ideal wmv compression for smaller filesizes?

disgust · Post by **disgust** » Sat Jan 27, 2007 12:34 am

I have a lot of files I want to convert to wmv because I'll be hosting them on my webspace and I don't want to waste tons of bandwidth. I also like wmv because almost anyone can play it, and my audience may not have codecs and other things installed.

I'm wondering what the ideal way to compress things is. does it matter what software is used to convert to wmv? what do you suggest?

the source videos are of varying formats. xvid, ogm, mkv etc.

is resizing the video generally a bad idea? ie, would the original resolution at a lower bitrate be preferable to a smaller resolution? (since the smaller resolution will look less compressed at the same bitrate)

are there any things I should keep in mind when going for small filesizes?

(I know people hate wmv, and I know lossy -> lossy is a bad idea in general, but it's about my only option here..)

Willen · Post by **Willen** » Sat Jan 27, 2007 6:46 am

WMV is great if your audience is Windows users, but Mac-o-philes will have to download and install WMP for Mac and use that to play these WMVs.

On the flipside, Quicktime's MOV container format is awesome for Mac users, but Windows requires installation of Quicktime Player (or some alternative).

XviD AVI has the advantage of being more player independent but requires installation of the codec for playback regardless of system. For most people, this isn't an issue since most likely they have some sort of MPEG-4 SP/ASP decoder installed already (XviD, DivX, 3ivx, etc.). Just make sure that you set the FourCC to DX50 in the XviD configuration settings for DivX compatibility (http://www.animemusicvideos.org/guides/avtech/xvid.html) to be safe.

If installing programs or codecs on their computers is not an option for your audience, then going with WMV is the safest bet (unless you have a great deal of Mac users that can't install WMP). In this case, you may want to try Windows Media Encoder.

As for resizing to save bandwidth versus lowering the bitrate, I personally would prefer the resizing. Or you could try to split the difference: resize and lower the bitrate at the same time. I make no guarantees as to the final output quality, since as you mentioned, lossy > lossy is not a good idea. But certain things can mask some of these issues. Resizing smaller helps and doing some mild filtering can minimize some visual problems. Plus, filtering may help in getting a little smaller file.

elvirasweeney · Post by **elvirasweeney** » Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:51 am

Mac users can now use the free plug-in from Flip4mac, which allows WMV files to play in Quicktime. WMP for Mac is being phased out (though I still have it installed). Most Mac users should have little problem playing WMV files.

I agree that XviD/DivX is probably the best way to go. I do not like WMV (I never liked it, even when I was a Windows user). I do believe that most Windows users should have Quicktime installed, however. (I'm not saying that they do, but they should.) There are far too many things on the Internet (movie trailers, etc) which are Quicktime. I don't feel a great deal of sympathy for someone who is unwilling to install Quicktime (or Quicktime Alternative). They lose out on a whole lot if they do that.

Willen · Post by **Willen** » Sun Jan 28, 2007 10:10 am

elvirasweeney wrote:Mac users can now use the free plug-in from Flip4mac, which allows WMV files to play in Quicktime. WMP for Mac is being phased out (though I still have it installed). Most Mac users should have little problem playing WMV files.

I agree that XviD/DivX is probably the best way to go. I do not like WMV (I never liked it, even when I was a Windows user). I do believe that most Windows users should have Quicktime installed, however. (I'm not saying that they do, but they should.) There are far too many things on the Internet (movie trailers, etc) which are Quicktime. I don't feel a great deal of sympathy for someone who is unwilling to install Quicktime (or Quicktime Alternative). They lose out on a whole lot if they do that.

I pretty much refused to install Quicktime on this computer because for a while Apple practically forced you to install iTunes along with QT7 (I have no iPod and refuse to ever get one). I had to go the alternative route. Plus, I don't need another video player software on my system (not to mention another music management program...)

elvirasweeney · Post by **elvirasweeney** » Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:48 pm

Willen wrote: I pretty much refused to install Quicktime on this computer because for a while Apple practically forced you to install iTunes along with QT7 (I have no iPod and refuse to ever get one).

That's no longer the case. You can install Quicktime without iTunes. You are given a choice.

I had to go the alternative route. Plus, I don't need another video player software on my system (not to mention another music management program...)

No need for iTunes. You can choose between Quicktime or QT alternative.

I realize that you are an enlightened person who has invariably found other ways to play QT files, though. (Like VLC Player or QT Alternative?) But many people are not this way.

Again, I see no reason for any user to be unable to view QT files, since there are many alternatives available to them. Some people are unwilling (for whatever reason) to use anything other than WMP. I'm fed up with that.

I provide videos and video clips on my site, and have made a decision to never offer WMV files, because I have come to realize that if I offer two versions of a video—a gorgeous, high res AVI or H.264 MP4 and a crummy, absysmal low res WMV, that most people will just download the WMV and never touch the high res file. So my only solution is to not make WMV files. (I know, I know, I'm preaching to the choir here!

)

Willen · Post by **Willen** » Mon Jan 29, 2007 12:30 am

elvirasweeney wrote:
Willen wrote: I pretty much refused to install Quicktime on this computer because for a while Apple practically forced you to install iTunes along with QT7 (I have no iPod and refuse to ever get one).
That's no longer the case. You can install Quicktime without iTunes. You are given a choice.

I did say "for a while". I like watching movie trailers and QTA in the end was a better 'alternative'. Smaller installs = better.

And if the popularity of crummy MP3s and the 'tube has taught me anything, it's that most people aren't picky about quality.

disgust · Post by **disgust** » Mon Jan 29, 2007 11:07 pm

one problem I have consistantly when I downscale the resolution: subtitles become incredibly hard to read. is there any way to avoid this?

does the software package I use to encode the wmv file matter?

basically at this point I'd go with the lower resolution if it wasn't for the matter of the subtitles problem... larger resolutions have perfectly readable subs, but the compression artifacts are much much more noticable & grating

Willen · Post by **Willen** » Tue Jan 30, 2007 8:42 am

disgust wrote:one problem I have consistantly when I downscale the resolution: subtitles become incredibly hard to read. is there any way to avoid this?

If they are hard subs, then no. For softsubs, you could play with the settings to get them bigger when the video is encoded (I'm not sure how to do this, it's just an idea).

disgust wrote:does the software package I use to encode the wmv file matter?

It shouldn't. Some may have more options but the programs that I've used that have WMV export are pretty much like XviD in complexity or simpler.

disgust wrote:basically at this point I'd go with the lower resolution if it wasn't for the matter of the subtitles problem... larger resolutions have perfectly readable subs, but the compression artifacts are much much more noticable & grating

This is one of the advantages of using softsubs in a container like MP4 or MKV, but I digress. You'll have to find the right combo of resolution and bitrate. Good luck.