Can you tell the difference?

useLess

United States4781 Posts

March 05 2008 02:01 GMT

I was messing around with camtasia, and etc. Anyway, Ive made 3 small copies of a 15-second clip. Can you see any differences in video quality?

One is mov 320x240 (221 kb)
One is mov 640x480 (531 kb)
One is wmv 640x480 (865 kb)

(If you think you can see any noticeable differences, match the clip to the appropriate specs)

[spoiler="answers! peek after youve posted"]
One is mov 320x240 (221 kb) - SECOND ONE
One is mov 640x480 (531 kb) - FIRST ONE
One is wmv 640x480 (865 kb) - THIRD ONE

[/spoiler]

mikeymoo

Canada7170 Posts

March 05 2008 02:04 GMT

Best to worst I see is 2,3,1 just watching each once.

Tadzio

3340 Posts

March 05 2008 02:05 GMT

yeah, I can see a difference. Especially between the first and the last one. The mining crystals are the biggest difference. However, all three were fine for viewing purposes... so if you're looking for ways to save on file size, I don't see the harm is uploading the lower resolutions.

mikeymoo

Canada7170 Posts

March 05 2008 02:09 GMT

*after looking at spoiler
+ Show Spoiler +

I think I'm wayyy out of it today.

All three look fine though.

Oh and I was commenting on smoothness not how good it looked. Tbh, they all look similar, esp. on youtube.

ATeddyBear

Canada2843 Posts

March 05 2008 02:11 GMT

2,1,3

useLess

United States4781 Posts

March 05 2008 02:14 GMT

after tabbing between the mov ones for a minute or so, id probably go with [[ mov 640x480 (531 kb) ]]. the kill count is crisper, and theres less color bleeding on the minerals.

patrick321

United States185 Posts

March 05 2008 02:37 GMT

Youtube reincodes them.

+ Show Spoiler +

Here's their flv size:
One is mov 320x240 (221 kb) - SECOND ONE (439 kb)
One is mov 640x480 (531 kb) - FIRST ONE (455 kb)
One is wmv 640x480 (865 kb) - THIRD ONE (495 kb)

R1CH

Netherlands10340 Posts

March 05 2008 02:38 GMT

Youtube transcodes everything into shit-o-vision, so unless your source is worse quality than youtube, all of them will look equally bad.

useLess

United States4781 Posts

March 05 2008 02:58 GMT

wrong; some look less bad than others.

micronesia

United States24495 Posts

March 05 2008 03:02 GMT

#10

On March 05 2008 11:58 useLess wrote:
wrong; some look less bad than others.

Er, what R1CH said was true... and your statement does not even refute it.

Reflex

Canada703 Posts

March 05 2008 03:24 GMT

#11

3rd one seems like it has the best quality, followed by 2nd then 1st.

NatsuTerran

United States364 Posts

March 05 2008 03:36 GMT

#12

I can't believe I got them all right.

pyrogenetix

United Arab Emirates5090 Posts

March 05 2008 03:47 GMT

#13

2
1
3

LOL OWNED IT

GHOSTCLAW

United States17042 Posts

March 05 2008 12:03 GMT

#14

all of the above look fine to watch- compressing it and making it so that it's not in parts is probably the best thing

quirinus

Croatia2489 Posts

March 05 2008 16:29 GMT

#15

yay I got it right!

but they all seem almost equal. the main problem with vods is when you scroll the screen. try that and then compare.

so for youtube, the worst quality is the best to upload, since it takes less to upload and youtube recodes them to flv shit anyway, so they're almost the same quality when watched on youtube.

Response

United States1936 Posts

March 05 2008 19:27 GMT

#16

there is a very very very slight difference between 2nd and third but unless you are really looking at both at the sametime they werent essentially the same

Please or register to reply.

Can you tell the difference?

Completed

Ongoing

Upcoming