Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Video Codecs Feedback
- Thread starter conner954
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Lots of good helpful information, but from a design perspective, it is too big, cluttered, and difficult to navigate. Try reducing the size of some of the graphics and icons and laying out the text with a bit more structure.
The following might of help explaining the difference between H.264 and other MPEG-4 codecs and editing codecs like ProRes, especially the Long-GOP feature, which should be helpful in understanding why MPEG-4 compressed video is so small compared to the same video using an editing codec.
Video Compression
Why It Matters & How To Make The Most Of It
Anyway, thanks for putting that thing together, I thought about doing something similar, but my design capacities with graphics are quite lacking.
Just reduce the font size a bit, thus make it look less cluttered, and maybe change the font, has the "4" in "H.264" looks strange (sorry, no other word for it currently available).
Video Compression
Why It Matters & How To Make The Most Of It
which includes the following sections:
Anyway, thanks for putting that thing together, I thought about doing something similar, but my design capacities with graphics are quite lacking.
Just reduce the font size a bit, thus make it look less cluttered, and maybe change the font, has the "4" in "H.264" looks strange (sorry, no other word for it currently available).
1. I'd remove "MPEG-2" as a smartphone-friendly format. In fact, iOS and, IIRC, WP7 doesn't support it at all "out of the box" - as was the case with pre-10.7 OS X versions, Windows XP etc.
I think only the most free mobile operating systems like Symbian have built-in support for it.
2. I'd also add a quick remark on "remuxing" between containers so that people don't automatically use HandBrake for tasks where a simple remuxing would be way faster and of best quality.
I made some of the text smaller and tried to make it a little more visually appealing, however it's tough to make the design more interesting without detracting from the actual information. Any other ideas?
Thanks, that's a very good read. I referenced it on the Infographic Blog Post here: http://connerpro.com/video-codecs-containers-simplified-with-infographic/ I decreased the font size, which I think helped alot.
Thanks for the suggestions, I added both of them; I hadn't even thought of adding Muxing, I made it small just in case anyone wanted to learn more about it.
Agreed. Smaller icons and sort of in the format of a "reference sheet" or even white paper would be cool...someone did a similar thing like a year ago in this section and actually continued to work on it...I had the PDF but Id have to dig for it now...anyways it was really good but needed some finishing touches as well...anyone know what Im talking about?
Also add MKV and the various Audio formats used for both Blu-ray and Apple products/online distribution (i.e. Dolby TrueHD, DTS, AAC, Dolby Digital AC-3, etc.) I'm pretty well informed on how the DTS codecs run with their extensions for 6.1 ES, Master Audio, 7.1, etc...I made up a chart once that Id be willing to scan and let you use for the good of the community if your interested.
+10! You always have solid suggestions and I was actually going to mention pretty much all you covered. Allot of this stuff I find myself trying to teach over and over but loosing track of the 8 different PDF's Ive created from online articles that explain the tech well...I figure with one big PDF explaining all this in a rather simple way life will be easier! haha
What is the goal of this? Where do you want to put it and why? I can't see a purpose for it. It is a very long picture. If it were a text (homepage), you could see it as a reference, but then it's not extensive enough. It kind of looks like a poster you could put up somewhere (classroom...), but the format is very weird to print out. So if you don't mind me asking: What are you planning to do with it?
That being said: I think the idea of making a good and up to date comprehension of codecs and containers is brilliant! It comes up very often in this forum and it not known very widely. I just think the format you chose might not be ideal.
I myself was thinking about making an animated video about exactly this subject, and maybe that would be interesting for you, too? I mean, people who are interested in this sort of thing are very likely to enjoy watching video, too. And it would in my opinion be the better format to bring across your point. What do you think?
That being said: I think the idea of making a good and up to date comprehension of codecs and containers is brilliant! It comes up very often in this forum and it not known very widely. I just think the format you chose might not be ideal.
I myself was thinking about making an animated video about exactly this subject, and maybe that would be interesting for you, too? I mean, people who are interested in this sort of thing are very likely to enjoy watching video, too. And it would in my opinion be the better format to bring across your point. What do you think?
Good idea. I've seen a number of these tall information graphics on the web the past few months. They are easily viewable on a variety of devices, and do a good job of giving a basic overview of a topic. I think that there are a few improvements you could make though. Change the pictures to icons, make the main headings larger, and everything else smaller. Also make it more detailed. Google image search information graphic for examples. Or seeing as it looks like your trying to promote your business, you could look at buying a template or getting one made?
http://lava360.com/useful-and-informative-infographics-poster-designs/
http://lava360.com/useful-and-informative-infographics-poster-designs/
Thanks for the help, I just updated it. I added those audio codecs along with MKV. If you could have a look, that would be great. Also, if you wouldn't mind sharing that chart I would really appreciate it. As for the design aspect, I decided to make this just preliminary and hire a graphic designer to make it look better.
It's basically just designed to help beginner editors start to grasp the whole concept, and to hopefully build some credibility for my brand. Since it doesn't look great, I decided to make this a preliminary design and hire a graphic designer once I get all the content ready. An animation sounds like a great idea, but I'm personally a huge fan of Infographics, which I think will make it even easier to be spread around and quickly glanced at, sort of like a "cheat sheet."
Thanks, I decided to hire a graphic designer once I get all of the information, to make it look a little more presentable.
Just some corrections...DTS is not limited to DVD software...I have a copy of DTS Master Audio Suite Encoder and the entire white paper...DTS currently is the most common Lossless audio and it works on the core (standard DTS) + Extension (Lossless, channel, etc. extensions) so for example a 7.1 DTS-Master Audio would be something like:
(DTS core is 1.5mbps usually but can be half bit rate in addition to others. The difference between the core is only part of the signal its sort of like 1+2=3 without the 2 you can't get to the 3 aka the lossless signal)
[DTS core]+[7.1 CH ext]+[difference between the core and the original lossless signal]=DTS-HD Master Audio
6.1 DTS-ES Discrete would be like:
[DTS core]+[6.1 CH ext.]=DTS-ES Discrete 6.1
6.1 DTS-ES Matrix (5.1ES) would be like:
[DTS core]+[6.1 Matrix flag for receiver]=DTS-ES Matrix 6.1
5.1 DTS-Master Audio
[DTS core]+[Difference between the core and the original lossless signal]=DTS-MA 5.1
Thats basically how the chart goes and its very simple but if you take a took at the DTS-HD white paper you'll understand it very well.
Ill attach some better graphics if I can too
(DTS core is 1.5mbps usually but can be half bit rate in addition to others. The difference between the core is only part of the signal its sort of like 1+2=3 without the 2 you can't get to the 3 aka the lossless signal)
[DTS core]+[7.1 CH ext]+[difference between the core and the original lossless signal]=DTS-HD Master Audio
6.1 DTS-ES Discrete would be like:
[DTS core]+[6.1 CH ext.]=DTS-ES Discrete 6.1
6.1 DTS-ES Matrix (5.1ES) would be like:
[DTS core]+[6.1 Matrix flag for receiver]=DTS-ES Matrix 6.1
5.1 DTS-Master Audio
[DTS core]+[Difference between the core and the original lossless signal]=DTS-MA 5.1
Thats basically how the chart goes and its very simple but if you take a took at the DTS-HD white paper you'll understand it very well.
Ill attach some better graphics if I can too
Attachments
Last edited:
This is more of a minor thing, but instead of saying "other stuff" I think "metadata" would more appropriate and metadata can include things like data/time stamp, timecode, frame rate, camera information, etc.,. Also, and I just noticed this, an encoder won't necessarily reduce the file size of a video. You can use an encoder that applies compression to a file to make it smaller but not all encoders apply compression.
To the OP, I hope you don't feel like we are pestering you but I feel like this is a better way to get the correct info by having a bunch of knowledgeable fire off...we have a pretty small but smart video group over here (right guys? 
!!)
Also the DTS vs Dolby debate about which offers better sound is too much for a chart like this...I would go with something like "uses less compression". I would insist on adding DTS-HD codecs as well as stating that both AIFF and WAV are PCM audio formats to offer comparison better. Optionally you could add DTS-ES and Dolby Surround EX (aka Dolby Digital EX) which is basically the same format with a discrete or matrixed extra 7th channel (a small footnote or whatever under each codec would fit nicely).
Good point. Timecode, frame rate, camera info would be cool. A quick suggestion might be like:
24p: Traditional film frame rate used for the vast majority of movies today
25p: Standard TV frame rate in PAL land
30p: Standard TV frame rate in NTSC land
48p: less common but upcoming high motion frame rate for digital cinema.
50p: High motion frame rate in PAL land
60p: High motion frame rate in NTSC land (sports, football, etc.)
!!)Also the DTS vs Dolby debate about which offers better sound is too much for a chart like this...I would go with something like "uses less compression". I would insist on adding DTS-HD codecs as well as stating that both AIFF and WAV are PCM audio formats to offer comparison better. Optionally you could add DTS-ES and Dolby Surround EX (aka Dolby Digital EX) which is basically the same format with a discrete or matrixed extra 7th channel (a small footnote or whatever under each codec would fit nicely).
Good point. Timecode, frame rate, camera info would be cool. A quick suggestion might be like:
24p: Traditional film frame rate used for the vast majority of movies today
25p: Standard TV frame rate in PAL land
30p: Standard TV frame rate in NTSC land
48p: less common but upcoming high motion frame rate for digital cinema.
50p: High motion frame rate in PAL land
60p: High motion frame rate in NTSC land (sports, football, etc.)
Frame rates could easily be a separate graphic all of its own once you get into things like fractional frame rates (29.97 vs 30.00), PsF and the various ways 24p can be embedded in an 60i video stream.
I just completely revamped the entire Infographic to include tons of other elements like aspect ration and bit rate/depth. If you guys could have a look at it, that would be great. As of now, I decided not to hire a graphic designer because it's too much "non-visual" information to make visually appealing, along with the cost. Rather, I decided to make it an [Infographic/Cheatsheet].
Thanks! I fixed both of those.
Thanks! It's not at all pestering, it's extremely helpful. I just updated it with the Frame Rates you mentioned and added some of your audio recommendations along with tons of other stuff. If you could have a look at it, that would be great.
I added frame rates, but decided to barely touch fractional frame rates, while ignoring PsF along with embedding, because I feel it would be too complicated. If you could look at the Frame Rate section I would really appreciate it.
EDIT: I also added all my sources along with some helpful Youtube videos and articles on the main page here: http://connerpro.com/video-codecs-containers-simplified-with-infographic/
Thanks! I fixed both of those.
To the OP, I hope you don't feel like we are pestering you but I feel like this is a better way to get the correct info by having a bunch of knowledgeable fire off...we have a pretty small but smart video group over here (right guys?
Also the DTS vs Dolby debate about which offers better sound is too much for a chart like this...I would go with something like "uses less compression". I would insist on adding DTS-HD codecs as well as stating that both AIFF and WAV are PCM audio formats to offer comparison better. Optionally you could add DTS-ES and Dolby Surround EX (aka Dolby Digital EX) which is basically the same format with a discrete or matrixed extra 7th channel (a small footnote or whatever under each codec would fit nicely).
Good point. Timecode, frame rate, camera info would be cool. A quick suggestion might be like:
24p: Traditional film frame rate used for the vast majority of movies today
25p: Standard TV frame rate in PAL land
30p: Standard TV frame rate in NTSC land
48p: less common but upcoming high motion frame rate for digital cinema.
50p: High motion frame rate in PAL land
60p: High motion frame rate in NTSC land (sports, football, etc.)
Thanks! It's not at all pestering, it's extremely helpful. I just updated it with the Frame Rates you mentioned and added some of your audio recommendations along with tons of other stuff. If you could have a look at it, that would be great.
I added frame rates, but decided to barely touch fractional frame rates, while ignoring PsF along with embedding, because I feel it would be too complicated. If you could look at the Frame Rate section I would really appreciate it.
EDIT: I also added all my sources along with some helpful Youtube videos and articles on the main page here: http://connerpro.com/video-codecs-containers-simplified-with-infographic/
Last edited:
MPEG2 is a common codec for shooting as well...
XDcam HD, EX and Canon MXF are all MPEG2, as are all the files out of Nanoflashes.
As with H264, the beauty of format is that it's scalable from a low bit rate to a high bitrate.
XDcam HD, EX and Canon MXF are all MPEG2, as are all the files out of Nanoflashes.
As with H264, the beauty of format is that it's scalable from a low bit rate to a high bitrate.
You may want to start with a problem statement. Otherwise the reader will think that bored engineers are just messing with us by creating all these different technologies. For example, one statement could explain how uncompressed HD video is (something around) 100GB per hour. That is - like flip cards - if each frame was 1920x1080 by 8-bits deep, and you showed 24 of them per second, ...well transporting this pile of bits around is unworkable.
(Actual file size seems hard to find, but the file would be really big, and unstoreable on removeable media, or untransmittable by current networks.)
(Actual file size seems hard to find, but the file would be really big, and unstoreable on removeable media, or untransmittable by current networks.)
Good suggestions, I just added them. I completely forgot XDCAM.
Awesome idea! I just added that to the beginning, have a look.
I don't think the goal of simplifying something things for beginner users is being met anymore with how much information there is. At the very least I think the graphic should be broken up into a number of smaller graphics by topic or the format changed into poster dimensions. Right now it feels more like a scroll than anything else.
Thank, fixed.
I don't think the goal of simplifying something things for beginner users is being met anymore with how much information there is. At the very least I think the graphic should be broken up into a number of smaller graphics by topic or the format changed into poster dimensions. Right now it feels more like a scroll than anything else.
That's a pretty good idea. Once I get all of the contenst sound and make sure everything's right, I'll probably break it into sections to make it a little easier to digest. Thanks.
I'm also going to add a "The Future" section about the future of video encoding. I'm going to add H.265 for sure (http://www.engadget.com/2012/08/15/mpeg-drafts-twice-as-efficient-h-265-video-standard/), any other suggestions for that? Also, does anybody have any final reccomendations/suggestions before I break it apart (Thanks to LethalWolfe)? Because it will be difficult to make changes after that. Thanks so much for your help guys.
James Cameron said either 48 or 60...I hope 48 IMO I hate 60fps regardless if the shutter is all the way open, 180º or 45º.
It truly looks beautiful! I'm going to use this to educate people, I hate having to scour 50 different bookmarked pages to explain things to people!