Jump to content


Bigger site changes coming


  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

#1 Guest_yolise_*

Guest_yolise_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 December 2008 - 04:56 PM

'Round about the time we release the next update (and the eagerly-awaited Law and Order pack), we'll also be making a couple of site changes that you'll want to be aware of.

We're making the player on the website much bigger, and at the same time, implementing an automated encoding system so you won't need to wait over the weekend for your movies to be flash-encoded.

For older movies, the existing quality may not be optimal for the new player size, although we have been encoding larger than we've needed for a while, so anything uploaded in the last few weeks should look fine.

Your posters, on the other hand, may look a little pixelated, so this is advanced notice for anyone who wishes to start preparing new posters for when we go live with the new site player.

When you upload your movies when the new player goes live, you'll see the following recommendations:

Moviestorm outputs video at a widescreen aspect ratio of 16:9. This includes resolutions of 1280x720, 768x432 and 640x360.

The player on our website plays video in a widescreen, 16:9 aspect ratio. As such, videos that are uploaded at 16:9 will look better than those uploaded at 4:3.

Movies that you upload to our website will be transcoded into Flash format at a resolution of 512x288 (to allow them to be embedded in our website pages), so we recommend uploading at this resolution or higher, for best quality.

Feel free to upload movies at the highest quality possible (within the 200MB limit); the streaming version that can be played on our site will be smaller. The higher the quality of the original movie, the better the streaming version will look. Moviestorm's medium resolution of 768x432 is a good compromise between quality and upload time.


As you can see, Moviestorm's medium resolution in the next release will have changed slightly as well. This is to provide the best size for encoding to our new player size of 512x288.

Hope you enjoy the new player and any questions, please ask!

Lisa

#2 lucindamc123

lucindamc123

    Master Director

  • Pioneers
  • 9177 posts

Posted 01 December 2008 - 06:57 PM

No problem for me. The only problem I am having is getting the poster image sized correctly. The size you specified just will not reduce to under 100 KB no matter what I do. Do you have any tricks to doing this? And I know graphics software. This one is a puzzle.

#3 Guest_yolise_*

Guest_yolise_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 December 2008 - 07:19 PM

A 512 x 288 pixel image at a quality setting less than 10 (in Photoshop) should be well below 100Kb.

What graphics program are you using?

#4 lucindamc123

lucindamc123

    Master Director

  • Pioneers
  • 9177 posts

Posted 01 December 2008 - 09:37 PM

I use Photoshop. I was doing 240 X 180 with a pixels per inch ratio of about 50 and that works. But it seems when I try to get a 16 X 9 wide screen type ratio it just does not work.
But I will try a large size with an even smaller pixels per inch ratio and see if that works.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3167922/





#5 RUN415

RUN415

    Master Director

  • Members
  • 259 posts

Posted 01 December 2008 - 09:44 PM

Try JPEGS.
Use FILE/SAVE FOR WEB
...and adjust compression/quality...
you should be able to get it spot on. :thumbup:
===========
Or PNG's maybe?
F I L M S C O R E
GOOD MOVIE MUSIC
And there was much rejoicing...

#6 Guest_yolise_*

Guest_yolise_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 December 2008 - 09:52 PM

(lucindamc123)
I use Photoshop. I was doing 240 X 180 with a pixels per inch ratio of about 50 and that works. But it seems when I try to get a 16 X 9 wide screen type ratio it just does not work.
But I will try a large size with an even smaller pixels per inch ratio and see if that works.


Since you are making a file for the screen, it's easiest and more straightforward to be working at 72 pixels per inch, although to be honest, the PPI isn't even relevant so you can safely ignore it altogether - it won't make a difference to the file size. You should always work with exact pixel dimensions when working on on-screen images.

The easiest thing to do is to create a new document that's 512 x 288 pixels. Copy your old poster into the new document and resize it to fit. If you've not been creating them in 16:9, then you may have to stretch or add black bars to the image.

Then save the image as a jpeg, quality 10 and you should be good to go.

#7 lucindamc123

lucindamc123

    Master Director

  • Pioneers
  • 9177 posts

Posted 02 December 2008 - 12:09 AM

(yolise)
(lucindamc123)
I use Photoshop. I was doing 240 X 180 with a pixels per inch ratio of about 50 and that works. But it seems when I try to get a 16 X 9 wide screen type ratio it just does not work.
But I will try a large size with an even smaller pixels per inch ratio and see if that works.


Since you are making a file for the screen, it's easiest and more straightforward to be working at 72 pixels per inch, although to be honest, the PPI isn't even relevant so you can safely ignore it altogether - it won't make a difference to the file size. You should always work with exact pixel dimensions when working on on-screen images.

The easiest thing to do is to create a new document that's 512 x 288 pixels. Copy your old poster into the new document and resize it to fit. If you've not been creating them in 16:9, then you may have to stretch or add black bars to the image.

Then save the image as a jpeg, quality 10 and you should be good to go.


Okay I will try that then.

#8 Trinity

Trinity

    Master Director

  • Pioneers
  • 618 posts

Posted 02 December 2008 - 09:22 AM

(lucindamc123)
No problem for me. The only problem I am having is getting the poster image sized correctly. The size you specified just will not reduce to under 100 KB no matter what I do. Do you have any tricks to doing this? And I know graphics software. This one is a puzzle.

Lucinda, what version of photoshop do you have? unless you have a very old one, like REALLY old, you have ImageReady (aka IR) as well. often, this gem of a program gets overlooked, but it's amazing.

so this is what you do. make your image to the correct dimensions. like RUN415 said: go to File > Save for Web > (or hit alt+shift+control+s) and ImageReady will pop up and you can use it to reduce your file size. it will give you several options (2up, 4up, etc, including the original for comparision) and you can 'eyeball' it and see which one you like. you'll be amazed at the reduction in file sizes. you can save out as gif, jpg (my fave) or png. and it will automatically do it at 72 dpi, by the way. it makes animated gifs too.

you can also use IR to actually reduce the dimensions of an image as well. it usually does a better job than photoshop. i like to do all my image creation and editing work in PS and then scoot over to IR for the finishing touches.

ImageReady
http://en.wikipedia....dobe_ImageReady

actually, now that i think about it, i think it was discontinued in CS3, but most of the features were incorporated into the photoshop in that version. myself i use PS6 on one machine and the full CS suite on the other, with no major plans to upgrade at this time.

Writer / Producer / Director

DIGIPENDENCE.com - my blog about 3D moviemaking, machinima, animation, cinematic design, sequential art, graphic novels, web comix, fan films, and independent film, video & photo production.



#9 lucindamc123

lucindamc123

    Master Director

  • Pioneers
  • 9177 posts

Posted 03 December 2008 - 04:15 AM

Yes I have Save for Web and I have used it in the past. I just got busy and didn't think of it. Thanks for reminding me. I will use that from now on and that will work fine. I didn't think that made a difference in size reduction - I mean file size which is why I didn't bother with it. I think I have Photoshop 6 or 7. I have had it for a couple of years so I could be wrong. But it does have Save for Web.

#10 Trinity

Trinity

    Master Director

  • Pioneers
  • 618 posts

Posted 03 December 2008 - 04:18 AM

(lucindamc123)
Yes I have Save for Web and I have used it in the past. I just got busy and didn't think of it. Thanks for reminding me. I will use that from now on and that will work fine. I didn't think that made a difference in size reduction - I mean file size which is why I didn't bother with it. I think I have Photoshop 6 or 7. I have had it for a couple of years so I could be wrong. But it does have Save for Web.

excellent, and it will definitely make a difference. i like to do 2up but as an artist you may prefer 4up as you have a lot more choices.
Writer / Producer / Director

DIGIPENDENCE.com - my blog about 3D moviemaking, machinima, animation, cinematic design, sequential art, graphic novels, web comix, fan films, and independent film, video & photo production.



#11 lucindamc123

lucindamc123

    Master Director

  • Pioneers
  • 9177 posts

Posted 03 December 2008 - 01:33 PM

(Trinity)
(lucindamc123)
Yes I have Save for Web and I have used it in the past. I just got busy and didn't think of it. Thanks for reminding me. I will use that from now on and that will work fine. I didn't think that made a difference in size reduction - I mean file size which is why I didn't bother with it. I think I have Photoshop 6 or 7. I have had it for a couple of years so I could be wrong. But it does have Save for Web.

excellent, and it will definitely make a difference. i like to do 2up but as an artist you may prefer 4up as you have a lot more choices.


I feel like such a dunce. It reduced a file that was way over 100 mg to a nice tiny 16 mg. Thanks for letting me know this. I feel like a NEW ARTIST NOW. What a relief to have this problem solved.

#12 Trinity

Trinity

    Master Director

  • Pioneers
  • 618 posts

Posted 03 December 2008 - 01:37 PM

(lucindamc123)
(Trinity)
(lucindamc123)
Yes I have Save for Web and I have used it in the past. I just got busy and didn't think of it. Thanks for reminding me. I will use that from now on and that will work fine. I didn't think that made a difference in size reduction - I mean file size which is why I didn't bother with it. I think I have Photoshop 6 or 7. I have had it for a couple of years so I could be wrong. But it does have Save for Web.

excellent, and it will definitely make a difference. i like to do 2up but as an artist you may prefer 4up as you have a lot more choices.


I feel like such a dunce. It reduced a file that was way over 100 mg to a nice tiny 16 mg. Thanks for letting me know this. I feel like a NEW ARTIST NOW. What a relief to have this problem solved.

no problem. i'm curious though. did you go for viewing 2up or 4 up for your 'eyeballing' of the image after reduction? which did you find best suited gif? jpg? or png?
Writer / Producer / Director

DIGIPENDENCE.com - my blog about 3D moviemaking, machinima, animation, cinematic design, sequential art, graphic novels, web comix, fan films, and independent film, video & photo production.



#13 RUN415

RUN415

    Master Director

  • Members
  • 259 posts

Posted 03 December 2008 - 02:13 PM

===============
Hi
Sorry to chime in again... smile.gif
But I've used 'SAVE FOR WEB' extensively in PS6.
(It's pretty much all I use it for.)
I've scrutinized and compared it, (at a pixel level) with some very busy and colourful images. So...

A 'QUALITY 100' jpeg is comparable to a .BMP - and half the size.
GIF is only good for greyscale/low colour or animated images.
PNG is a good option for which I have an ever growing fondness.

This thing makes great JPEGS...and you won't go far wrong...
with a QUALITY setting at 70 or above.
Things really start getting ugly below this figure...65 is about as low as I'd go.
But all this is academic...the best part is being able to get it spot on 99k smile.gif
=============
F I L M S C O R E
GOOD MOVIE MUSIC
And there was much rejoicing...

#14 Trinity

Trinity

    Master Director

  • Pioneers
  • 618 posts

Posted 03 December 2008 - 02:22 PM

(RUN415)
===============
Hi
Sorry to chime in again... smile.gif
But I've used 'SAVE FOR WEB' extensively in PS6.
(It's pretty much all I use it for.)
I've scrutinized and compared it, (at a pixel level) with some very busy and colourful images. So...

A 'QUALITY 100' jpeg is comparable to a .BMP - and half the size.
GIF is only good for greyscale/low colour or animated images.
PNG is a good option for which I have an ever growing fondness.

This thing makes great JPEGS...and you won't go far wrong...
with a QUALITY setting at 70 or above.
Things really start getting ugly below this figure...65 is about as low as I'd go.
But all this is academic...the best part is being able to get it spot on 99k smile.gif
=============

don't be sorry, keep chiming. JPG is absolutely my fave too! and you're so right about the 70 or above. i often do 75 but i will go down to 65 if i have to. however, i'll have to try the fun game part about 99k.
Writer / Producer / Director

DIGIPENDENCE.com - my blog about 3D moviemaking, machinima, animation, cinematic design, sequential art, graphic novels, web comix, fan films, and independent film, video & photo production.



#15 RUN415

RUN415

    Master Director

  • Members
  • 259 posts

Posted 03 December 2008 - 02:39 PM

=========================
Chime...chime...chiming smile.gif

I'm so glad you agree Trinity.

And yes, compressors can be fun smile.gif
==============
F I L M S C O R E
GOOD MOVIE MUSIC
And there was much rejoicing...

#16 Guest_yolise_*

Guest_yolise_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 December 2008 - 10:43 AM

New player is live now. You'll have to do a hard refresh to get the new CSS again.

We're looking for a way around this, however. Apologies for the inconvenience.

#17 act3scene24

act3scene24

    Master Director

  • Pioneers
  • 857 posts

Posted 05 December 2008 - 11:00 AM

Woo-hoo! I've uploaded my new and improved poster images smile.gif Nice I love the new sizes!



  • Please log in to reply


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users