Posting high quality video on WMS

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Stupid48 - 31 May 2007 01:56 GMT

I'm struggling to understand the ins and outs of on-demand video with
WMS. I'm trying to explain intelligently how, msnbc video for
example, is so much clearer and fluid than the videos we are putting
out on the internet via Windows Media Services.

Basically, we are taking a DVD and encoding it into a WMV with WMS and
then creating an on-demand publishing point. If I encode it at 300K
for example, it nowhere near as fluid as the 300k that MSNBC is
pushing down. Does anybody have any pointers or links to pointers on
how this should work? Is it the source, the encoding format I chose
(wmv), the output settings or the publishing point, or a combination.
We have alot of bandwidth for traffic so I suspect that is not the
problem.

Any help would be appreciated....

Thanks, Chris

Reply to this Message

Mike Lowery - 31 May 2007 16:22 GMT

> I'm struggling to understand the ins and outs of on-demand video with
> WMS. I'm trying to explain intelligently how, msnbc video for
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> We have alot of bandwidth for traffic so I suspect that is not the
> problem.

Define "fluid."

Things to look at: bitrate, key frame interval, fps, resolution, video
smoothness, buffer, de-interlace, and performance settings.

Reply to this Message

Stupid48 - 31 May 2007 18:13 GMT

> > I'm struggling to understand the ins and outs of on-demand video with
> > WMS. I'm trying to explain intelligently how, msnbc video for
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> Things to look at: bitrate, key frame interval, fps, resolution, video
> smoothness, buffer, de-interlace, and performance settings.

What I mean by fluid is if you look on msnbc for example, the video
looks almost like watching television. The voice is perfectly synced
with the picture and there is very little, if any, pixelization (if
that's a word). We tried making the file 768K and watch it internally
on our network and it pretty much looks like a poor quality video.
For example, this link http://premiere.lasvegasnevada.gov/filmvault/lvdowntowninitiative.asx
is basically how it looks even at 768K. If you compare that to a
video on msnbc, it looks quite different. The video link above was
encoded off of a DVD.

Reply to this Message

Mike Lowery - 01 Jun 2007 17:20 GMT

>> > I'm struggling to understand the ins and outs of on-demand video with
>> > WMS. I'm trying to explain intelligently how, msnbc video for
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
> video on msnbc, it looks quite different. The video link above was
> encoded off of a DVD.

The likely culprit is your content. You've got constantly moving backgrounds
which is hell on an encoder. News streams ("talking heads") are much easier to
encode.

Reply to this Message

Mike Lowery - 01 Jun 2007 20:33 GMT

>>> > I'm struggling to understand the ins and outs of on-demand video with
>>> > WMS. I'm trying to explain intelligently how, msnbc video for
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
> which is hell on an encoder. News streams ("talking heads") are much easier
> to encode.

One other thing, a lot of news sites stream at 15fps instead of 30fps. This too
will increase clarity, especially with low-motion talking head content.

Reply to this Message

Stupid48 - 01 Jun 2007 20:46 GMT

> >>> "Stupid48" <cf_r...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 38 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

Thanks for looking and helping me out. I will try the things you
mentioned....

Reply to this Message

JeremyWest - 08 Jun 2007 21:27 GMT

The video you posted isn't 300K. It's only 93K. Your audio is only 10K.
You also used WMV V7 codec instead of WMP9 video codec. You should also look
into a 2 pass Variable Bit Rate profile.

You aren't encoding your videos correctly. I'd go back and look at your
encoding settings. What are you using to create these videos?

Reply to this Message