| 1 |
On 16 Aug 2010, at 20:52, Kevin O'Gorman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 12:35 AM, Stroller |
| 3 |
> <stroller@××××××××××××××××××.uk>wrote: |
| 4 |
>> On 16 Aug 2010, at 04:02, Kevin O'Gorman wrote: |
| 5 |
>>> ... |
| 6 |
>>> |
| 7 |
>>> My underling thing, if anyone can make other suggestions, is that my |
| 8 |
>>> camera broke, and I had to get one in a hurry, and didn't really |
| 9 |
>>> know what |
| 10 |
>>> to look for. I wound up with a fairly good Sanyo 1080p camera and |
| 11 |
>>> video |
| 12 |
>>> recorder that's super light, and not too expensive. The problem is |
| 13 |
>>> that its |
| 14 |
>>> videos are MP4s, ... |
| 15 |
>>> |
| 16 |
>> |
| 17 |
>> MP4 is a much better container format than .avi. |
| 18 |
>> |
| 19 |
>> I previously discussed this a little in July's "viewing .m4v files |
| 20 |
>> with |
| 21 |
>> totem" thread: |
| 22 |
>> http://www.mail-archive.com/gentoo-user@l.g.o/msg103363.html |
| 23 |
>> |
| 24 |
>> Use the `mplayer -identify` command given there to determine the |
| 25 |
>> codec of |
| 26 |
>> your video. |
| 27 |
>> |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> The codec is H.264, which most of my readers don't have. They are |
| 30 |
> non-technical which makes it a major pain, and I want out of it. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
H264 is excellent - it's the best codec available today, and I would |
| 33 |
have expected it to be widely supported. As far as browsers are |
| 34 |
concerned, it's supported by about half of them, I think, natively via |
| 35 |
HTML5. The reasons the others don't support it are patent related - |
| 36 |
Mozilla won't incorporate h264 playback into Firefox, for instance, |
| 37 |
because h264 is only free as in beer, not as in speech. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
I would have thought H264 would be easy to remux into an .flv |
| 40 |
container and host using an open-source YouTube-style player on your |
| 41 |
own site. Alternatively, just open a free YouTube or Vimeo account and |
| 42 |
upload your original .mp4 video files there. I appreciate that this |
| 43 |
latter is not an optimal answer, however... |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
I stated that "I'm not convinced Handbrake is actually that good" - to |
| 46 |
be fair, I don't know what *is* that good, short of an intimate |
| 47 |
knowledge of video standards (interlacing, frame-rates &c &c) and |
| 48 |
mplayer / ffmpeg / MP4box / other tools. |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
The reason the MP4 files out of your camera are so large is that |
| 51 |
they're high-def and this very high video quality. Stuff recorded in |
| 52 |
good light should look awesome, even on a huge great 42" TV. So you |
| 53 |
will need to resize them smaller for the web (so, in fact, my previous |
| 54 |
suggestion about remuxing h264 into an .flv container is useless for |
| 55 |
you, until you've done that). |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
Try installing Handbrake and see if you get along with it - I have a |
| 58 |
bias against it because I tried to rip studio-produced DVDs using it, |
| 59 |
and had playback issues on the PS3. Maybe I'm being unfair. You might |
| 60 |
also try media-video/h264enc - I think that is a wrapper script for |
| 61 |
ffmpeg / mplayer, written by one of the mplayer devs. |
| 62 |
|
| 63 |
Stroller. |
Archives