Re-encoding Video to Higher Resolution Than Source???

[Sands]

For those of you with experience in encoding videos to Flash, which will result in a lower depreciation of quality:

1) Taking a 320x240 wmv and then encoding it to a 480x360 Flash video, or

2) Encoding a 320x240 wmv to the same resolution, but setting the Flash player to stretch it to 480x360 when it plays?

Thanks for the input!

[pornguy]

Hmmm. Going to sit here and watch this. Interesting thought.

[Jim_Gunn]

I simply wouldn't try to upsize and convert an already compressed file like a WMV. I'd rather go back to the original tapes if I had to and re-edit the footage from there if you really want it to look good. I couldn't tell you offhand which would look better in your circumstances, but it would be easy for you to make a short test and see for yourself. This isn't something one can necessarily predict based solely on your description.

Obviously there are other factors that come into play like how good the source is at such a small frame size and was the footage deinterlaced at some point along the line like it probably should have been and for example if you used a great codec like the ON2 VP6 codec to do the encoding. I have also found there to be variations in finished quality between say Adobe Flash Encoder vs Sorenson Squeeze for example.

[Sands]

Hmmm. Going to sit here and watch this. Interesting thought.

Definitely.

[GrouchyAdmin]

I'd trust a preprocessor to do a better job than Flash, though, you can miltipass it and make it smoother. It's gonna look like shit, either way.

[pornguy]

Hrm.. Got to be a better easier way.

[Sands]

I simply wouldn't try to upsize and convert an already compressed file like a WMV. I'd rather go back to the original tapes if I had to and re-edit the footage from there if you really want it to look good. I couldn't tell you offhand which would look better in your circumstances, but it would be easy for you to make a short test and see for yourself. This isn't something one can necessarily predict based solely on your description.

Obviously there are other factors that come into play like how good the source is at such a small frame size and was the footage deinterlaced at some point along the line like it probably should have been and for example if you used a great codec like the ON2 VP6 codec to do the encoding. I have also found there to be variations in finished quality between say Adobe Flash Encoder vs Sorenson Squeeze for example.

Ah, good stuff. I'm basically taking sponsor-provided promo clips and seeing if I can make them look good at a higher resolution. I'm using On2 VP6 for these vids.

I find that it's easier to log into an affiliate area, grab a zipped video content set, and edit them together rather than nag for member's area access, download full length or large clips, and then edit from there.

I guess this is a "try it and see" thing.

[Sands]

I'd trust a preprocessor to do a better job than Flash, though, you can miltipass it and make it smoother. It's gonna look like shit, either way.

Good point.