Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

MPEG1 at 640 X 480?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 4:01:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Is it possible to do MPEG1 at 640 x 480? Or is 320 x 240 the maximum
resolution for MPEG1?

Much googling has only confused me, since some posts and sites seem to talk
about MPEG1 at 640 x 480. However, Premiere Elements doesn't offer to export
my DV avi to MPEG1 any bigger than 320 x 240, which is also the biggest
MPEG1 size I see available in TMPGEnc.

If in fact it's possible to convert an .avi to MPEG1 640 x 320, is there a
free tool?

Thanks for any tips.

More about : mpeg1 640 480

Anonymous
January 14, 2005 10:01:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Ted Kerin" <tf.kerin@gte.net> wrote in message
news:34qfmeF4dqs01U1@individual.net...
> Is it possible to do MPEG1 at 640 x 480? Or is 320 x 240 the maximum
> resolution for MPEG1?
>
> Much googling has only confused me, since some posts and sites seem to
talk
> about MPEG1 at 640 x 480. However, Premiere Elements doesn't offer to
export
> my DV avi to MPEG1 any bigger than 320 x 240, which is also the biggest
> MPEG1 size I see available in TMPGEnc.
>
> If in fact it's possible to convert an .avi to MPEG1 640 x 320, is there a
> free tool?

You can do MPEG 640 x 480, as well as just abouy any other resolution you
could think of, with most encoders out there, but why would you want to?
It's not an SVCD, VCD, or DVD compliant resolution, so it would only make
sense for playback on a PC, in which case, XVID, DIVX or WMV would be far
more suitable formats.

I have never tried Premiere Elements, but I would never encode a video with
anything Premiere related anyway. All the cool kids use Procoder, TMPGenc or
Cinema Craft Encoder.
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 10:01:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Chris M" <dontsendmeyoursp@m.aus.co.de> wrote in message
news:cs94uf$8bg$1@titan.btinternet.com...
>
> You can do MPEG 640 x 480, as well as just abouy any other resolution you
> could think of, with most encoders out there, but why would you want to?
> It's not an SVCD, VCD, or DVD compliant resolution, so it would only make
> sense for playback on a PC, in which case, XVID, DIVX or WMV would be far
> more suitable formats.
>


Understood. It's for playback only on a PC, as part of a PowerPoint
presentation. And it will sometimes be run on other people's computers,
that may not have codecs beyond the most primitive.


>
> I have never tried Premiere Elements, but I would never encode a video
with
> anything Premiere related anyway. All the cool kids use Procoder, TMPGenc
or
> Cinema Craft Encoder.
>

Thanks for the tips.
Related resources
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 10:47:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 13:01:54 -0500, "Ted Kerin" <tf.kerin@gte.net>
wrote:

>Is it possible to do MPEG1 at 640 x 480? Or is 320 x 240 the maximum
>resolution for MPEG1?
>
>Much googling has only confused me, since some posts and sites seem to talk
>about MPEG1 at 640 x 480. However, Premiere Elements doesn't offer to export
>my DV avi to MPEG1 any bigger than 320 x 240, which is also the biggest
>MPEG1 size I see available in TMPGEnc.
>
>If in fact it's possible to convert an .avi to MPEG1 640 x 320, is there a
>free tool?
>
>Thanks for any tips.
>
>
Why?
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 10:47:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Donald Link" <linkd@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:6e8gu0h33l9bvi0501nr2gd5ootir7i7c6@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 13:01:54 -0500, "Ted Kerin" <tf.kerin@gte.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Is it possible to do MPEG1 at 640 x 480? Or is 320 x 240 the maximum
> >resolution for MPEG1?
> >
> >Much googling has only confused me, since some posts and sites seem to
talk
> >about MPEG1 at 640 x 480. However, Premiere Elements doesn't offer to
export
> >my DV avi to MPEG1 any bigger than 320 x 240, which is also the biggest
> >MPEG1 size I see available in TMPGEnc.
> >
> >If in fact it's possible to convert an .avi to MPEG1 640 x 320, is there
a
> >free tool?
> >
> >Thanks for any tips.
> >
> >


> Why?

Did you read any of the previous posts?

Beacuse it's just about the ONLY video format supported natively
all the way back to W'95, and will play back on older hardware
clear back down to MMX-233's.
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 11:09:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 13:01:54 -0500, "Ted Kerin" <tf.kerin@gte.net>
wrote:

>Is it possible to do MPEG1 at 640 x 480? Or is 320 x 240 the maximum
>resolution for MPEG1?
>
>Much googling has only confused me, since some posts and sites seem to talk
>about MPEG1 at 640 x 480. However, Premiere Elements doesn't offer to export
>my DV avi to MPEG1 any bigger than 320 x 240, which is also the biggest
>MPEG1 size I see available in TMPGEnc.
>
>If in fact it's possible to convert an .avi to MPEG1 640 x 320, is there a
>free tool?

Yes, it can be done. See the more official sites about mpeg.

Try TMPGEnc 2.5, it does encode in higher resolution than 320x240
according to mpeg-1. Maybe you have to use the 'unlock' template
first.
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 11:10:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Funprice" <jhbusscherNOSPAMWHATSOEVER@freemail.nl> wrote in message >
> Try TMPGEnc 2.5, it does encode in higher resolution than 320x240
> according to mpeg-1. Maybe you have to use the 'unlock' template
> first.
>

Thanks, I see that now on their site. I was using the free version, which is
not as flexible.
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 10:36:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 18:25:27 -0700, "V Green" <vanceg@nowhere.net>
wrote:

>

>
>> Why?
>
>Did you read any of the previous posts?
>
>Beacuse it's just about the ONLY video format supported natively
>all the way back to W'95, and will play back on older hardware
>clear back down to MMX-233's.
>

Yes I read it but he is trying to convert it to a format that will not
work and if it was worthwhile or just an exercise in frustration. If
anyone is looking to do something to play on Win95 and a 233 processor
then they need their head examined if they think they can format the
video to a format that is almost MPEG2 quality.
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 8:01:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Donald Link" <linkd@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:aphhu056r6uppdp4br7r7qh69373eckdhb@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 18:25:27 -0700, "V Green" <vanceg@nowhere.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
> >> Why?
> >
> >Did you read any of the previous posts?
> >
> >Beacuse it's just about the ONLY video format supported natively
> >all the way back to W'95, and will play back on older hardware
> >clear back down to MMX-233's.
> >
>
> Yes I read it but he is trying to convert it to a format that will not
> work and if it was worthwhile or just an exercise in frustration. If
> anyone is looking to do something to play on Win95 and a 233 processor
> then they need their head examined if they think they can format the
> video to a format that is almost MPEG2 quality.

It'll work just fine. You should try it yourself if you do not believe me.
If you know what you're doing, and know how to tweak the matrices
in TMPGEnc properly, you can get some damn good results with MPEG1
under hardware that will not play back MPEG2 at all.

If you DON'T consider that not all your target
audience has a P4 to play processor-hogging WMV or similar, or does
NOT have a software/hardware MPEG2 decoder installed, then YOU are
the one who needs his head examined. It is the ultimate in arrogance
to distribute a video in some format that may force the end user
to install a CODEC that he does not have, when installing said CODEC
can potentially wreck his system. If this clip is being distributed as
part of a business presentation, the last thing you wanna do is kill a
potential client's PC with the software necessary to play back the
presentation you sent him to try to get his business.

The OP is doing just the right thing in order to make sure his stuff is
viewable
by the widest target audience. As I said, MPEG1 playback ability is
included
with all base installs of Windows back to '95, and MPEG2 is NOT included
with any, all the way up to XP.
Anonymous
January 16, 2005 3:53:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On a sunny day (Sat, 15 Jan 2005 17:01:24 -0700) it happened "V Green"
<vanceg@nowhere.net> wrote in <1105833639.954905@nnrp2.roc2.gblx.net>:

>
>The OP is doing just the right thing in order to make sure his stuff is
>viewable
>by the widest target audience. As I said, MPEG1 playback ability is
>included
>with all base installs of Windows back to '95, and MPEG2 is NOT included
>with any, all the way up to XP.
Ah, so not why send everybody a picture book in the mail?
Anonymous
January 16, 2005 3:53:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Jan Panteltje" <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1105880026.54b7e7af33600f9950c3c1955c040183@teranews...
> On a sunny day (Sat, 15 Jan 2005 17:01:24 -0700) it happened "V Green"
> <vanceg@nowhere.net> wrote in <1105833639.954905@nnrp2.roc2.gblx.net>:
>
> >
> >The OP is doing just the right thing in order to make sure his stuff is
> >viewable
> >by the widest target audience. As I said, MPEG1 playback ability is
> >included
> >with all base installs of Windows back to '95, and MPEG2 is NOT included
> >with any, all the way up to XP.
> Ah, so not why send everybody a picture book in the mail?

Not a bad idea, you're catching on!
Anonymous
January 16, 2005 6:09:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

V Green wrote:
> "Jan Panteltje" <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in message

> Installing this stuff on a client's PC is a huge NO-NO as it can
render
> it unbootable afterwards in certain configurations ( I have seen this
> happen).
>
> Far, far better to play back in a format that's ALREADY supported by
the
> target system, rather than face an unhappy person with a broken PC...

OK, and that is likely why they are still manufacturing those horse
carriages, as using them newsish petrol driven cars can really get you
into trouble.

hehe
But I do see your argument, but I can think of many against it, also
from a
sales point of view.
Include a folder with the latest DivX capable players.
Have them buy one :-)
Anonymous
January 16, 2005 8:28:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On a sunny day (Sun, 16 Jan 2005 09:34:50 -0700) it happened "V Green"
<vanceg@nowhere.net> wrote in <1105893250.931162@nnrp2.phx1.gblx.net>:

>
>"Jan Panteltje" <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1105880026.54b7e7af33600f9950c3c1955c040183@teranews...
>> On a sunny day (Sat, 15 Jan 2005 17:01:24 -0700) it happened "V Green"
>> <vanceg@nowhere.net> wrote in <1105833639.954905@nnrp2.roc2.gblx.net>:
>>
>> >
>> >The OP is doing just the right thing in order to make sure his stuff is
>> >viewable
>> >by the widest target audience. As I said, MPEG1 playback ability is
>> >included
>> >with all base installs of Windows back to '95, and MPEG2 is NOT included
>> >with any, all the way up to XP.
>> Ah, so not why send everybody a picture book in the mail?
>
>Not a bad idea, you're catching on!
But seriousl;y (if we not already were), already several years (3, 4 do not remember)
ago, I started making DivX-4 CDRs that did autoplay' in Windows.
There was a concept, 'micro-dvd' for these.
There is some software for windows to make menus, the structure looks like this:
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 46 Dec 14 2001 autorun.inf
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 457728 Dec 14 2001 Launcher.exe
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 726693 Dec 14 2001 DivX4FullInstaller.exe
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 458845 Dec 14 2001 DivX4CodecInstaller.exe
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1078 Dec 14 2001 CD-ROM2.ico
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 21506 Dec 14 2001 divx.jpg
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 186 Dec 14 2001 copyright.txt
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 10457472 Dec 14 2001 mp71.exe
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2354550 Dec 14 2001 mdvdp12.exe
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 4126 Dec 14 2001 About Micro DVD.txt
.........................................................movie.avi

So the codec is there, and the menu tells you how to install it if needed.
Ah, 2001, yes.
And a player too! And mediaplayer!
I have it all automated in scripts in Linux, to make one.
A 720x576 DivX at 1800 kbps is not bad at all.... The quality is amazing.

It for sure impresses people a lot more that mpeg1 with all its problems.
These disks still shine today, and TODAY many stand alone DVD players can
just play these.
It is called 'have a feeling for the future', and I hit the target 100% on.
At that time I just went for the best quality I could get aways with.
Do a google search for 'micro-dvd' perhaps.
Anonymous
January 16, 2005 8:28:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Jan Panteltje" <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1105896545.b1a3215b7060c2bcefee9b6ac90cf20b@teranews...
> On a sunny day (Sun, 16 Jan 2005 09:34:50 -0700) it happened "V Green"
> <vanceg@nowhere.net> wrote in <1105893250.931162@nnrp2.phx1.gblx.net>:
>
> >
> >"Jan Panteltje" <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:1105880026.54b7e7af33600f9950c3c1955c040183@teranews...
> >> On a sunny day (Sat, 15 Jan 2005 17:01:24 -0700) it happened "V Green"
> >> <vanceg@nowhere.net> wrote in <1105833639.954905@nnrp2.roc2.gblx.net>:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >The OP is doing just the right thing in order to make sure his stuff
is
> >> >viewable
> >> >by the widest target audience. As I said, MPEG1 playback ability is
> >> >included
> >> >with all base installs of Windows back to '95, and MPEG2 is NOT
included
> >> >with any, all the way up to XP.
> >> Ah, so not why send everybody a picture book in the mail?
> >
> >Not a bad idea, you're catching on!
> But seriousl;y (if we not already were), already several years (3, 4 do
not remember)
> ago, I started making DivX-4 CDRs that did autoplay' in Windows.
> There was a concept, 'micro-dvd' for these.
> There is some software for windows to make menus, the structure looks like
this:
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 46 Dec 14 2001 autorun.inf
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 457728 Dec 14 2001 Launcher.exe
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 726693 Dec 14 2001
DivX4FullInstaller.exe
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 458845 Dec 14 2001
DivX4CodecInstaller.exe
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1078 Dec 14 2001 CD-ROM2.ico
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 21506 Dec 14 2001 divx.jpg
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 186 Dec 14 2001 copyright.txt
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 10457472 Dec 14 2001 mp71.exe
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2354550 Dec 14 2001 mdvdp12.exe
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 4126 Dec 14 2001 About Micro
DVD.txt
> ........................................................movie.avi
>
> So the codec is there, and the menu tells you how to install it if needed.
> Ah, 2001, yes.
> And a player too! And mediaplayer!
> I have it all automated in scripts in Linux, to make one.
> A 720x576 DivX at 1800 kbps is not bad at all.... The quality is amazing.
>
> It for sure impresses people a lot more that mpeg1 with all its problems.
> These disks still shine today, and TODAY many stand alone DVD players can
> just play these.
> It is called 'have a feeling for the future', and I hit the target 100%
on.
> At that time I just went for the best quality I could get aways with.
> Do a google search for 'micro-dvd' perhaps.

Installing this stuff on a client's PC is a huge NO-NO as it can render
it unbootable afterwards in certain configurations ( I have seen this
happen).

Far, far better to play back in a format that's ALREADY supported by the
target system, rather than face an unhappy person with a broken PC...
Anonymous
January 16, 2005 11:13:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

<panteltje@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1105916959.296576.195430@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> V Green wrote:
> > "Jan Panteltje" <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > Installing this stuff on a client's PC is a huge NO-NO as it can
> render
> > it unbootable afterwards in certain configurations ( I have seen this
> > happen).
> >
> > Far, far better to play back in a format that's ALREADY supported by
> the
> > target system, rather than face an unhappy person with a broken PC...
>
> OK, and that is likely why they are still manufacturing those horse
> carriages, as using them newsish petrol driven cars can really get you
> into trouble.
>
> hehe
> But I do see your argument, but I can think of many against it, also
> from a
> sales point of view.
> Include a folder with the latest DivX capable players.
> Have them buy one :-)

Or better yet, have your CD run a web page that includes
all the links they need to GET THE STUFF THEMSELVES
and make it THEIR PROBLEM. Include warnings as to what
may happen and you're off the hook.

Unless they want to see what you have on the disk and are
too scared now to get the player software...

>
Anonymous
January 17, 2005 5:18:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 16:13:19 -0500, Moe <moebelli@rogers.com> wrote:

>I have Squeeze 4 and Procoder and honestly, VCD quality MPEG is not too
>bad, but the moment you go higher you see a lot of compression
>artifacts.

At what bitrates? Don't go below 4000 kbps at that resolution, and
watch the results.
Anonymous
January 17, 2005 11:51:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 15:47:36 -0700, "V Green" <vanceg@nowhere.net>
wrote:

>Installing this stuff on a client's PC is a huge NO-NO as it can render
>it unbootable afterwards in certain configurations ( I have seen this
>happen).
>
>Far, far better to play back in a format that's ALREADY supported by the
>target system, rather than face an unhappy person with a broken PC...

Why don't you simply author your presentation as a DVD and let
them play it back on a DVD player? It sounds like that's the most
foolproof method of all.

-----------------------------------------------------
Neil Nadelman arvy@navzr-genafyngbe.pbz (ROT13)
-----------------------------------------------------
I have no fears in life,
for I have already survived Theta-G!
Anonymous
January 17, 2005 2:50:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Thanks for all the comments, guys, and for the interesting discussion. Let
me clarify the situation a bit, and let you know how it worked out for me.

Actually, the PowerPoint is something my wife will use as part of an
academic talk at various colleges. Sometimes she'll bring her laptop,
sometimes you use the one on site. You like to think that the local
equipment will be good, but you never know. Installing codecs on somebody
else's computer is definitely out, and besides, my goal is to save the wife
any technical hassles or embarrassing technical snafus on the road. So I
still think MPEG1 is the way to go, for this particular project.

The .PPT is mostly conventional slides, but with a couple of one-minute
video clips. At that length, and in this context, it doesn't have to be DVD
quality, although I'd like it to look decent -- which is why I was thinking
bigger res than 320 x 240.

But, after reading the initial comments here, and doing a bit more
searching, here's what I did:

I got Procoder Express (which will be great for exporting future video
projects to DVD, because it has a plug-in that works with my Premiere
Elements). Procoder can do bigger MPEG1 resolutions, and it does work -- but
really, it did such a good job at 320 x 240 that I can stretch that to fill
the PowerPoint screen, and it looks fine for our purposes. A good compromise
of quality and file-size, without worries over the host machine's set-up.
Not the way I would save a whole movie, but it's just right for this job.

Thanks again.
Anonymous
January 17, 2005 3:16:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Oh, and in case it helps some future googler:

Another reason I went with MPEG1, is that we wanted to put the video clips
into PowerPoint (rather than her having to start up the short clips from a
separate program). As some of you may know, PowerPoint has a whole set of
issues about which video formats can play from within PPT. (The clip has to
be playable by the lizard-brain part of basic Windows, like mplayer.exe or
mplay32.exe.)

I find that some institutional machines (at my workplace for example), even
if they have good hardware, are devoid of the kind of codecs that all of us
would take for granted at home. But even if the codecs are present on the
computer, they won't all work from within PowerPoint. So, MPEG1 still has
its purposes.
February 4, 2005 10:19:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Ted,
I have made several MPEG1 videos at 640x480 for use in Powerpoint and
shown to a large audience. I use TMPGEnc with bitrates in the 4500
range and do not change the default matrices. I have never seen any
quality issues whatsoever. Try it and I think you'll be quite pleased
for the use you have described. Note, I always copy the files to hard
drive rather than running off the CD (although it may work fine from
the CD too, but I would test first)
-JimD

Ted Kerin wrote:
> Oh, and in case it helps some future googler:
>
> Another reason I went with MPEG1, is that we wanted to put the video
clips
> into PowerPoint (rather than her having to start up the short clips
from a
> separate program). As some of you may know, PowerPoint has a whole
set of
> issues about which video formats can play from within PPT. (The clip
has to
> be playable by the lizard-brain part of basic Windows, like
mplayer.exe or
> mplay32.exe.)
>
> I find that some institutional machines (at my workplace for
example), even
> if they have good hardware, are devoid of the kind of codecs that all
of us
> would take for granted at home. But even if the codecs are present on
the
> computer, they won't all work from within PowerPoint. So, MPEG1 still
has
> its purposes.
February 4, 2005 4:11:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

another reason installing codecs on a clients machine is a no-no, many
business have IT departments that have them by the balloons and you
can't install anything, or have to get IT to do it, and if it's not
approved, test ad infinitum, well it's sometimes just not worth it.
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 2:24:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

<bill@billmecca.com> wrote in message
news:1107551474.861493.39620@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> another reason installing codecs on a clients machine is a no-no, many
> business have IT departments that have them by the balloons and you
> can't install anything, or have to get IT to do it, and if it's not
> approved, test ad infinitum, well it's sometimes just not worth it.

Very true, however, you can use your own laptop to run the presentation...
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 2:41:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"PolarLight" <no-spam@polar-light.com> wrote in message
news:cu3h2j$p4t$1@news.ya.com...
>
> Very true, however, you can use your own laptop to run the presentation...
>
>

That's what my wife is doing -- today, in fact. The videos in the PPT have
run fine in all tests.

But, what sometimes happens is, a series of people are doing talks, and the
host school wants everybody to run their powerpoints off the laptop that's
already set up (rather than swapping the laptops for each presenter). So you
either run it off a CD or, preferably, they give you advance opportunity to
transfer the files to the HD.

For such purposes, I had her create a file on her C drive, containing the
..PPT and the clips, and inserted the clips into the .PPT after that, before
burining the CD. I figure, this way, if she copies the folder from the CD to
someone else's C drive, the paths to the clips will be the same, which can
help to prevent PowerPoint problems with linked videos, or so I've read.

Thanks for the replies, guys.
!