguy, the first question is really: Are you OK with YouTube / Vimeo?
If so, I suggest using the H.264 Apple TV preset. Going to be a larger file size, but less than the native codec you're editing in so your upload time won't be a zillion years.
You can make your YouTube channel look really nice. And unless you're trying to sell yourself as a web guy, you don't need to code an entire player yourself into your own page.
If you want to skip the 3rd party hosting & use your own website, then .flv is going to be the best way to go. I'm not that big a fan of flash, but it is the most likely to work on the most computers. You also have to embed your .flv into a .swf, which is more code that can be tricky or can be easy.
FCP / Compressor can't export to flash w/o buying more software, so this isn't a free way to go.
Finding the best .flv settings really depend on what you consider "best." I've had clients that need things under 10MB, where others need the video to be exactly 320px wide.
Anything multi-pass is going to take longer to export, but will be much higher quality.
If you're doing a lot of exporting, it is probably a good idea to look into Matrox Max. Hardware h264 acceleration that works perfectly in FCS & has better presets than what is in Compressor out of the box.
Alaska cameradude
Well-known member
True, but it can encode to H.264 which flash can read just fine. In fact, you can change
the extension from .mov to .flv and a flash player will just play it as if it WERE an .flv.
justFRED.ca
PRO user
CDog -
I couldn't agree more. It blows my mind when I see corporate sites with their videos hosted on YouTube and when the video about the beaver coat ends, guess what pops up next in the YT window? And I've been noticing a lot of video errors lately when trying to run a YT video through the a 3rd-party site. But if you go directly to YT - meaning, you leave the original web site which is marketing suicide - the vids run just fine. And so do the pop-up ads.
Most web shops know squat about video production, and most video production shops know squat about getting their content online in a professional manner.
Our niche is that we're a web shop with video experience, and a video production shop with web experience.
At the moment, it's a fairly rarefied space. And as you know, so long as there's a market demand for rarefied services, being unique means higher rates.
Cheers,
George
justFRED.ca
PRO user
Zac -
10-4 on the ubiquity of Flash. It's possibly the most popular browser plugin on the planet.
But Apple is doing its best to throw a monkeywrench into the works with it's No Flash dictum for their mobile devices: iPod, iPad and iPhone.
It's making life most difficult for web designers and developers.
Cheers,
George