Re-encoding Video to Higher Resolution Than Source??? - GoFuckYourself.com

Sands · 04-29-2008, 02:12 PM

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 · 04-29-2008, 02:14 PM

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

Jim_Gunn · 04-29-2008, 02:33 PM

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 · 04-29-2008, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pornguy

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

Definitely.

GrouchyAdmin · 04-29-2008, 02:35 PM

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 · 04-29-2008, 02:37 PM

Hrm.. Got to be a better easier way.

Sands · 04-29-2008, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · 04-29-2008, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

Good point.

04-29-2008, 02:12 PM	#1
Sands Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: 418194907 Posts: 3,134	Re-encoding Video to Higher Resolution Than Source??? 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!

04-29-2008, 02:14 PM	#2
pornguy Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Homeless Posts: 62,911	Hmmm. Going to sit here and watch this. Interesting thought. __________________ PornGuy skype me pornguy_epic AmateurDough The Hottes Shemales online! TChicks.com \| Angeles Cid \| Mariana Cordoba \| MAILERS WELCOME!

04-29-2008, 02:35 PM	#5
GrouchyAdmin Now choke yourself! Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 12,085	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. __________________ AIM: GrouchyGfy

04-29-2008, 02:37 PM	#6
pornguy Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Homeless Posts: 62,911	Hrm.. Got to be a better easier way. __________________ PornGuy skype me pornguy_epic AmateurDough The Hottes Shemales online! TChicks.com \| Angeles Cid \| Mariana Cordoba \| MAILERS WELCOME!

04-29-2008, 02:33 PM	#3
Jim_Gunn Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Where The Teens Are Posts: 5,702	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.